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 285 | ← | Archive 290 | Archive 291 | Archive 292 | Archive 293 | Archive 294 | Archive 295 |
PinkNews was last discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Pink News. It came to my attention recently when it was used as a source for claims that Anne Frank was bisexual.
URL: [ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/ ].
It is currently linked to (including talk pages) 2143 times. [1]
It is cited 714 times. [2] Many of the pages cited are BLPs and in many cases PinkNews is used to support a claim that someone is gay or homophobic.
Does everyone still agree with the conclusion of the previous RSNB discussion?
Under what circumstances should statements cited only to PinkNews be removed? BLPs only? All articles?
Under what circumstances should citations to PinkNews be replaced with Citation Needed but the claim retained? BLPs only? All articles?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*Generally reliable. Has editorial oversight and is an important source for LGBT news. It should not be used for Frank's sexuality, as this is a topic that has significant academic writing.--
Eostrix (
talk) 06:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. And if the view is represented only in a PinkNews article and not in the numerous biographies and peer-reviewed papers, then it is a view of extremely low prominence. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Dlthewave has removed passages from the race and intelligence article ( 9 February and 24 February) with the rationale that they are primary sources. Now he tagged another passage with the primary source inline template ( 27 April). Grayfell reverted my removal of the primary tag, so the interpretation clearly is controversial.
There were a few other sources that were claimed to be primary sources, but this one was in all three edits:
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Is this a WP:PRIMARY source?
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. A scientific review article released in such a journal, even if authored by controversial authors like Jensen and Rushton, isn't a primary source. The name of the article, Thirty Years of Research..., already reveals the nature of it. They are reviewing research on the topic and then offering their own conclusions, like a normal article in such a journal. Wikipedia then attributes their conclusion on the research and cites the article.
WP:PRIMARY only states that something like this is a primary source: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment
. However, in the
discussion on Dlthewave's talkpage, he cited
WP:ALLPRIMARY which states that A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)
. WP:ALLPRIMARY is titled "All sources are primary for something". Then what's the point of the primary source tagging if every source is a primary source in some way? Are you allowed to remove any peer-reviewed journal article on this basis?
With the recent race and intelligence RfC determining some race and intelligence authors as WP:FRINGE, like Jensen and Rushton, editors should be even more careful here. The policy has an extensive section on sourcing which is of use here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Sourcing. -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argued for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races., which is cited to R&J 2005. This specific content is talking about Rushton and Jensen's views, and that's cited to Rushton and Jensen's paper expressing their views. R&J are primary sources for their own opinion. But, I think all that misses the point a bit. The problem is that the primary source doesn't establish neutrality – i.e., that inclusion of R&J's opinion is WP:DUE. If R&J's opinion were WP:DUE, we should be able to source it to someone else describing R&J's opinion (a secondary source). So I think an {{ undue}} tag is better than a {{ primary}} tag personally, but either way, I agree the content isn't properly sourced in accordance with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Levivich dubious – discuss 07:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argued for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races."which is sourced to Rushton and Jensen (free access available here courtesy of Linda Gottfredson).
