This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi all
Don't know the right place to ask this but am certain that many of you here will help. I have a strong view that citations to wire stories should be cited to the wire rather than to another publication (even if properly identified with the "agency" tag), as the implication that the other publication has created the content changes (sometimes dramatically—and not always in the same direction) inferences about the weight of authority.
Anyone know where discussions of this sort of thing belongs?
Thanks, Bongo matic 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Someone suggested to bring the issue here
The issue : Are
Erika Friedman and her blog RS for yuri related anime & manga articles ?
The available clues :
She is also the president
ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri manga.
Thanks for your insights --
KrebMarkt 12:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue is whether
Erika Friedman and her blog qualifies as an appropriate self published source for
yuri related articles.
WP:VERIFY's requirements are being an "expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".
More of the available credentials (will collect more when I have some time):
I think she meets this requirements, but let's see what you guys have to say about it. Kazu-kun ( talk) 15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Neanderthal genome project is currently featured on a news blurb on the main page, could someone please look at this question? My concern is that the article is giving a critique from a fairly low-profile journal far too much weight. I have not even read the section in question very deeply, but from a credibility of sources perspective, it seems very wrong. Thanks, Vesal ( talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Bit of a odd question. This was made to the article. The problem is that the site that hosts the video will only play them if you live in the US. Is someone willing to look at the video and confirm that it does show that he has webbed toes? Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please advise whether the following 10 sources can be considered reliable in order to verify and include a reference to the 4icu.org University rankings in the College and university rankings article?
1)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Education and Social Science Library
Debuted in 1997, The College and University Rankings Web page is maintained by librarians at the Education and Social Science Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It contains selected rankings and provides "caution & controversy" information related to some academic university rankings.
2)
Indiana University IU News Room
Press release produced by the Indiana University communication office, and published in their website, mentioning their position in the 4icu.org ranking.
3)
IOL Diario
Article published in a Portuguese newspaper about the position of the Coimbra University (founded in 1290) in the 4icu.org ranking.
4)
Tribuna do Norte
Article published in a Brazilian regional newspaper about the position of the UEL University in the 4icu.org ranking. This is probably based on a press news that UEL has autonomously decided to release after evaluating their ranking in the 4icu.org directory.
5)
Wikipedia - Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
Wikipedia article on the Bangladeshi Shahjalal University of Science and Technology mentioning the 4icu.org ranking.
6)
Wikipedia - Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Same as above
7)
Wikipedia - Keio University
Same as above but for the Japanese Keio University established in 1858
8)
Wikipedia - Education in Tokyo
Rankings overview for higher education organisations in Tokyo mentioning the 4icu.org ranking
9)
Wikipedia - Clasificación académica de universidades de Colombia
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Colombia mentioning the 4icu.org ranking
10)
Wikipedia - Ranking de universidades españolas
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Spain mentioning the 4icu.org ranking
Are the above sources, according to your experience and knowledge of the wikipedia guidelines, sufficient to include the following paragraph in the above mentioned Wikipedia article?
The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking of world universities is produced by the 4 International Colleges and Universities higher education search engine and directory. The 4icu.org ranking is not based on academic criteria and intends to identify which Universities' websites are the most popular in terms of online international presence and popularity. It is based on three independent web metrics and indicators, Page Rank, Traffic Rank, and Total Link Popularity, extracted from three search engines: Google, Alexa and Yahoo!. The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking is provided at international, continent and country level.
Thank you for your replies. Stephan what about this article published in 2007 on the Journal of Institutional Research, Australasian Association for Institutional Research, written by a researcher from the Monash University: The Impact of Ranking Systems on Higher Education and its Stakeholders (pp 87–88). Squidfryerchef the 4icu.org ranking algorythm includes 3 different web metrics; only one of them is related to traffic (Alexa). Moreover the current wikipedia article already contains at least 2 University rankings, Webometrics and G-Factor, which are based on non academic web related metrics.
This question is specifically about the Church of Scientology, but I doubt that's particularly relevant. However, do the rest of you think that a website owned by this or any other reasonably large church would qualify as a reliable source for information regarding the locations (churches, etc.) operated by that church? So, in short, if the church's website says it has a church in Paris, would that be a sufficient source for inclusion of such information? John Carter ( talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming good faith that any organization wouldn't lie about where it has an office, it's reliable. If any cause for doubt can be shown, it can always be attributed in the wording, eg "xyz organization claims to have an office in Paris on its website". Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been editing the article in question. The source the article cites at present is from December 2007 and quotes the BfV German domestic intelligence service as saying that there are 10 Scientology Churches and 14 Scientology Missions in Germany. The source also draws attention to the fact that Scientology's own website does not list the Missions, and lists only 9 Churches rather than 10. This latter statement is still correct today: [1] Give both versions? Other suggestions? Jayen 466 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to ask your advice in relation to a situation arising on the Scriptural Reasoning article.
There are three users, all of whom arrived simultaneously on or around 27 November 2008, all of whom are employed by or otherwise connected to the same organisation, who have repeatedly removed material on the article which is critical of the organisation by which they are employed or connected -- I have raised the issue of "Conflict of Interest" with them repeatedly.
The specific question here today, relates to a reference to some correspondence which has been publicly circulated by its author, David Ford (a third party from the other side of the debate -- which both sides accept as a reliable author), and is published on the website:
http://www.cambridgeinterfaithprogramme.org/
The correspondence states:
"The solution proposed [to the dispute around faith leadership of an SR group in London] is in terms of a governance model using principles of equality, symmetry, neutrality, etc. This holds out the hope of an immediate 'fix' in legal/constitutional terms rather like the way secular modernity responded to religious conflicts...but Scriptural Reasoning in my experience has so far not been convinced by it. The "asymmetries of hospitality" (e.g. the role of Anglicans in initiating St Ethelburga's) are part of the messiness (and providence!) of actual history, which always requires making the most of particular resources and rarely conforms to our abstract principles."
Publicly Circulated Correspondence from David Ford, Director of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme, 24 January 2007
The correspondence was circulated publicly by the author. All parties agree and do not dispute that all the correspondence is true, but the other party are suggesting that it can't be referenced in the Wikipedia article because all references in Wikipedia need to come from academic journals, academic books, and the like.
From the point of view of Verifiability not only is the correspondence referenced to date and authorship, but there is also an address, telephone number, fax and e-mail to the ORIGINAL AUTHOR - in other words, it is fact-checkable:
The accuracy of all the above written statements may be VERIFIED by contacting the authors directly at:
The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, Faculty of Divinity, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 1223 763013 Fax: +44 1223 763014 E-mail: cip@divinity.cam.ac.uk sr@divinity.cam.ac.uk
Furthermore, of course, in order that the published correspondence does in fact support the point being made, all the words of the reference were quoted IN FULL in the footnoted reference on the Wikipedia article.
However, the other party (who are employed or connected to the organisation in question) keep reverting and removing this reference -- primarily I believe, because this publicly circulated correspondence is an embarassment for them. The organisation The Scriptural Reasoning Society Board of Trustees cites the correspondence above, to support their assertions around "asymmetries of hospitality" in Scriptural Reasoning.
Please would you let me know that given that every means of verifiablity directly to the original author himself who publicly circulated it in the first place is made available including means of telephone/e-mail communication, that this is admissible as a third party statement which is published and which may easily be verified.
Very many thanks for your kind assistance with this. This is extremely helpful. Thank you.
-- Scripturalreasoning ( talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's problematic. While a self-published document by an established author (such as David F. Ford) is acceptable, WP:V cautions that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." We have here a situation where somebody else has done so, but the material has been published in a non-reliable source, and for dubious reasons. I think we can accept something published by David F. Ford himself, or something published by him in a reliable source. But I don't think we can accept material published by a non-reliable source. There is no information about the website other than the statement at the top: "This analysis site - independent of control of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme - is under construction." We have no named editor or publisher. Given the circumstances I would say that this source can not be used. SilkTork * YES! 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Xcitement is an online published magazine covering the adult entertainment industry. While it's hardly the biggest fish in the pond, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of its interview transcripts.
Specifically, the matter involves an interview with Evan Seinfeld's wife - Tera Patrick, in which she states his ethnic background as Jewish. I see no reason why the magazine would distort this information, nor her, nor Evan (to his wife).
However, another editor seems to insist that it isn't WP:RS, and is insistent on reverting edits such as this one. Any comments here? Given the number of online sources used in articles, I see no valid reason to doubt Xcitement's reliability in the matter. For economic forecasting - well, perhaps not... GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#On-line porn magazines - reliable_sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)." would be a reliable source for claiming someone has fought in illegal bare knuckle fights. The source was previously brought up at RSN here, but in a different context. Also, is claiming "Jackson is related to Henry Jackson, King of the Gypsies" with "GRO Census 1881 of Births and Marriages" as a source OK - or is following a record of births and marriages original research? Thanks! -- aktsu ( t / c) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Freddy García and sources of birthdates about the reliability of sources for baseball players birthdates. Input would be appreciated.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I consider an interview which was broadcasted by a news network to be a primary source illustrating the line of thought of the interviewee. Therefore I would say it is a source that can be added as a reference to a biography on this person (under sources or external links). Am I right about this?-- AdeleivdVelden ( talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I use Locate TV as a source for TV listings. It has all the broadcast times for shows and films (and also seems to have fairly comprehensive listings for individual actors, etc.)
I wanted to post here, and see if many other people ever use the site, and whether you think it fulfils the criteria for being a reliable source - particularly when it comes to broadcast times and season dates. Phinicky ( talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this post on Reelz.com something we would consider a reliable source here or is it just a blog with uncertain history of fact checking/reliability? Here is what Wikipedia has to say about them ReelzChannel-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Miss Canada International (MCI) articles lists past winners of the title. Unfortunately there's very little independent coverage in general. A 2007 titleholder (Rachel Jaillet) was announced and served several months, but then was quietly dropped by MCI when no contract was signed, and MCI insists she never was a winner. There was a little bit of independent coverage of the initial win by Jaillet, and no coverage of it being revoked. Somebody (claiming to be) with MCI insists that they are the only reliable source, and wants to drop the Jaillet, listing a previous year's winner under two years. Please contribute thoughts to Talk:Miss Canada International. -- Rob ( talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick query. What do people reckon to the status of restaurant menus with respect to providing reliable evidence that a particular dish is a) widely available; b) commonly composed of a fixed set of ingredients; and c) commonly identified as an entity separate of its constituent ingredients? Pyrop e 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
To what particular dish are you referring? L0b0t ( talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute at Larry Sanger about whether the assertion "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is verifiable. Two sources have been used for this information.
The first is a piece in the Telegraph providing a bulleted list of items about Wikipedia. The only blurb mentioning "consensus" is a collection of quotes from The Colbert Report describing Wikipedia as "truth by consensus".
The second is a column in The Times by guest contributor Oliver Kamm. The relevant quotation from that column is "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."
Are either of these sources sufficient to assert "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" as fact and not opinion?
(There remain disagreements over whether this fact is relevant to the article in question anyway, but I'd appreciate feedback on the verifiability of the assertion.) Rvcx ( talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See
WP:V.
Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007).
"Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds".
The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.
Here is the exact text from the source. The referenced text accurately reflects the source presented. There is clear consensus to include the text.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
QuackGuru (
talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We have some specific wrangling about sources at Talk:Daily Mail#political bent but this is a more general issue. The infobox for newspapers has a Political allegiance entry and this encourages editors to fill something in. This seems an invitation to OR since only official party organs such as Pravda or the Daily Worker can easily be said to have a specific party allegiance. Independent newspapers with a long history will tend to have adopted various positions over time and so it seems difficult to attribute a single party position to them. What might be an acceptable source for this, if anything? Thanks. Colonel Warden ( talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic was raised before, but IMHO the answers weren't that satisfying, that's why I ask again. I currently edit this page. The claims of the town website are refuted by several academic sources. I'm not sure how to resolve this conflict. The statements can't be merged since they contradict each other. Any help is greatly appreciated. Karasek ( talk) 09:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.ADDENDA.HTM
Professor Rummel isn't an expert in Polish matters. He quotes selected pro-German sources. The result is absurd. Xx236 ( talk) 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
On this particular article, a number of statements that had been long tagged with citation requests were all replaced with one source, described as "Barrington Hall miscellany, 308W.U592.bar, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley". As best I can tell, this is some sort of book or collection that only has one copy and can only be accessed by going to this particular library (assuming it is even available to the public). Is this a reliable source, and would it even be considered "published"?
I'd like to believe it, but based on the history of the article, which has had a history of revert warring restoring unsourced info and adding links to replace "citation needed" tags that didn't actually contain the info being cited, not to mention comments on the talk page insisting the article should be exempt from NOR since a number of editors have firsthand knowledge...well, with an article with a history of unreliable sources, without any way to verify that the source actually contains the info (or even verify that the source actually exists), I have to admit I'm skeptical.
Any uninvolved opinions would be very much welcomed, thanks. -- Minderbinder ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Source #1 is/was being used to cite the fact that Max's literary style has been referred to as "Gonzo". It was removed from the article with the rationale that the article was only quoting someone rather than making the claim itself. Is this source adequate?
Source #2 is/was being used to cite the claim that TuckerMax.com has received "millions of unique site visitors". It was removed with the rationale that since it required a login, it was unavailable. However, the statement that the source was being used for does not require a login to view. Also I believe it's been said that even websites that require paid registration to read can be used as sources? I'd like some confirmation on that.
McJeff ( talk) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) I was able to find a few sources making the claim that were not just the same quote from the producer being requoted, however, I'm admittedly a poor judge of what makes a website notable or not, as TSC will surely attest to. So here are the links.
There was also one on ezinearticles.com which is spam blacklisted, yet seemed to meet WP:RS. All the above are third party, non-self published sources.
McJeff ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this [8] a good source for the band dope's genre? The site does get used in the reviews section of some albums, but my inclination is that it's not. The reviewer seems to just be a registered member, with 9 reviews according to the site, and it even says in that one "This is my first review". But I thought I'd check it up here. Prophaniti ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
While the info is so over the top even young kids can spot the errors, be on the lookout for pranksters using it. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-17 t09:39z
Does this SPAMmy site qualify as a reliable source? (In my mind, it doesn't help that the proposed edit cites to a page that isn't factually accurate.) THF ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Sure, an anti-Polish bias would be much more reliable and make the article featured. Ignorance in Polish matters (no knowledge of Polish language) is highly mainstream. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The way the article Far right in Poland quotes the book suggest that the book is POV. Xx236 ( talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
National socialism is a ideological position of the extreme right and Stephen is correct in his comments about reliable sources. I see no problem here. RS consider NS as a position of the extreme right and that's what we use. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this article (in German) from the German affiliate of the Mutual UFO Network a RS for historical/biographical information on Burkhard Heim, a German physicist working mostly in the area of gravity control? An editor on the article claims that MUFON's work has been incorporated by Peter A. Sturrock in a report, but I'm still sceptical as to their reliability. The German MUFON article is the main source for the Heim article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I wish to have your opinion about those two manga/comics related websites :
Thanks -- KrebMarkt 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter.
And btw, why was this section archived into Archive 28 if it wasn't resolved? Is that common? Nightscream ( talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone more patient and knowledgeable than I about what constitutes a reliable source please address the issues brought up in this diatribe? -- OlEnglish ( Talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the sources for the Sakhalin-II article is http://royaldutchshellplc.com. I would like to ask if this website could be considered as reliable source or not? Beagel ( talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this site reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing research to improve our 9/11 Conspiracy Theory article. Is the American Free Press considered a reliable source? I am asking in reference to this article [15]. I tried searching the archives and surprisingly, I did not get any hits. (Maybe the search engine was having an issue when I did the search?). Anyway, is this a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised this debate has got this far - even a cursory examination (and I'd never heard of it before) of it's "stories" shows it to be trash, the usual mixture of zomg the jews are taking over the world via banking crap. I wouldn't consider it a Reliable source in form. It should be used for claims about itself and that's about it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh? what you've highlighted states that it shouldn't be used in this case. I'm a bit confused what your point was. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to use this source in Design 1047 battlecruiser, but I really have no idea if it is a reliable source or not. Thanks for any help! — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II - Page xxiii
by Belton Y. Cooper, Stephen E. (FRW) Ambrose - History - 2003 - 384 pages Mike Bennighof. a doctoral candidate in history, did an excellent job of editing my original manuscript. |
” |
However I do believe that in this case this one area/page is a reliable source. TARTARUS talk 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor Eubulides has entered some information on this topic that is inaccurate and medically biased , and insists that this medical bias is the only accurate and verifiable POV of relevance, and insists on negatively-biased medical sources as being the only accurate ones to include in the article. This editor has persisted in reverting entries I have brought to this topic to add the non-medical POV for greater accuracy and reliability on this topic. My sources are shouted down as being unreliable. It seems to me that this editor is attempting to exclude the balanced POV that including these references would bring. comments, please. Jvanr ( talk) 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Is no flying no tights.com [21] considered a reliable source? Kaguya-chan ( talk) 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this site reputable enough to be used as a source for the Rigor Mortis article?
-- 72.207.17.89 ( talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is the right place, but there is nowhere else to discuss single sourcing. Late last year I had a fairly critical review of British_Military_Intelligence_Systems_in_Northern_Ireland and removed some material that was speculative or inappropriate, but also some that was either unsourced or not supported by the source used. This was block reverted this morning on the basis that a newspaper article was adequate sourcing. That didn't cover the point that several removals weren't based on that.
I have fairly serious concerns about the sourcing, in part because the article relies on two, one book by a self proclaimed former intelligence operative and a newspaper article about a related criminal trial that restates a number of the points in the book.
I would assess that as a single source, since there is a clear audit trail from one to the other. I don't believe that the source is strong enough to go into the level of detail that the article goes into but would be grateful for views as to whether the claims of an individual are reliable enough to build the level of detail that the other editor wishes to include.
Thanks
ALR ( talk) 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The concerned editors of The Man Who Would Be Queen have a question, Hfarmer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dicklyon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We have the unusual case of a academic/scientific journal publishing peer commentaries, which were called for from the concerned segment of the general public. The paper being commented on addressed a controversy, in which allegations of professional and sexual misconduct were leveled at J. Michael Bailey. The editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, Kenneth Zucker wrote of these commentaries "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author." and stated that he published all the commentaries recieved. We haver refered the issue of weather or not these should be treated as being reliable sources on par with peer reviewed articles twice already. [22], [23]
User:Soulscanner Summed up the conversation and majority opinion thusly "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter." [24]
Specifically We have the comment by Charles Moser Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco. Some of us want to use the following quotes from Moser in a section of our article entitled "academic freedom". Found in this commentary [25]
Which of those can we use?-- Hfarmer ( talk) 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The above is the question and it is meant to be neutral. This is what I personally think based on the facts, and WP policy. As I said a long time ago. "They, unlike Dr. Wyndzen, are known to us. People can look them up and judge for themselves what weight to give each of their comments. Just like they can for self published sources authored by autorities on the subject of the publication. Therefore I argue that those commentaries should be included. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)" [26]."
Those commentaries from people who are recognized academic experts should be included. But we have to be careful and discriminating in what we use. The above is a good test case for this principle. Mosers first statement that the allegations of professional and sexual misconduct against Bailey were basically true is in my opinion not includeable. He is not and no one person alone can be an expert on those. That is Mosers opinion and nothing more. However what Moser writes in his second statement is 100% includeable he is as much an expert on academic freedom as any academic. Moser is as much an expert on academic freedom as practically any expert can be. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Two points for now, because we've gone {{ Round In Circles}} on this issue several times:
Additionally, it may interest RSNers to know that the mediator for a recent failed formal mediation contacted Arch Sex Behav directly and confirmed that they did not verify credentials or even insist that authors use their real names."Dreger's paper was peer-reviewed by three referees and then a call for commentaries was issued via various listservs and organizations. A total of 60 people expressed an interest in writing a commentary and, in the end, 24 commentaries were received. One commentary was not accepted by me for publication because its content did not have anything to do with the target article. The 23 published commentaries are followed by a reply from Dreger."
This doesn't seem very complicated to me, but we have literally covered the same ground four or five times now, with apparent amnesia between the conversations. In the previous RSN conversations, the conclusion was generally to treat these commentaries as self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. If we could get a dozen or so RSNers to reply with simple, concrete, unambiguous statements like "These commentaries should be treated as self-published" or "No, Moser is not an expert on academic freedom", then perhaps it will eventually get resolved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (who, BTW, agrees with Moser's comments on this subject, especially when you read the entire letter instead of just the ending, which is being quoted out of context specifically to provide a constrasting opinion.)
I think that WP:PARITY is the closest thing we have to apply here; it was written to apply to fringe science topics, which Dreger analysis is not, since it doesn't present as science, nevertheless it's an idiosyncratic analysis that is widely criticized by others familiar with the topic it presents opinions on, including people from outside the narrow field of academic sexologists who mostly take Dreger's side in supporting their own. The so called "peer reviewed" status of the Dreger "controversial paper" in the special issue of their journal on this topic should not be taken as a reason to not present any of the responses to it that are published, as part of that conversation, in the same issue. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Can anyone confirm that the German website
splashcomics is a reliable source for reviews ?
Some clues
[27]
[28]
Sorry for bothering again and this time with some exotic request. -- KrebMarkt 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It really doesn't appear to be one, as it hosts mostly blogs, unreferenced information, and tries to sell a lot of products. It is also very biased to a specific point of view. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a revival of the unanswered
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#cal.syoboi.jp.
The issue is whatever the Japanese website
cal.syoboi.jp is RS for the original broadcast date of anime episode and episodes titles.