"A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)."In this case, Rushton and Jensen's paper consists mainly of a secondary review of previous research, but it also includes their own views such as
"Still other policy issues (e.g., affirmative action, the value of diversity) might merit reconsideration based on the degree to which heredity as opposed to culture turns out to be the causal agent"which is a primary source for the authors' views. As others have pointed out, the real concern here is that a primary-source opinion does not necessarily meet WP:DUE WEIGHT which is based on secondary coverage, so perhaps an "undue" tag would have been more appropriate. – dlthewave ☎ 12:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how or when to add a source to the list, but as it was recently challenged by a new editor, would like it to be considered for inclusion so that it can be easily referenced. It is Creative Spirits, a resource for matters relating to Indigenous peoples in Australia. Although I was initially a bit cautious because it is a self-published source (created by Jens Korff), I always check sources, and have found his material to be pretty meticulously sourced. (This means that I have often also gone to the original source, if available.) I have also found him cited in other sources upon occasion. As he says on the page I've linked to "Some of my content, both articles and images, have also been published in other works around the world", including a Year 10 textbook. The National Library of Australia catalogue entry is here, and that also leads to their archiving of the website here. He is quoted on the Victorian education website here - History: Aboriginal Australia and on Austlit and there's an article on Artshub (paywall). It's cited in an article in Aboriginal History (journal) and others here, here, here, and others. Can someone please advise if/how this can be recorded as an RS, or does it need to be posted elsewhere for debate? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Is HITC news piece " Never Have I Ever: Who is Darren Barnet? Explore the age, Instagram and previous roles of Paxton actor" a reliable source for the Darren Barnet article? Specifically for his DOB. Other sources state his birthday is April 27 but not the year. An IP user keeps adding it back to the article. TJMSmith ( talk) 15:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a reliable source " [13]" written by Metro, which can conclude has born circa 1991. You can change it back, because IP user 2600:1700:5040:3cf0:4195:535c:1a77:be2d keeps deleting it. It is clear Metro spoke to the actor. Factchecking139 ( talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is some disagreement about the Cyntoia Brown article.
People removed the references to court documents that I added. They are claiming that the article should not use primary sources, such as court documents because they could be misinterpreted or taken out of context. I disagree and would like for the Cyntioa Brown article to cite court documents, along with secondary sources.
Below is a list of quotes from the Brown article. For each quote, I copied and pasted the exact expert in the court document that it references. All of the article text that cites court documents is completely supported by those court documents. On top of that, I referenced specific page numbers so that Wikipedia readers who click on the documents know exactly where to look. There is absolutely no way these documents could be misinterpreted or taken out of context.
I will also point out that court documents are far more reliable than opinion pieces and news articles. A judge writing an opinion is much less likely to make a mistake than a journalist. Additionally, many other articles about crimes and people convicted of crimes (including cases for more controversial than the Brown one) cite court documents. I believe that primary sources should be allowed in the Brown article.
ARREST AND TRIAL SECTION Example 1. Article text "Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. [1]" Document text "Based upon the nature of the victim’s wound and the lividity of his body, the medical examiner concluded that, when the petitioner fired the gun, the victim was lying in his bed in the same manner as he was later found, on his right side and stomach and with his fingers partially interlocked." The court doc does not say he was asleep. But several other secondary soruces cited do. Example 2. Article text "A forensic pathologist testified at trial that, due to the nature of Allen's injury, he would not have been able to make any voluntary movements after being shot. Thus, in her opinion, Allen's hands were clasped at the time of his death. [2]" Document text "She (Dr. McMaster, the forensic pathologist) added, 'Because of the nature of the wound, I would not expect [the victim] to have any type of voluntary movement or to be able to move his extremities or his body in any way' after being shot. Thus, Dr. McMaster said that in her professional opinion, the victim's hands were clasped at the time of his death, as they were in the crime scene photographs taken by police after the incident." Example 3. Article text "Allen's gunshot wound had characteristics of those fired at close range. Additionally, gunshot residue from Allen's pillowcase showed that the gun was three to six inches away when fired. [3]" Document text "Although the medical examiner classified this as an indeterminate range wound, the stellate lacerations around the entrance wound are “typically” seen with “close range fire,” within “a couple inches or less, a few inches.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1973; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14- 15, PageID# 1993, 2005-2007.) Gunshot residue from one of the victim’s pillowcases indicated that the gun was three to six inches from the pillowcase when the gun discharged. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1550-1552, 1563-1564.)" Example 4. Article text "On August 14, Brown was taken to the Western Mental Health Institute for an evaluation. According to court documents, Brown attacked and threatened a nurse at the Mental Health Institute after the nurse did not allow her to call her adoptive mother. Brown jumped over the nurse's desk, grabbed her hair and face, and hit her, giving her several bruises and abrasions. During the attack, Brown allegedly told the nurse 'I shot that man in the back of the head one time, bitch, I’m gonna shoot you in the back of the head three times. I’d love to hear your blood splatter on the wall.' The nurse, along with another Western Mental Health Institute employee who witnessed the incident testified at trial. [2] [4]" Document text Source 4. Sixth Circuit. "On August 14, 2004, while a patient at Western Mental Health Institute in Bolivar, the petitioner demanded to make a phone call to her mother, but the nurse, Kathy Franz, told her that she could not use the phone. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1479-1480, 1483, 1527-1528, 1530.) The petitioner “got angry” and attacked Ms. Franz. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1528.) She jumped over the nurses’ desk, grabbed Ms. Franz by the hair and face, and hit her. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1480, 1485, 1528.) They both struggled onto the floor, and Ms. Franz received abrasions and bruises from the attack. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1485, 1528.) The petitioner threatened Ms. Franz’s life, saying: I’m going to do you like I did him, but I’m not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I’m going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1481, 1528-1529.)" Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Kathy Franz testified that on August 14, 2004, she worked as a nurse at a facility[4] at which she encountered the defendant. Franz said that one day, the defendant asked her to use the telephone. Franz told the defendant that she could not use the telephone, at which point the defendant grabbed her by the hair and by the face; after that, the two women struggled and "both wound up [on] the floor." According to Franz, the defendant told her, "I'm going to do you like I did him, but I'm not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I'm going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall." Eventually, four or five of the facility's staff physically restrained the defendant. Another of the facility's employees, Sheila Campbell, witnessed this episode and testified about it at trial. The substance of Campbell's testimony largely mirrored that of Franz's, although Campbell added that the defendant asked permission to phone her mother before the incident and that the incident left Franz with bruises and abrasions." Example 5 Article text "A recording of a phone call Brown made to her adoptive mother while in jail was presented as further evidence against her, as in the conversation she said, referring to Johnny Allen, 'I executed him.' [5]" Document text "During a recorded telephone conversation on October 29, 2005, between the petitioner and her adoptive mother, Ellenette Washington, the petitioner stated to Ms. Washington, “I killed somebody. . . . I executed him.” (Telephone Recording, R.E. 14-6, PageID# 715; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1915; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-15, PageID# 2041-2044.)"
Example 6 Article text "Brown also spoke to several jail cellmates about the crime, and confessed to killing Allen "just to see how it felt to kill somebody." [2] [6]" Document text Source 6. Sixth Circuit. "In November 2004, while confined in Davidson County, the petitioner discussed the murder with three other detainees, including Shayla Bryant, who heard the petitioner give the following explanation for her criminal charges: She basically . . . said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1655-1656.) Ms. Bryant did not believe the petitioner because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) Ms. Bryant told the petitioner that she was lying, at which point the petitioner started laughing. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) The petitioner then confided that she shot the victim 'just to see how it fe[lt] to kill somebody.'” Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death. The defendant told Bryant about the charges she was facing, and Bryant overheard a conversation between the defendant and Williamson in which the defendant 'basically said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him.' Bryant told the defendant that she did not believe the defendant's account because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' Bryant testified that the defendant then 'started laughing.' Through notes, the defendant 'basically said she shot the man just to see how it feel[s] to kill somebody.' Bryant said that the defendant appeared 'as jolly as she wanted to be' while discussing the victim's death. Bryant added, 'it didn't look like she had any remorse. She didn't cry. . . . She was just there.'" Example 7 Article text "The cellmate later gave police a note Brown had given her which said 'everything is the truth, I swear it on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feeling of nervousness.' At trial, a forensic document examiner testified that the note was written by Brown. The cellmate whom Brown had given the note to and spoken with also testified at trial. [2] [6]" Document text Source 2. 2008 Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death...Bryant said that she and the defendant passed notes to each other through a hole in the wall between their cells. On cross-examination, she said that she flushed most of the defendant's notes down the toilet but that she kept one of the notes, which she eventually gave to police. The note read: 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life, except for `I thought he was getting a gun' and the feelings of nervousness.'" Source 6. Sixth Circuit."Like other detainees, Ms. Bryant and the petitioner routinely passed notes, and Ms. Brown retained and disclosed one note in which the petitioner wrote, 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feelings of nervousness.” (Handwritten Note, R.E. 14-5, PageID# 600; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656-1658, 1683-1684, 1788-1789, 1797-1798; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1868-1869, 1894-1896.) MURDER OF ALLEN SECTION Example 8 Article text On August 7, Brown had a neighbor drive her to the Walmart where she had left Allen's truck. She asked the neighbor to drive her back to Allen's house so that she could steal more items but he refused. Brown told him that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns.” [7] Document text "Later that day, around 5:00 p.m., the petitioner knocked on the door at the InTown Suites of roommates Richard Reed and Samuel Humphrey. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331.) Mr. Reed answered the door, and the petitioner asked him to drive her to Wal-Mart, which he agreed to do. (Trial Testimony R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331-1334.)." En route back to the hotel, the petitioner asked Mr. Reed for a ride to a nearby house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1337.) She explained that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns,” and she wanted Mr. Reed “to go over there and help her clean it out.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1337.) Mr. Reed did not believe her, and he refused to drive her to the house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1339.) Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
Slatersteven You said one of the documents says he was asleep when shot. Did you mean none of the documents say he was asleep when shot? The court docs don't directly say he was asleep when shot but many secondary sources we cited do. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
References
|
---|
|
I have collapsed the references from this section, they were appearing in other sections. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I refereed to STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN as the Court of Criminal Appeals doc because it is an opinion from Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals. That doc talks about the forensic pathologist saying Allen's hands were clasped when he died. That's what the text says. Other secondary sources back up the claim that investigators believe he was asleep.
There is no original research or interpretations of the documents. The article says what the docs (and other sources used) state. I truly do not see why this should not be allowed. Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 19:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Ginegrbreadhouse97
Slatersteven I'm not following you. Can you explain what you mean? Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
The secondary sources do say he was asleep when shot in words. And the court docs talk about the position his body was found. If you want, I will use the court docs only after the text about how he was found. And I will only use the secondary sources for the claim that police believe he was asleep when shot. It will read like this
"Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot.Secondary sources Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. Primary sources [1]" Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
Reference
|
---|
Again, I've collapsed that reference. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
So that each claim has a specific source.
Can we use primary court documents or not? Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
We are advised not to use them? But does that mean we are completely banned form using them? Or just that we should do so sparingly? I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out. May I add some of the Brown court documents back? Slatersteven Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 22:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
@
Gingerbreadhouse97: In the case of assertions about living person, which appears to apply here since the linked article is about a living person and this seems to concern what she may or may not have done, then do not use them as the sole source per
WP:BLPPRIMARY which says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
"
As for "I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out", well firstly there is no such thing as a moderator here. Second, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Third when the issue comes to the attention of BLP experienced editors, the end result is nearly always the removal of the information sourced solely to court documents. This often results in complaints, even though BLP policy clearly says not to do it.
So basically all you and your fellow crime article editors are doing is creating more work for everyone, and creating ill-feeling when the inevitable happens. Yes sometimes such additions skate by for years before someone notices them, but that's still not helping anything. Instead, you need to write articles which comply with our policies and guidelines, such as using reliable secondary sources, so that someone else doesn't have to fix things for you. It may be okay to add the primary sources in addition to the secondary sources but make sure that all assertions you make are supported exclusively by the secondary sources.
If you do so, the end result is a better article (from the POV of what we consider a good article) and less time wasted by editors adding stuff which is going to be removed, and editors needing to remove the stuff which should never have been added, and needless discussion on the removal of such additions. If you cannot find secondary sources discussing some aspect you feel is important, the unfortunate conclusion is it's probably not as important as you think it is.
Some questions.
What if the text cites court docs alongside secondary sources and is not completely based on court docs?
Can we cite court docs when writing articles about events rather than people?
What if the court doc is the only source available for a specific piece of information? In some cases there are no secondary sources to cite and only court docs.
Why can't we use court docs in articles about living people? Court docs are much more objective than news articles or opinion pieces. A judge writing a legal opinion is far less likely to get the facts wrong than a columnist writing a biased op-ed to promote political opinions.