Additional clues : Errors on the TV program schedule are notified
here and not directly corrected by users. Every broadcast date has a backlog indicating who, why & when modification occurred.
As this source appeared in quite a number of FL, an answer would be great.--
KrebMarkt 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Any previous desicion on this site? --neon white talk 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The site famoushookups.com [33] is used repeatedly as a source in BLPs. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia RS requirements about fact-checking (among other things, it has X-Men comic book artist John Byrne married to actress Tilda Swinton (or else has Swinton's husband married to Byrne's (ex?) wife. So I believe these citations should be removed as it is a gossip site. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In the article on RAF Menwith Hill a user is trying to suggest that a passing reference in a news article about another subject is enough to state that the location doesn't appear on many maps, a conspiracy theorist position. In practice the source, from the [ [1]. Independent] states that it doesn't appear in the AA Road Atlas. An alternative source says that it appeared as a collection of aerial symbols until recently, a clear indicator that it was identified as a wireless station, in Ordnance Survey parlance.
I'm pretty sure the user is a sock puppet, due to phrasing and the use of the Cite template with no edit history. Unfortunately the indicators have been removed from Wikipedia in a recent deletion
Grateful for some thoughts on the most appropriate way to deal with this.
Thanks
ALR ( talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a disagreement regarding the typing/subtyping of transsexality at homosexual transsexual.
user:Jokestress has asserted that the blog Suck my Manhole consitutes an RS, [34] [35] and is comparable to blogs appearing in the NYTimes.
I believe it does not. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
(To forstall the potential question: I am quoting the above verbatim; it is not my intent to slant anyone's input by using vulgar or attention-seeking language.)
— James Cantor ( talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This really strikes me as the sort of question that answers itself when we're talking about a BLP. THF ( talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could Billboard magazine be considered secondary source? -- Efe ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Djuro Schwartz reliable source? His book (?):"in the Jasenovac camps of death" is used in multiple wikipedia articles but for google Djuro Schwartz do not exist or maybe is better to say the he exist only in wikipedia mirrors [36]. Situation is very similar in google books where there is no books of Djuro Schwartz [37], but his testimony is used in book of Milan Bulajić which is known for writing controversial testimony [38] in his books.
Because it is possible that I am POV in this question, I am interested to hear your comments if Djuro Schwartz is reliable source.-- Rjecina ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A trade association puts out a report written by a university professor criticizing an organization opposed to the trade association's goals. My own independent research shows that the report has factual errors (and perhaps outright misrepresentations), and those factual errors are making it into Wikipedia articles. I recognize that my own original research or synthesis cannot be in the article. To what extent can the original research be used on a meta-basis to demonstrate that the source flunks WP:RS? I don't wish to argue specifics or for any particular Wikipedia policy position; I just want to get a sense of how other editors understand RS policy. THF ( talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's unquestionably the case that the source (which is funded by a union group opposed to TBG) is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court, and falsely implies that the award was the result of the actions of the subject of the article. On the talk page, two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong and left out the fact that the award was for unrelated issues, but insist that the source is still reliable and its misleading remarks about the subject of the article should remain in the article. At a minimum, WP:COATRACK would seem to apply: that the Burke Group's client was fined for an unrelated labor practice is quite irrelevant to The Burke Group article. Editors understandably have their backs up because a series of now-banned sock-puppets from TBG tried to remove the same information, but that doesn't excuse including policy-violative material. THF ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC), updated 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some help from uninvolved editors? I'm getting tag-teamed here, and, as you can see, their style is to turn everything into a WP:TLDR issue. THF ( talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could someone who's familiar with Swedish media comment on whether or not an article published by Svenska Dagbladet could be regarded as a highly reliable third party source. The article states that the Swedish band Roxette has sold 70 million records (albums and singles combined). The figures are not directly within the article but separated in a column to the right which includes facts about the vocalist of the act. I need to make sure of Svenska Dagbladet's reliability in order to proceed with adding Roxette to the list of List of best-selling music artists wherein I am trying my best to support artists' stay with highly reliable sources. Thanks.-- Harout72 ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Kathryn Kolbert's criticism of Rick Warren was mentioned in CNN. Are that [41] and her later statement [42] reliable sources, when what she has said is attributed to her, ie: 'Kathryn Kolbert said...' ? This is being discussed here: [43] Phoenix of9 ( talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a few instances recently of this site being used as a source in biogs. My feeling is that we should not regard them as reliable, even if they purport to be the account of the actual person, because as far as I can tell, there is no way of verifying this. Also, our article says that the site has been compromised already this year. Thoughts welcome, as we do not seem to have addressed this as yet. -- Rodhull andemu 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be considered a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.252.81 ( talk • contribs)
By that standard then is CorpWatch an appropriate external reference link in an article about a topic other than CorpWatch?
Thanks for your advice. I am new here and want to do my best to get it right. Right now I am focusing on reading and asking.
I'm sure this has been asked/covered before, but http://plastics.inwiki.org is not a reliable source because it is self published, correct? Wizard191 ( talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Would this page, mangalorean.com, be considered reliable. It seems to be news-based but I'm not sure if it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Copana2002 ( talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable source? Seems WP:SPS to me, and generally WP:ELNO, but would like others' opinions. THF ( talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I found this site, which to date has been the only place on or offline that I have been able to find good quality information on armor specifications for naval vessels. Before writing and article with this as a primary source though I would like an opinion on whether or not this meets WP:RS standards. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It's heavily cited in John Buchanan (American politician), and the title of the article cited in that bio makes me think it's more of a WP:QS. THF ( talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I strongly suspect not. At least it's only in the one article. THF ( talk) 08:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have run across this as a reference in several biographies, and would like to know if it qualifies as RS ? Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Just seems to be a parked page with a search portal? do you have some examples? --
Cameron Scott (
talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Some examples of articles cited: (for
Fascism
[44] ,
Ed Masterson
[45] etc. all seem to use "freepedia" which is not a RS as far as I can tell. So is this site usable as RS? It is used as a ref or external ref in well over a thousand articles it appears.
Collect (
talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone please take a look at the verifiability of the name of a city and the list of People from this city. From its foundation in 1237 as Elbing in Prussia until 1945 Elbing, Prussia, Germany the official name of this city remained the same: Elbing.
Only in 1945, when the city was conquered by the Soviet Union, who gave it to Poland, was it officially named Elbląg, Poland. In 1999 Poland formed a Warmia-Masuria district, to which it assigned the city of Elbląg (until 1945 Elbing)
A user (group?) 77. and 213. range re-adds incorrect, that People are from Prussian city of Elbląg, latest [ User:213.238.123.205] about a Prussian city of Elbląg. I explained on the list, that there was never a Prussian city of Elbląg, only a Prussian city of Elbing, which since 1945 is named Elbląg and since 1999 is assigned to Warmia-Masuria.
As verifiability of “his/their proof” this 213.238.123.205 uses a Polish search engine, which shows from 1000-1800 Elblag Results 4 books Elblag in Polish language, which actually use Elblag (and 2 German with Elbing of which 1 is referenced in Polish).
I changed the name to Elbing on the same Polish Search Engine he posted. It gives for the same time span for Elbing = = Results 732 books Elbing
After pointing out to him that there are a handful (4) books in Polish with Elblag and over 700 books (732) with Elbing he disregards the very clear proof against his false claim, and he changed it again and writes personal attacks. This (group) 213.238.123.205 wants by false statements and intimidation tactics enforce an incorrect version on Wikipedia, thereby on the general public.
Someone else please check into the personal attacks Also, if it is appropriate that a person can dictate by intimidation that 4 Polish language books about Elbląg take precedence as verifiability over 732 books about Elbing, the official name of the city from 1237-1945.
Thank you.( 71.137.194.48 ( talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
THF, thank you very much A.O. 71.137.194.48 ( talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)}
The editor 71.137.194.48 first claimed that the name Elbląg was invented in 1945. I showed him that there are books using it from 18th century.
There are also 448 books using this name edited before 1900 see here.
So his main argument about the invention of the name in 1945 is simply untrue. Therefore his aims to change the category description, made since March 2008 (than known as 70.133.64.78), have no actual basis. They were reverted since March 2008 by various editors who propably share my point of view. Cheers 77.253.67.106 ( talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Two editors, hgilbert and EPadmirateur, reverted my edits to Rudolf Steiner. In particular, they claim that an ARBCOM decision disallows my placing an external link to an article titled "Rudolf Steiner and the Jews", and that this was not a Reliable Source. I have read the Arbcom decision but found nothing in there to support their claim of exclusion.
They then undid my edit trying to make the "Judaism" section more balanced.
Finally they removed the NPOV tags I placed before discussion on the Talk page had run its course, which I believe violated the usage instructions for the NPOV template.
Upon looking up the Arbcom decision, I discovered that hgilbert is a Waldorf School teacher, and so I have placed a COI tag at the top of the article.
More eyes on this would be welcome.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the "Remedies" paragraph from the ruling:
1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.
passed 6-0 at 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't see anything about "polemical sources" in there. That Steiner said the things he is quoted as saying is verifiable, and I don't see original research either.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If the question is whether the waldorfcritics.org source is RS for Steiner's views on race, my view is that no, I don't think it is. The precise relationship between theosophical notions about "ancient races" and early C20 racism and antiracism is a complex topic in the history of ideas, and an academic source is needed. However, the waldorfcritics source might be reliable for the fact that criticism has been made of Steiner's work on that account. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the talk page of the Mountain Dew article, and one guy had posted a concern about the reliability of Reference #5. Here is what he said:
"the current #5 ref (the one that lists health problems supposedly caused by the ingredents) CLEARLY lists wikipedia as it's main reference. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't such references considered unreliable."
This user is going by the name of StoneCold89. I believe he has a big point there. How could a reference be considered reliable enough for Wikipedia if that source uses Wikipedia as its source?
I thought I would bring it up here so that I could get a more knowledgeable desicion about it. In my opinion, I agree with the guy totally.
--[| Retro00064 | ( talk/ contribs) |] 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It is a free online encyclopedia of stuff related to Washington state; the About Us section says content is submitted by "staff, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts"—"with a few noted exceptions." This particular article does have an author listed, so I'm assuming it's probably good, I just wanted to check. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone come across this site before? http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/aboutus.php -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.
It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.
Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.
Help? GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [55] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [56]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart. IronDuke 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
All nine of you, heavily involved editors who should know better. As to my opinion (as an equally involved editor) CAMERA fucked with wikipedia, we should return the favor. Full stop. Any uninvolved editor should see this, as should any involved editor. Any organization that active seeks to subvert the very existence and viability of an NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit should be a RS only about itself, and even then with extreme prejudice. Their forefeited their RS card when they fucked with wikipedia. The day the New York Times does the same thing, my position will be the same. -- Cerejota ( talk) 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, as a sort-of-involved editor (same topic area) I suggest that CAMERA should be cited only as a source on what the opinions of pro-Israel advocates are. Their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least. But there are articles like Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where they're important sources, and articles like Muhammad al-Dura where they should probably have a sentence or two. They shouldn't be used in BLPs at all, they should be used very sparingly if at all in highly important "mainstream" articles like Operation Defensive Shield, UNRWA, or Second Intifada where there are books full of reliable-source material available. Better to cite sources with a well-established reputation. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
CAMERA is not a reliable source for information about the world, only for information about the perspective of exteme pro-Israel advocacy. This is readily apparent from their publications, but it should also be blindingly obvious that any organisation that would attempt to secretly interfere with an encyclopedia in order to promote their perspective cannot be trusted to be honest in their reporting. That has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" reprisals, it is simply that their action has proven them to be devoid of the principle of honesty. Disclaimer: I've edited Israel and the apartheid analogy, but I've attempted to be non-partison there and have raised the heckles of both "sides" in reasonably equal measures. I would trust CAMERA as a source of facts about as much as I would trust Hamas: not at all. They should only be cited as an example of the position of an extreme lobby group, they should never be cited on points of fact. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) It's not about whether people will give you flak for using a source or not. It's about whether the source meets the criteria in WP:RS, which are relatively objective. What criteria from WP:RS does CAMERA meet? If it doesn't meet the criteria, then it's clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't think it meets the criteria for the reasons I mentioned above, but I'd be interested to hear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 02:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:
Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states that the content should not be included as it violates WP:V. I personally have looked and have been unable to find what we would traditionally call reliable sources, not surprising that not a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the sizes you can get of stick candy.
As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching weasel words citation needed original research? tags. These tags also appear later in the article regarding typical costs (25¢-75¢ each) and how stick candy is often referred to as "old fashioned" (Note that since then I have found references for the old fashioned portions, but since the page is protected I added it to the talk page for now.)
In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?-- kelapstick ( talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's nice to see so much interest in the candy stick article. I would just like to piont out that while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found. They are not being used to make assertions, just to establish basic desciriptions of size, flavoring and pricing. I suppose this information could be taken out, but that would make the article worse not better. My other idea was to hide the citations so they show up on the edit page, but not in article space, if this appeases the enforcer. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is covered by the same case-by-case standard as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Is_a_Discovery_or_History_Channel_documentary_considered_a_reliable_source.3F. In this case, the documentary simply gives a platform to the conspiracy theory of John Buchanan (American politician): a couple of editors are arguing that "the BBC" is a reliable source, and therefore Buchanan's views about a historical event are entitled to the same reporting as (and perhaps more space than!) Arthur Schlesinger's. Full discussion at Talk:Business_Plot#Buchanan. THF ( talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)This is the link to the BBC Radio 4 programme. [57] There is a programme synopsis online and the show available to listen to by clicking a link. THF has argued that because it has included Buchanan's views it is therefore an unreliable source, because any source that uses Buchanan must by definition be unreliable. The opposing view is that BBC Radio 4 is a reliable source by definition, and that gives validity to include Buchanan's views in the article. The principle has been established for some time; see this earlier discussion. [58] There is no argument that Buchanan should be given more space than Arthur Schlesinger: that is just creating heat and dust. Ty 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment:I'd like to add that I don't think its constructive when the "conspiracy theory" card/label (using the term in a disparaging way) is used so often by an editor because it has the effect of a slur on the content in question. It really,unintentionally I'm sure, puts the editor which supports the content in a position of having to shift focus to debating the "conspiracy theory" categorization of the content. That categorization tends to stifle and deflect discussion and restrict appropriate article discussion and content (because very few editors want to be seen as supporting any kind of way-out conspiracy theory). Usually,as in this case, it is only a personal POV as to whether something qualifies as a so-called conspiracy theory. I also think these types of comments make collaboration almost impossible: "not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does... not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it.", even though directed towards content, it fuels combative editing because it makes editors who think the content is valid for the article feel as though we are promoting some kind of evil and crazy agenda that I,for one, certainly don't want to be promoting. It's also annoying that Collect and THF keep running to noticeboards and administrators when any article discussion is not going their way; at least that's the way it appears to me. Abbarocks ( talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
When a person's views are reported by a reliable source, it means we can report those views as verifiably belonging to that person. The weight that is given to those views in an article should depend on the weight that is given to them in reliable sources. Whether those views will be presented as likely to reflect objective reality will depend on whether the person quoted is considered an expert in the field. Expertise can be established by how reliable sources (including those other than the one used for the quote) describe the person's expertise, and whether they are widely published as an expert in the field. Buchanan is quoted by the BBC on this subject, which means his view may be worth including as a reliable source has reported it (although unless his view is also reported elsewhere, that doesn't give strong weight to including his view as the BBC report may be a lapse in editorial judgement). If Buchanan has a reputation as an unreliable expert on political matters, especially one who has many fringe views on this or other somewhat related subjects, then that should also be taken into account in terms of how his views are reported. If the whole article is about a fringe subject, then it will naturally be made up of well-documented fringe views so this is less of a concern. However, if it's an article about mainstream views, then the article should not unduly imply that a quote from a person with many fringe views reflects a mainstream expert perspective on the subject. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The documentary makes the claim (and is cited for the proposition): "The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted." This is the conspiracy theory to explain why, if the conspiracy happened, there weren't any prosecutions. But this fiction is completely disproven by Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, a 1935 case where business interests successfully struck down the centerpieces of FDR's New Deal, the National Recovery Administration and National Industrial Recovery Act. It is quite clear that business interests didn't "let FDR do what he wanted" and the "deal" that the documentary claims to be documenting never happened. It's completely fictional WP:FRINGE. THF ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Is currently used as a lede cite as "Encyclopedia Britannica" on Drudge Report. The cite is from an article on the Huffington Post, and characterizes the Drudge site as "conservative." I suggested that the word "online" be placed to make clear that it is the online site being used, and that the article from which the claim is taken be mentioned. This was roundly rejected. Beyond that, however, I have a lingering doubt that an encyclopedia which solicits revisions from its readers is all that much better than a "flagged revision wiki." Also that a site where the cursor shows you ads every time you go over a marked word is a bit less than we demand of other sites. Is "online EB" fully utile as RS? Thanks! Collect ( talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
To get this back to discussing the "online" EB... yes, it is a reliable tertiary source. Arguably, the most reliable online encyclopedia that exists, in fact. Blueboar ( talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, try a book called "Consider the Source" by James F. Broderick and Darren W. Miller. It's a book about news websites. It has a chapter on Drudge Report, and a paragraph on page 108 about whether it has a conservative bias or not. It's on Google Books. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Springer page. Co-publication with Higher Education Press.
There is notice of the Frontiers ... in China series at Thomson Reuters:
However, this is a press release from Thomson Reuters, apparently Manuscript central, a TR activity, was chosen by Higher Education Press.
Beijing Review has an article about the web site, "Higher Education Press: Launch of Online "Frontiers in China," http://journal.hep.com.cn.
Chinese government web site has this on Higher Education Press.
Publisher's Weekly has a 2008 article on Publishing's Top Guns.
Note that the above lends some weight to the Thomson Reuters announcement. This is the world's largest book publisher.
Apparently HEP is the largest publisher in China.
Reliable source for physics, sufficient to assert it, not as a final conclusion? Any advice, caveats? -- Abd ( talk) 23:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am here asking for assistance not to complain about anyone. The following article Hala Sultan Tekke contains this section Significance, following are my reservations on this section:
I know in wikipedia we can edit any section of any article if we find out that it is in violation with any of the above policies, but the thing is user:chesdovi is insisting on having all of those violations, and refused all of my edits.
Now let us move to the other part of reservations of the contents of the section:
I want to add one important thing, I am not saying that Islam is the only correct thing in this world, all what I am saying is that: If there is a holy site in Islam then Islam through it’s designated channels (Qoran and/or Hadith) should indicate to the holiness of this place, or at least through reliable Islamic scholars and through reliable and verifiable Islamic resources, not through unreliable and unverifiable NON MUSLIM scholars and books. This is my main point. The usage of reliable Islamic sources in the context of the holiness of this site is not available in this section whatsoever.
Last, I want to tell you that I was trying my best to solve this issue without asking for assistance but with no use as the same user is insisting on the usage of his unreliable sources. The required assistance is: How best I should handle this issue, I thought of nominating this section to deletion but there is no such process at wiki, could you please assist me here.
Looking forward to hearing your feedback. And please forgive me for the long thread. Yamanam ( talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. This thread is posted at No original research noticboard as well. Yamanam ( talk) 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
Hi all
Don't know the right place to ask this but am certain that many of you here will help. I have a strong view that citations to wire stories should be cited to the wire rather than to another publication (even if properly identified with the "agency" tag), as the implication that the other publication has created the content changes (sometimes dramatically—and not always in the same direction) inferences about the weight of authority.
Anyone know where discussions of this sort of thing belongs?
Thanks, Bongo matic 00:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Someone suggested to bring the issue here
The issue : Are
Erika Friedman and her blog RS for yuri related anime & manga articles ?
The available clues :
She is also the president
ALC Publishing, a publishing house dedicated to yuri manga.
Thanks for your insights --
KrebMarkt 12:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue is whether
Erika Friedman and her blog qualifies as an appropriate self published source for
yuri related articles.
WP:VERIFY's requirements are being an "expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".
More of the available credentials (will collect more when I have some time):
I think she meets this requirements, but let's see what you guys have to say about it. Kazu-kun ( talk) 15:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Neanderthal genome project is currently featured on a news blurb on the main page, could someone please look at this question? My concern is that the article is giving a critique from a fairly low-profile journal far too much weight. I have not even read the section in question very deeply, but from a credibility of sources perspective, it seems very wrong. Thanks, Vesal ( talk) 14:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Bit of a odd question. This was made to the article. The problem is that the site that hosts the video will only play them if you live in the US. Is someone willing to look at the video and confirm that it does show that he has webbed toes? Thanks. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you please advise whether the following 10 sources can be considered reliable in order to verify and include a reference to the 4icu.org University rankings in the College and university rankings article?
1)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Education and Social Science Library
Debuted in 1997, The College and University Rankings Web page is maintained by librarians at the Education and Social Science Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. It contains selected rankings and provides "caution & controversy" information related to some academic university rankings.
2)
Indiana University IU News Room
Press release produced by the Indiana University communication office, and published in their website, mentioning their position in the 4icu.org ranking.
3)
IOL Diario
Article published in a Portuguese newspaper about the position of the Coimbra University (founded in 1290) in the 4icu.org ranking.
4)
Tribuna do Norte
Article published in a Brazilian regional newspaper about the position of the UEL University in the 4icu.org ranking. This is probably based on a press news that UEL has autonomously decided to release after evaluating their ranking in the 4icu.org directory.
5)
Wikipedia - Shahjalal University of Science and Technology
Wikipedia article on the Bangladeshi Shahjalal University of Science and Technology mentioning the 4icu.org ranking.
6)
Wikipedia - Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology
Same as above
7)
Wikipedia - Keio University
Same as above but for the Japanese Keio University established in 1858
8)
Wikipedia - Education in Tokyo
Rankings overview for higher education organisations in Tokyo mentioning the 4icu.org ranking
9)
Wikipedia - Clasificación académica de universidades de Colombia
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Colombia mentioning the 4icu.org ranking
10)
Wikipedia - Ranking de universidades españolas
Article in Spanish about rankings of higher education organisations in Spain mentioning the 4icu.org ranking
Are the above sources, according to your experience and knowledge of the wikipedia guidelines, sufficient to include the following paragraph in the above mentioned Wikipedia article?
The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking of world universities is produced by the 4 International Colleges and Universities higher education search engine and directory. The 4icu.org ranking is not based on academic criteria and intends to identify which Universities' websites are the most popular in terms of online international presence and popularity. It is based on three independent web metrics and indicators, Page Rank, Traffic Rank, and Total Link Popularity, extracted from three search engines: Google, Alexa and Yahoo!. The 4icu.org Web Popularity Ranking is provided at international, continent and country level.
Thank you for your replies. Stephan what about this article published in 2007 on the Journal of Institutional Research, Australasian Association for Institutional Research, written by a researcher from the Monash University: The Impact of Ranking Systems on Higher Education and its Stakeholders (pp 87–88). Squidfryerchef the 4icu.org ranking algorythm includes 3 different web metrics; only one of them is related to traffic (Alexa). Moreover the current wikipedia article already contains at least 2 University rankings, Webometrics and G-Factor, which are based on non academic web related metrics.
This question is specifically about the Church of Scientology, but I doubt that's particularly relevant. However, do the rest of you think that a website owned by this or any other reasonably large church would qualify as a reliable source for information regarding the locations (churches, etc.) operated by that church? So, in short, if the church's website says it has a church in Paris, would that be a sufficient source for inclusion of such information? John Carter ( talk) 16:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Assuming good faith that any organization wouldn't lie about where it has an office, it's reliable. If any cause for doubt can be shown, it can always be attributed in the wording, eg "xyz organization claims to have an office in Paris on its website". Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been editing the article in question. The source the article cites at present is from December 2007 and quotes the BfV German domestic intelligence service as saying that there are 10 Scientology Churches and 14 Scientology Missions in Germany. The source also draws attention to the fact that Scientology's own website does not list the Missions, and lists only 9 Churches rather than 10. This latter statement is still correct today: [1] Give both versions? Other suggestions? Jayen 466 19:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to ask your advice in relation to a situation arising on the Scriptural Reasoning article.
There are three users, all of whom arrived simultaneously on or around 27 November 2008, all of whom are employed by or otherwise connected to the same organisation, who have repeatedly removed material on the article which is critical of the organisation by which they are employed or connected -- I have raised the issue of "Conflict of Interest" with them repeatedly.
The specific question here today, relates to a reference to some correspondence which has been publicly circulated by its author, David Ford (a third party from the other side of the debate -- which both sides accept as a reliable author), and is published on the website:
http://www.cambridgeinterfaithprogramme.org/
The correspondence states:
"The solution proposed [to the dispute around faith leadership of an SR group in London] is in terms of a governance model using principles of equality, symmetry, neutrality, etc. This holds out the hope of an immediate 'fix' in legal/constitutional terms rather like the way secular modernity responded to religious conflicts...but Scriptural Reasoning in my experience has so far not been convinced by it. The "asymmetries of hospitality" (e.g. the role of Anglicans in initiating St Ethelburga's) are part of the messiness (and providence!) of actual history, which always requires making the most of particular resources and rarely conforms to our abstract principles."
Publicly Circulated Correspondence from David Ford, Director of the Cambridge Interfaith Programme, 24 January 2007
The correspondence was circulated publicly by the author. All parties agree and do not dispute that all the correspondence is true, but the other party are suggesting that it can't be referenced in the Wikipedia article because all references in Wikipedia need to come from academic journals, academic books, and the like.
From the point of view of Verifiability not only is the correspondence referenced to date and authorship, but there is also an address, telephone number, fax and e-mail to the ORIGINAL AUTHOR - in other words, it is fact-checkable:
The accuracy of all the above written statements may be VERIFIED by contacting the authors directly at:
The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, Faculty of Divinity, West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS, United Kingdom Telephone: +44 1223 763013 Fax: +44 1223 763014 E-mail: cip@divinity.cam.ac.uk sr@divinity.cam.ac.uk
Furthermore, of course, in order that the published correspondence does in fact support the point being made, all the words of the reference were quoted IN FULL in the footnoted reference on the Wikipedia article.
However, the other party (who are employed or connected to the organisation in question) keep reverting and removing this reference -- primarily I believe, because this publicly circulated correspondence is an embarassment for them. The organisation The Scriptural Reasoning Society Board of Trustees cites the correspondence above, to support their assertions around "asymmetries of hospitality" in Scriptural Reasoning.
Please would you let me know that given that every means of verifiablity directly to the original author himself who publicly circulated it in the first place is made available including means of telephone/e-mail communication, that this is admissible as a third party statement which is published and which may easily be verified.
Very many thanks for your kind assistance with this. This is extremely helpful. Thank you.
-- Scripturalreasoning ( talk) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
It's problematic. While a self-published document by an established author (such as David F. Ford) is acceptable, WP:V cautions that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." We have here a situation where somebody else has done so, but the material has been published in a non-reliable source, and for dubious reasons. I think we can accept something published by David F. Ford himself, or something published by him in a reliable source. But I don't think we can accept material published by a non-reliable source. There is no information about the website other than the statement at the top: "This analysis site - independent of control of the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme - is under construction." We have no named editor or publisher. Given the circumstances I would say that this source can not be used. SilkTork * YES! 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Xcitement is an online published magazine covering the adult entertainment industry. While it's hardly the biggest fish in the pond, I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of its interview transcripts.
Specifically, the matter involves an interview with Evan Seinfeld's wife - Tera Patrick, in which she states his ethnic background as Jewish. I see no reason why the magazine would distort this information, nor her, nor Evan (to his wife).
However, another editor seems to insist that it isn't WP:RS, and is insistent on reverting edits such as this one. Any comments here? Given the number of online sources used in articles, I see no valid reason to doubt Xcitement's reliability in the matter. For economic forecasting - well, perhaps not... GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 22:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The discussion has moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#On-line porn magazines - reliable_sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if "Andrews, John E (2001). "Fracas at the Fair". Romany Routes 5 (4)." would be a reliable source for claiming someone has fought in illegal bare knuckle fights. The source was previously brought up at RSN here, but in a different context. Also, is claiming "Jackson is related to Henry Jackson, King of the Gypsies" with "GRO Census 1881 of Births and Marriages" as a source OK - or is following a record of births and marriages original research? Thanks! -- aktsu ( t / c) 22:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Freddy García and sources of birthdates about the reliability of sources for baseball players birthdates. Input would be appreciated.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I consider an interview which was broadcasted by a news network to be a primary source illustrating the line of thought of the interviewee. Therefore I would say it is a source that can be added as a reference to a biography on this person (under sources or external links). Am I right about this?-- AdeleivdVelden ( talk) 10:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I use Locate TV as a source for TV listings. It has all the broadcast times for shows and films (and also seems to have fairly comprehensive listings for individual actors, etc.)
I wanted to post here, and see if many other people ever use the site, and whether you think it fulfils the criteria for being a reliable source - particularly when it comes to broadcast times and season dates. Phinicky ( talk) 17:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this post on Reelz.com something we would consider a reliable source here or is it just a blog with uncertain history of fact checking/reliability? Here is what Wikipedia has to say about them ReelzChannel-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The Miss Canada International (MCI) articles lists past winners of the title. Unfortunately there's very little independent coverage in general. A 2007 titleholder (Rachel Jaillet) was announced and served several months, but then was quietly dropped by MCI when no contract was signed, and MCI insists she never was a winner. There was a little bit of independent coverage of the initial win by Jaillet, and no coverage of it being revoked. Somebody (claiming to be) with MCI insists that they are the only reliable source, and wants to drop the Jaillet, listing a previous year's winner under two years. Please contribute thoughts to Talk:Miss Canada International. -- Rob ( talk) 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick query. What do people reckon to the status of restaurant menus with respect to providing reliable evidence that a particular dish is a) widely available; b) commonly composed of a fixed set of ingredients; and c) commonly identified as an entity separate of its constituent ingredients? Pyrop e 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
To what particular dish are you referring? L0b0t ( talk) 04:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been an ongoing dispute at Larry Sanger about whether the assertion "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is verifiable. Two sources have been used for this information.
The first is a piece in the Telegraph providing a bulleted list of items about Wikipedia. The only blurb mentioning "consensus" is a collection of quotes from The Colbert Report describing Wikipedia as "truth by consensus".
The second is a column in The Times by guest contributor Oliver Kamm. The relevant quotation from that column is "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices."
Are either of these sources sufficient to assert "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" as fact and not opinion?
(There remain disagreements over whether this fact is relevant to the article in question anyway, but I'd appreciate feedback on the verifiability of the assertion.) Rvcx ( talk) 16:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See
WP:V.
Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007).
"Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds".
The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices.
Here is the exact text from the source. The referenced text accurately reflects the source presented. There is clear consensus to include the text.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
QuackGuru (
talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
We have some specific wrangling about sources at Talk:Daily Mail#political bent but this is a more general issue. The infobox for newspapers has a Political allegiance entry and this encourages editors to fill something in. This seems an invitation to OR since only official party organs such as Pravda or the Daily Worker can easily be said to have a specific party allegiance. Independent newspapers with a long history will tend to have adopted various positions over time and so it seems difficult to attribute a single party position to them. What might be an acceptable source for this, if anything? Thanks. Colonel Warden ( talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
This topic was raised before, but IMHO the answers weren't that satisfying, that's why I ask again. I currently edit this page. The claims of the town website are refuted by several academic sources. I'm not sure how to resolve this conflict. The statements can't be merged since they contradict each other. Any help is greatly appreciated. Karasek ( talk) 09:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.ADDENDA.HTM
Professor Rummel isn't an expert in Polish matters. He quotes selected pro-German sources. The result is absurd. Xx236 ( talk) 14:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
On this particular article, a number of statements that had been long tagged with citation requests were all replaced with one source, described as "Barrington Hall miscellany, 308W.U592.bar, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley". As best I can tell, this is some sort of book or collection that only has one copy and can only be accessed by going to this particular library (assuming it is even available to the public). Is this a reliable source, and would it even be considered "published"?
I'd like to believe it, but based on the history of the article, which has had a history of revert warring restoring unsourced info and adding links to replace "citation needed" tags that didn't actually contain the info being cited, not to mention comments on the talk page insisting the article should be exempt from NOR since a number of editors have firsthand knowledge...well, with an article with a history of unreliable sources, without any way to verify that the source actually contains the info (or even verify that the source actually exists), I have to admit I'm skeptical.
Any uninvolved opinions would be very much welcomed, thanks. -- Minderbinder ( talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Source #1 is/was being used to cite the fact that Max's literary style has been referred to as "Gonzo". It was removed from the article with the rationale that the article was only quoting someone rather than making the claim itself. Is this source adequate?
Source #2 is/was being used to cite the claim that TuckerMax.com has received "millions of unique site visitors". It was removed with the rationale that since it required a login, it was unavailable. However, the statement that the source was being used for does not require a login to view. Also I believe it's been said that even websites that require paid registration to read can be used as sources? I'd like some confirmation on that.
McJeff ( talk) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) I was able to find a few sources making the claim that were not just the same quote from the producer being requoted, however, I'm admittedly a poor judge of what makes a website notable or not, as TSC will surely attest to. So here are the links.
There was also one on ezinearticles.com which is spam blacklisted, yet seemed to meet WP:RS. All the above are third party, non-self published sources.
McJeff ( talk) 03:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this [8] a good source for the band dope's genre? The site does get used in the reviews section of some albums, but my inclination is that it's not. The reviewer seems to just be a registered member, with 9 reviews according to the site, and it even says in that one "This is my first review". But I thought I'd check it up here. Prophaniti ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
While the info is so over the top even young kids can spot the errors, be on the lookout for pranksters using it. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-17 t09:39z
Does this SPAMmy site qualify as a reliable source? (In my mind, it doesn't help that the proposed edit cites to a page that isn't factually accurate.) THF ( talk) 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the details of the Warsaw Uprising, but this FA currently at FAR is haevily based on a book by Norman Davies, whose article has a big criticism section about his work on Polish history for allegedly being very pro-Polish. I'm not sure if he is controversial or non-mainstream, but I wonder if there is an UNDUE problem at that article because of it. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Sure, an anti-Polish bias would be much more reliable and make the article featured. Ignorance in Polish matters (no knowledge of Polish language) is highly mainstream. Xx236 ( talk) 09:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The way the article Far right in Poland quotes the book suggest that the book is POV. Xx236 ( talk) 10:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
National socialism is a ideological position of the extreme right and Stephen is correct in his comments about reliable sources. I see no problem here. RS consider NS as a position of the extreme right and that's what we use. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this article (in German) from the German affiliate of the Mutual UFO Network a RS for historical/biographical information on Burkhard Heim, a German physicist working mostly in the area of gravity control? An editor on the article claims that MUFON's work has been incorporated by Peter A. Sturrock in a report, but I'm still sceptical as to their reliability. The German MUFON article is the main source for the Heim article. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 03:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
I wish to have your opinion about those two manga/comics related websites :
Thanks -- KrebMarkt 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter.
And btw, why was this section archived into Archive 28 if it wasn't resolved? Is that common? Nightscream ( talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 22:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone more patient and knowledgeable than I about what constitutes a reliable source please address the issues brought up in this diatribe? -- OlEnglish ( Talk) 04:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the sources for the Sakhalin-II article is http://royaldutchshellplc.com. I would like to ask if this website could be considered as reliable source or not? Beagel ( talk) 18:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this site reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 06:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm doing research to improve our 9/11 Conspiracy Theory article. Is the American Free Press considered a reliable source? I am asking in reference to this article [15]. I tried searching the archives and surprisingly, I did not get any hits. (Maybe the search engine was having an issue when I did the search?). Anyway, is this a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised this debate has got this far - even a cursory examination (and I'd never heard of it before) of it's "stories" shows it to be trash, the usual mixture of zomg the jews are taking over the world via banking crap. I wouldn't consider it a Reliable source in form. It should be used for claims about itself and that's about it. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Huh? what you've highlighted states that it shouldn't be used in this case. I'm a bit confused what your point was. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 14:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to use this source in Design 1047 battlecruiser, but I really have no idea if it is a reliable source or not. Thanks for any help! — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
“ | Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II - Page xxiii
by Belton Y. Cooper, Stephen E. (FRW) Ambrose - History - 2003 - 384 pages Mike Bennighof. a doctoral candidate in history, did an excellent job of editing my original manuscript. |
” |
However I do believe that in this case this one area/page is a reliable source. TARTARUS talk 18:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
An editor Eubulides has entered some information on this topic that is inaccurate and medically biased , and insists that this medical bias is the only accurate and verifiable POV of relevance, and insists on negatively-biased medical sources as being the only accurate ones to include in the article. This editor has persisted in reverting entries I have brought to this topic to add the non-medical POV for greater accuracy and reliability on this topic. My sources are shouted down as being unreliable. It seems to me that this editor is attempting to exclude the balanced POV that including these references would bring. comments, please. Jvanr ( talk) 08:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Is no flying no tights.com [21] considered a reliable source? Kaguya-chan ( talk) 22:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this site reputable enough to be used as a source for the Rigor Mortis article?
-- 72.207.17.89 ( talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is the right place, but there is nowhere else to discuss single sourcing. Late last year I had a fairly critical review of British_Military_Intelligence_Systems_in_Northern_Ireland and removed some material that was speculative or inappropriate, but also some that was either unsourced or not supported by the source used. This was block reverted this morning on the basis that a newspaper article was adequate sourcing. That didn't cover the point that several removals weren't based on that.
I have fairly serious concerns about the sourcing, in part because the article relies on two, one book by a self proclaimed former intelligence operative and a newspaper article about a related criminal trial that restates a number of the points in the book.
I would assess that as a single source, since there is a clear audit trail from one to the other. I don't believe that the source is strong enough to go into the level of detail that the article goes into but would be grateful for views as to whether the claims of an individual are reliable enough to build the level of detail that the other editor wishes to include.
Thanks
ALR ( talk) 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The concerned editors of The Man Who Would Be Queen have a question, Hfarmer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Dicklyon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). We have the unusual case of a academic/scientific journal publishing peer commentaries, which were called for from the concerned segment of the general public. The paper being commented on addressed a controversy, in which allegations of professional and sexual misconduct were leveled at J. Michael Bailey. The editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, Kenneth Zucker wrote of these commentaries "I reviewed all commentaries and, by and large, made very minor editorial changes and, if there was a substantive issue, did so in consultation with the author." and stated that he published all the commentaries recieved. We haver refered the issue of weather or not these should be treated as being reliable sources on par with peer reviewed articles twice already. [22], [23]
User:Soulscanner Summed up the conversation and majority opinion thusly "If the editor published all submissions, then all submissions should be treated as a letter to an open public forum. Academic scholars are human, and it is just as likely that what they say is personal (as opposed to professional) opinion. Indeed, many scholars often confuse the two. However, if any commentary cites a fact, then the fact should be verifiable somewhere else. For example, if they cite a fact from another study, the reference should be to that study, not the letter." [24]
Specifically We have the comment by Charles Moser Department of Sexual Medicine, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco. Some of us want to use the following quotes from Moser in a section of our article entitled "academic freedom". Found in this commentary [25]
Which of those can we use?-- Hfarmer ( talk) 13:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The above is the question and it is meant to be neutral. This is what I personally think based on the facts, and WP policy. As I said a long time ago. "They, unlike Dr. Wyndzen, are known to us. People can look them up and judge for themselves what weight to give each of their comments. Just like they can for self published sources authored by autorities on the subject of the publication. Therefore I argue that those commentaries should be included. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)" [26]."
Those commentaries from people who are recognized academic experts should be included. But we have to be careful and discriminating in what we use. The above is a good test case for this principle. Mosers first statement that the allegations of professional and sexual misconduct against Bailey were basically true is in my opinion not includeable. He is not and no one person alone can be an expert on those. That is Mosers opinion and nothing more. However what Moser writes in his second statement is 100% includeable he is as much an expert on academic freedom as any academic. Moser is as much an expert on academic freedom as practically any expert can be. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Two points for now, because we've gone {{ Round In Circles}} on this issue several times:
Additionally, it may interest RSNers to know that the mediator for a recent failed formal mediation contacted Arch Sex Behav directly and confirmed that they did not verify credentials or even insist that authors use their real names."Dreger's paper was peer-reviewed by three referees and then a call for commentaries was issued via various listservs and organizations. A total of 60 people expressed an interest in writing a commentary and, in the end, 24 commentaries were received. One commentary was not accepted by me for publication because its content did not have anything to do with the target article. The 23 published commentaries are followed by a reply from Dreger."
This doesn't seem very complicated to me, but we have literally covered the same ground four or five times now, with apparent amnesia between the conversations. In the previous RSN conversations, the conclusion was generally to treat these commentaries as self-published for Wikipedia's purposes. If we could get a dozen or so RSNers to reply with simple, concrete, unambiguous statements like "These commentaries should be treated as self-published" or "No, Moser is not an expert on academic freedom", then perhaps it will eventually get resolved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (who, BTW, agrees with Moser's comments on this subject, especially when you read the entire letter instead of just the ending, which is being quoted out of context specifically to provide a constrasting opinion.)
I think that WP:PARITY is the closest thing we have to apply here; it was written to apply to fringe science topics, which Dreger analysis is not, since it doesn't present as science, nevertheless it's an idiosyncratic analysis that is widely criticized by others familiar with the topic it presents opinions on, including people from outside the narrow field of academic sexologists who mostly take Dreger's side in supporting their own. The so called "peer reviewed" status of the Dreger "controversial paper" in the special issue of their journal on this topic should not be taken as a reason to not present any of the responses to it that are published, as part of that conversation, in the same issue. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Can anyone confirm that the German website
splashcomics is a reliable source for reviews ?
Some clues
[27]
[28]
Sorry for bothering again and this time with some exotic request. -- KrebMarkt 10:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It really doesn't appear to be one, as it hosts mostly blogs, unreferenced information, and tries to sell a lot of products. It is also very biased to a specific point of view. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a revival of the unanswered
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#cal.syoboi.jp.
The issue is whatever the Japanese website
cal.syoboi.jp is RS for the original broadcast date of anime episode and episodes titles.
Additional clues : Errors on the TV program schedule are notified
here and not directly corrected by users. Every broadcast date has a backlog indicating who, why & when modification occurred.
As this source appeared in quite a number of FL, an answer would be great.--
KrebMarkt 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Any previous desicion on this site? --neon white talk 23:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The site famoushookups.com [33] is used repeatedly as a source in BLPs. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia RS requirements about fact-checking (among other things, it has X-Men comic book artist John Byrne married to actress Tilda Swinton (or else has Swinton's husband married to Byrne's (ex?) wife. So I believe these citations should be removed as it is a gossip site. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
In the article on RAF Menwith Hill a user is trying to suggest that a passing reference in a news article about another subject is enough to state that the location doesn't appear on many maps, a conspiracy theorist position. In practice the source, from the [ [1]. Independent] states that it doesn't appear in the AA Road Atlas. An alternative source says that it appeared as a collection of aerial symbols until recently, a clear indicator that it was identified as a wireless station, in Ordnance Survey parlance.
I'm pretty sure the user is a sock puppet, due to phrasing and the use of the Cite template with no edit history. Unfortunately the indicators have been removed from Wikipedia in a recent deletion
Grateful for some thoughts on the most appropriate way to deal with this.
Thanks
ALR ( talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a disagreement regarding the typing/subtyping of transsexality at homosexual transsexual.
user:Jokestress has asserted that the blog Suck my Manhole consitutes an RS, [34] [35] and is comparable to blogs appearing in the NYTimes.
I believe it does not. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
(To forstall the potential question: I am quoting the above verbatim; it is not my intent to slant anyone's input by using vulgar or attention-seeking language.)
— James Cantor ( talk) 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This really strikes me as the sort of question that answers itself when we're talking about a BLP. THF ( talk) 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Could Billboard magazine be considered secondary source? -- Efe ( talk) 13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Djuro Schwartz reliable source? His book (?):"in the Jasenovac camps of death" is used in multiple wikipedia articles but for google Djuro Schwartz do not exist or maybe is better to say the he exist only in wikipedia mirrors [36]. Situation is very similar in google books where there is no books of Djuro Schwartz [37], but his testimony is used in book of Milan Bulajić which is known for writing controversial testimony [38] in his books.
Because it is possible that I am POV in this question, I am interested to hear your comments if Djuro Schwartz is reliable source.-- Rjecina ( talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A trade association puts out a report written by a university professor criticizing an organization opposed to the trade association's goals. My own independent research shows that the report has factual errors (and perhaps outright misrepresentations), and those factual errors are making it into Wikipedia articles. I recognize that my own original research or synthesis cannot be in the article. To what extent can the original research be used on a meta-basis to demonstrate that the source flunks WP:RS? I don't wish to argue specifics or for any particular Wikipedia policy position; I just want to get a sense of how other editors understand RS policy. THF ( talk) 18:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It's unquestionably the case that the source (which is funded by a union group opposed to TBG) is wrong: it falsely attributes an award to the wrong court, and falsely implies that the award was the result of the actions of the subject of the article. On the talk page, two editors acknowledge that the author got the name of the court wrong and the size of the award wrong and left out the fact that the award was for unrelated issues, but insist that the source is still reliable and its misleading remarks about the subject of the article should remain in the article. At a minimum, WP:COATRACK would seem to apply: that the Burke Group's client was fined for an unrelated labor practice is quite irrelevant to The Burke Group article. Editors understandably have their backs up because a series of now-banned sock-puppets from TBG tried to remove the same information, but that doesn't excuse including policy-violative material. THF ( talk) 20:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC), updated 18:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some help from uninvolved editors? I'm getting tag-teamed here, and, as you can see, their style is to turn everything into a WP:TLDR issue. THF ( talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could someone who's familiar with Swedish media comment on whether or not an article published by Svenska Dagbladet could be regarded as a highly reliable third party source. The article states that the Swedish band Roxette has sold 70 million records (albums and singles combined). The figures are not directly within the article but separated in a column to the right which includes facts about the vocalist of the act. I need to make sure of Svenska Dagbladet's reliability in order to proceed with adding Roxette to the list of List of best-selling music artists wherein I am trying my best to support artists' stay with highly reliable sources. Thanks.-- Harout72 ( talk) 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Kathryn Kolbert's criticism of Rick Warren was mentioned in CNN. Are that [41] and her later statement [42] reliable sources, when what she has said is attributed to her, ie: 'Kathryn Kolbert said...' ? This is being discussed here: [43] Phoenix of9 ( talk) 05:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I've seen a few instances recently of this site being used as a source in biogs. My feeling is that we should not regard them as reliable, even if they purport to be the account of the actual person, because as far as I can tell, there is no way of verifying this. Also, our article says that the site has been compromised already this year. Thoughts welcome, as we do not seem to have addressed this as yet. -- Rodhull andemu 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This list has grown hugely unwieldy and now is full of broken links, unverifiable statistics (citing a list of faculty rather than anything claiming total affiliates), outdated information, dubious sources (like wikipedia itself), inconsistent procedures for inclusion/exclusion, and absolutely hideous non-MoS highlighting. It's used repeatedly on other university articles as a citation or a piped link/psuedo-citation. With such a classic case of synthesis run amok, where does one even begin? Madcoverboy ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Would it be considered a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.252.81 ( talk • contribs)
By that standard then is CorpWatch an appropriate external reference link in an article about a topic other than CorpWatch?
Thanks for your advice. I am new here and want to do my best to get it right. Right now I am focusing on reading and asking.
I'm sure this has been asked/covered before, but http://plastics.inwiki.org is not a reliable source because it is self published, correct? Wizard191 ( talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Would this page, mangalorean.com, be considered reliable. It seems to be news-based but I'm not sure if it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Copana2002 ( talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Reliable source? Seems WP:SPS to me, and generally WP:ELNO, but would like others' opinions. THF ( talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I found this site, which to date has been the only place on or offline that I have been able to find good quality information on armor specifications for naval vessels. Before writing and article with this as a primary source though I would like an opinion on whether or not this meets WP:RS standards. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It's heavily cited in John Buchanan (American politician), and the title of the article cited in that bio makes me think it's more of a WP:QS. THF ( talk) 08:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm. I strongly suspect not. At least it's only in the one article. THF ( talk) 08:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I have run across this as a reference in several biographies, and would like to know if it qualifies as RS ? Many thanks! Collect ( talk) 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Just seems to be a parked page with a search portal? do you have some examples? --
Cameron Scott (
talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Some examples of articles cited: (for
Fascism
[44] ,
Ed Masterson
[45] etc. all seem to use "freepedia" which is not a RS as far as I can tell. So is this site usable as RS? It is used as a ref or external ref in well over a thousand articles it appears.
Collect (
talk) 18:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone please take a look at the verifiability of the name of a city and the list of People from this city. From its foundation in 1237 as Elbing in Prussia until 1945 Elbing, Prussia, Germany the official name of this city remained the same: Elbing.
Only in 1945, when the city was conquered by the Soviet Union, who gave it to Poland, was it officially named Elbląg, Poland. In 1999 Poland formed a Warmia-Masuria district, to which it assigned the city of Elbląg (until 1945 Elbing)
A user (group?) 77. and 213. range re-adds incorrect, that People are from Prussian city of Elbląg, latest [ User:213.238.123.205] about a Prussian city of Elbląg. I explained on the list, that there was never a Prussian city of Elbląg, only a Prussian city of Elbing, which since 1945 is named Elbląg and since 1999 is assigned to Warmia-Masuria.
As verifiability of “his/their proof” this 213.238.123.205 uses a Polish search engine, which shows from 1000-1800 Elblag Results 4 books Elblag in Polish language, which actually use Elblag (and 2 German with Elbing of which 1 is referenced in Polish).
I changed the name to Elbing on the same Polish Search Engine he posted. It gives for the same time span for Elbing = = Results 732 books Elbing
After pointing out to him that there are a handful (4) books in Polish with Elblag and over 700 books (732) with Elbing he disregards the very clear proof against his false claim, and he changed it again and writes personal attacks. This (group) 213.238.123.205 wants by false statements and intimidation tactics enforce an incorrect version on Wikipedia, thereby on the general public.
Someone else please check into the personal attacks Also, if it is appropriate that a person can dictate by intimidation that 4 Polish language books about Elbląg take precedence as verifiability over 732 books about Elbing, the official name of the city from 1237-1945.
Thank you.( 71.137.194.48 ( talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC))
THF, thank you very much A.O. 71.137.194.48 ( talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)}
The editor 71.137.194.48 first claimed that the name Elbląg was invented in 1945. I showed him that there are books using it from 18th century.
There are also 448 books using this name edited before 1900 see here.
So his main argument about the invention of the name in 1945 is simply untrue. Therefore his aims to change the category description, made since March 2008 (than known as 70.133.64.78), have no actual basis. They were reverted since March 2008 by various editors who propably share my point of view. Cheers 77.253.67.106 ( talk) 22:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Two editors, hgilbert and EPadmirateur, reverted my edits to Rudolf Steiner. In particular, they claim that an ARBCOM decision disallows my placing an external link to an article titled "Rudolf Steiner and the Jews", and that this was not a Reliable Source. I have read the Arbcom decision but found nothing in there to support their claim of exclusion.
They then undid my edit trying to make the "Judaism" section more balanced.
Finally they removed the NPOV tags I placed before discussion on the Talk page had run its course, which I believe violated the usage instructions for the NPOV template.
Upon looking up the Arbcom decision, I discovered that hgilbert is a Waldorf School teacher, and so I have placed a COI tag at the top of the article.
More eyes on this would be welcome.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is the "Remedies" paragraph from the ruling:
1) Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy and the extended family of related articles such as Social Threefolding are placed on article probation. Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications. It is anticipated that this process may result in deletion or merger of some articles due to failure of verification by third party peer reviewed sources. If it is found, upon review by the Arbitration Committee, that any of the principals in this arbitration continue to edit in an inappropriate and disruptive way editing restrictions may be imposed. Review may be at the initiative of any member of the Arbitration Committee on their own motion or upon petition by any user to them.
passed 6-0 at 23:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't see anything about "polemical sources" in there. That Steiner said the things he is quoted as saying is verifiable, and I don't see original research either.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
If the question is whether the waldorfcritics.org source is RS for Steiner's views on race, my view is that no, I don't think it is. The precise relationship between theosophical notions about "ancient races" and early C20 racism and antiracism is a complex topic in the history of ideas, and an academic source is needed. However, the waldorfcritics source might be reliable for the fact that criticism has been made of Steiner's work on that account. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I just checked the talk page of the Mountain Dew article, and one guy had posted a concern about the reliability of Reference #5. Here is what he said:
"the current #5 ref (the one that lists health problems supposedly caused by the ingredents) CLEARLY lists wikipedia as it's main reference. correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't such references considered unreliable."
This user is going by the name of StoneCold89. I believe he has a big point there. How could a reference be considered reliable enough for Wikipedia if that source uses Wikipedia as its source?
I thought I would bring it up here so that I could get a more knowledgeable desicion about it. In my opinion, I agree with the guy totally.
--[| Retro00064 | ( talk/ contribs) |] 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It is a free online encyclopedia of stuff related to Washington state; the About Us section says content is submitted by "staff, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts"—"with a few noted exceptions." This particular article does have an author listed, so I'm assuming it's probably good, I just wanted to check. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone come across this site before? http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/aboutus.php -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
Apologies in advance - I've dug around in my inept manner and can't find any concrete decision or guidelines where partisan sources such as CAMERA are used.
It seems to be a never-ending fight, which I am sure others must be familiar with.
Please please please can I get some guidance? Having to rip apart every daft article of theirs is getting tedious. I've had more trouble tearing apart National Enquirer... I'm almost tempted to pull up some of their articles and complain that it should be accepted as a reliable source.
Help? GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 08:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I think they're a very useful source, actually. I find they are quoted in The New York Times "Not only the A.D.L. and other watchdog groups, like the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America..." [55] and Boston Globe "The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, a Boston-based organization that argues media coverage of the conflict is biased against Israel..." [56]. Though I notice, weirdly, they are not linked to Holocaust deniers, I think we can safely say they have useful information to impart. IronDuke 18:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
All nine of you, heavily involved editors who should know better. As to my opinion (as an equally involved editor) CAMERA fucked with wikipedia, we should return the favor. Full stop. Any uninvolved editor should see this, as should any involved editor. Any organization that active seeks to subvert the very existence and viability of an NPOV encyclopedia that anyone can edit should be a RS only about itself, and even then with extreme prejudice. Their forefeited their RS card when they fucked with wikipedia. The day the New York Times does the same thing, my position will be the same. -- Cerejota ( talk) 12:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, as a sort-of-involved editor (same topic area) I suggest that CAMERA should be cited only as a source on what the opinions of pro-Israel advocates are. Their reliability for actual facts is highly questionable, to say the least. But there are articles like Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where they're important sources, and articles like Muhammad al-Dura where they should probably have a sentence or two. They shouldn't be used in BLPs at all, they should be used very sparingly if at all in highly important "mainstream" articles like Operation Defensive Shield, UNRWA, or Second Intifada where there are books full of reliable-source material available. Better to cite sources with a well-established reputation. < eleland/ talk edits> 18:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
CAMERA is not a reliable source for information about the world, only for information about the perspective of exteme pro-Israel advocacy. This is readily apparent from their publications, but it should also be blindingly obvious that any organisation that would attempt to secretly interfere with an encyclopedia in order to promote their perspective cannot be trusted to be honest in their reporting. That has nothing to do with "tit-for-tat" reprisals, it is simply that their action has proven them to be devoid of the principle of honesty. Disclaimer: I've edited Israel and the apartheid analogy, but I've attempted to be non-partison there and have raised the heckles of both "sides" in reasonably equal measures. I would trust CAMERA as a source of facts about as much as I would trust Hamas: not at all. They should only be cited as an example of the position of an extreme lobby group, they should never be cited on points of fact. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 20:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(undent) It's not about whether people will give you flak for using a source or not. It's about whether the source meets the criteria in WP:RS, which are relatively objective. What criteria from WP:RS does CAMERA meet? If it doesn't meet the criteria, then it's clearly not a reliable source for Wikipedia. I don't think it meets the criteria for the reasons I mentioned above, but I'd be interested to hear evidence to the contrary. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 02:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on at Stick candy as to if a sales website can be used to describe the various dimensions that they are sold in. The sentence is:
Some editors wish to use pages like this to get references for the dimensions and typical flavours that they are sold in. Another editor refuses to allow these types of pages to be used as references saying they violate WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTLINK and WP:OR collectively, however with no other sources available states that the content should not be included as it violates WP:V. I personally have looked and have been unable to find what we would traditionally call reliable sources, not surprising that not a lot of newspaper articles have been written about the sizes you can get of stick candy.
As the page sits now it has been edit protected. The sentences in question are included with opposing editor attaching weasel words citation needed original research? tags. These tags also appear later in the article regarding typical costs (25¢-75¢ each) and how stick candy is often referred to as "old fashioned" (Note that since then I have found references for the old fashioned portions, but since the page is protected I added it to the talk page for now.)
In short, in lieu of traditional reliable sources not being available to reference the dimensions, are pages like the one listed above acceptable to reference non controversial material such as the length and diameter of which candy is sold?-- kelapstick ( talk) 22:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
It's nice to see so much interest in the candy stick article. I would just like to piont out that while the citations used don't qualify as reliable sources, they are useful for verifying some basics about the candy up until superior sources can be found. They are not being used to make assertions, just to establish basic desciriptions of size, flavoring and pricing. I suppose this information could be taken out, but that would make the article worse not better. My other idea was to hide the citations so they show up on the edit page, but not in article space, if this appeases the enforcer. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 20:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is covered by the same case-by-case standard as in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Is_a_Discovery_or_History_Channel_documentary_considered_a_reliable_source.3F. In this case, the documentary simply gives a platform to the conspiracy theory of John Buchanan (American politician): a couple of editors are arguing that "the BBC" is a reliable source, and therefore Buchanan's views about a historical event are entitled to the same reporting as (and perhaps more space than!) Arthur Schlesinger's. Full discussion at Talk:Business_Plot#Buchanan. THF ( talk) 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(ec)This is the link to the BBC Radio 4 programme. [57] There is a programme synopsis online and the show available to listen to by clicking a link. THF has argued that because it has included Buchanan's views it is therefore an unreliable source, because any source that uses Buchanan must by definition be unreliable. The opposing view is that BBC Radio 4 is a reliable source by definition, and that gives validity to include Buchanan's views in the article. The principle has been established for some time; see this earlier discussion. [58] There is no argument that Buchanan should be given more space than Arthur Schlesinger: that is just creating heat and dust. Ty 23:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment:I'd like to add that I don't think its constructive when the "conspiracy theory" card/label (using the term in a disparaging way) is used so often by an editor because it has the effect of a slur on the content in question. It really,unintentionally I'm sure, puts the editor which supports the content in a position of having to shift focus to debating the "conspiracy theory" categorization of the content. That categorization tends to stifle and deflect discussion and restrict appropriate article discussion and content (because very few editors want to be seen as supporting any kind of way-out conspiracy theory). Usually,as in this case, it is only a personal POV as to whether something qualifies as a so-called conspiracy theory. I also think these types of comments make collaboration almost impossible: "not a single person in the world of any credibility holds the position Buchanan does... not even the fevered conspiracists who first invented the Jewish banking coup allegations in 1934 went as far as Buchanan. The theory is so self-evidently insane and fictional that no one's bothered to rebut it.", even though directed towards content, it fuels combative editing because it makes editors who think the content is valid for the article feel as though we are promoting some kind of evil and crazy agenda that I,for one, certainly don't want to be promoting. It's also annoying that Collect and THF keep running to noticeboards and administrators when any article discussion is not going their way; at least that's the way it appears to me. Abbarocks ( talk) 02:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
When a person's views are reported by a reliable source, it means we can report those views as verifiably belonging to that person. The weight that is given to those views in an article should depend on the weight that is given to them in reliable sources. Whether those views will be presented as likely to reflect objective reality will depend on whether the person quoted is considered an expert in the field. Expertise can be established by how reliable sources (including those other than the one used for the quote) describe the person's expertise, and whether they are widely published as an expert in the field. Buchanan is quoted by the BBC on this subject, which means his view may be worth including as a reliable source has reported it (although unless his view is also reported elsewhere, that doesn't give strong weight to including his view as the BBC report may be a lapse in editorial judgement). If Buchanan has a reputation as an unreliable expert on political matters, especially one who has many fringe views on this or other somewhat related subjects, then that should also be taken into account in terms of how his views are reported. If the whole article is about a fringe subject, then it will naturally be made up of well-documented fringe views so this is less of a concern. However, if it's an article about mainstream views, then the article should not unduly imply that a quote from a person with many fringe views reflects a mainstream expert perspective on the subject. Ryan Paddy ( talk) 03:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The documentary makes the claim (and is cited for the proposition): "The investigations mysteriously turned to vapor when it comes time to call them to testify. FDR's main interest was getting the New Deal passed, and so he struck a deal in which it was agreed that the plotters would walk free if Wall Street would back off of their opposition to the New Deal and let FDR do what he wanted." This is the conspiracy theory to explain why, if the conspiracy happened, there weren't any prosecutions. But this fiction is completely disproven by Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, a 1935 case where business interests successfully struck down the centerpieces of FDR's New Deal, the National Recovery Administration and National Industrial Recovery Act. It is quite clear that business interests didn't "let FDR do what he wanted" and the "deal" that the documentary claims to be documenting never happened. It's completely fictional WP:FRINGE. THF ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Is currently used as a lede cite as "Encyclopedia Britannica" on Drudge Report. The cite is from an article on the Huffington Post, and characterizes the Drudge site as "conservative." I suggested that the word "online" be placed to make clear that it is the online site being used, and that the article from which the claim is taken be mentioned. This was roundly rejected. Beyond that, however, I have a lingering doubt that an encyclopedia which solicits revisions from its readers is all that much better than a "flagged revision wiki." Also that a site where the cursor shows you ads every time you go over a marked word is a bit less than we demand of other sites. Is "online EB" fully utile as RS? Thanks! Collect ( talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
To get this back to discussing the "online" EB... yes, it is a reliable tertiary source. Arguably, the most reliable online encyclopedia that exists, in fact. Blueboar ( talk) 02:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, try a book called "Consider the Source" by James F. Broderick and Darren W. Miller. It's a book about news websites. It has a chapter on Drudge Report, and a paragraph on page 108 about whether it has a conservative bias or not. It's on Google Books. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Springer page. Co-publication with Higher Education Press.
There is notice of the Frontiers ... in China series at Thomson Reuters:
However, this is a press release from Thomson Reuters, apparently Manuscript central, a TR activity, was chosen by Higher Education Press.
Beijing Review has an article about the web site, "Higher Education Press: Launch of Online "Frontiers in China," http://journal.hep.com.cn.
Chinese government web site has this on Higher Education Press.
Publisher's Weekly has a 2008 article on Publishing's Top Guns.
Note that the above lends some weight to the Thomson Reuters announcement. This is the world's largest book publisher.
Apparently HEP is the largest publisher in China.
Reliable source for physics, sufficient to assert it, not as a final conclusion? Any advice, caveats? -- Abd ( talk) 23:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am here asking for assistance not to complain about anyone. The following article Hala Sultan Tekke contains this section Significance, following are my reservations on this section:
I know in wikipedia we can edit any section of any article if we find out that it is in violation with any of the above policies, but the thing is user:chesdovi is insisting on having all of those violations, and refused all of my edits.
Now let us move to the other part of reservations of the contents of the section:
I want to add one important thing, I am not saying that Islam is the only correct thing in this world, all what I am saying is that: If there is a holy site in Islam then Islam through it’s designated channels (Qoran and/or Hadith) should indicate to the holiness of this place, or at least through reliable Islamic scholars and through reliable and verifiable Islamic resources, not through unreliable and unverifiable NON MUSLIM scholars and books. This is my main point. The usage of reliable Islamic sources in the context of the holiness of this site is not available in this section whatsoever.
Last, I want to tell you that I was trying my best to solve this issue without asking for assistance but with no use as the same user is insisting on the usage of his unreliable sources. The required assistance is: How best I should handle this issue, I thought of nominating this section to deletion but there is no such process at wiki, could you please assist me here.
Looking forward to hearing your feedback. And please forgive me for the long thread. Yamanam ( talk) 13:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. This thread is posted at No original research noticboard as well. Yamanam ( talk) 09:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)