Thanks Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 16:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
What if the perp is not alive? Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Some other passing mentions as well. As far as I can tell The Canary (website) is often but not universally regarded as unreliable. It's being used on Julian Assange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), twice, both for opinion not fact, pretty much in its area of maximum bias. I'm hardly a renowned right-winger but there's no way I would ever use this site as a source. Their "mission" is "A free and fair society where we nurture people and planet." Nothing to do with accurate reporting. Guy ( help!) 23:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
References
We are going completely off subject, this board is not about political positions of news outlets, its about Reliability. We should not mistake having a different political viewpoint for whether a source's factual reliability is good or bad (that is irrelevant). The Canary does not hide their left of centre bias but it has a clean factual record and they always source their information to credible media outlets such as Forbes, BBC, The Guardian and Huffington Post etc. Perhaps opposing editors could present concrete evidence of unreliability rather than say its unreliable just because of its political viewpoint. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé has pushed-backed against what he characterises as the 'weaponisation' of antisemitism allegations. … [T]he historian, known for his work on Zionism and the destruction of Palestine, says this is being done in order to suppress debate and discussion on Palestine. ... Pappé says antisemitism allegations are "a tool to stifle the debate on Palestine, but it also, it kind of weaponises the allegation of antisemitism against the promotion to positions of power of people that Israel and it’s supporters do not want to be in those positions".
Can we close and put an end to what may well turn into antisemtism and gets users banned? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Off-topic thread
|
---|
OT; Can someone please explain me why
User:JzG sometime tag as Guy (as here) and sometimes as JzG (as on
Julian Assange)?
|
There is a clear consensus that Global News is a generally reliable source including for news and current affairs coverage.
Is Global News [26] a generally reliable source for news and current affairs coverage? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
"Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source: how did you come to consider it worth questioning? - David Gerard ( talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Is using this Daily Mail article as a source for a quote acceptable? I used this on an article I created, Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina. The author of the Daily Mail article, Eddie Hearn (it states above the article "by Eddie Hearn for the Daily Mail"), is Anthony Joshua's promoter/matchmaker. The quote used is Hearn revealing his shortlist of potential opponents for Joshua's 10 December 2016 bout. It's not a random journalist's opinion or a second hand quote, it's the man himself stating who he has in mind for the bout. The 'Background' section in boxing event articles details potential opponents, the decision making process and negotiations leading up to the event itself.
I know the Daily Mail is deemed "generally unreliable", and since finding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I've always checked and based which sources I use off this list. But does the above usage come under the "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." aspect? – 2. O. Boxing 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times has admitted to removing facts editing their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign.
*,
* Are there any limitations on how this piece can be used in his BLP? For instance, would the edited passage be allowed?
Before: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
*
After: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.
*
Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."(links to NYT) petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable."is still noted in the article. What they did was correct a somewhat ambiguous statement that could be interpreted to mean that there are other cases of misconduct, which was not what their reporting found. There has been some justifiable criticism of the Times for not including an edit notice with the correction. According to Times executive editor Dean Baquet
“We didn’t think it was a factual mistake. I thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn’t something factual we were correcting,” Baquet said.It is not unusual for a subject of an article, or anyone else for that matter, to request a clarification. We expect reliable sources to correct statements which could easily be misinterpreted. Making a correction does not invalidate a source. The corrected statement reflects a summary of their reporting and could be included although whether it should be is a different issue. CBS527 Talk 05:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"No other allegation about sexual assault or sexual misconduct surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of physical boundary violations by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."By removing the text about inappropriate touching, the NYTs is further separating those behaviors from sexual misconduct. But regardless, the statement as a whole is problematic because it inaccurately states that staff could not corroborate details, when in the same article they write than two interns remember Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times reported about the allegation some weeks after several other publications; it stated that "[n]o other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden".How should this be handled? Should it stand as is, without a note that the phrasing includes some editing advice from the subject of the "investigation"? petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times has admitted to removing facts from their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign." The fact at issue therein is the text "beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." which was removed from the paragraph that begins with "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting..." after the article was first published.
Should the following text be used in any Wikipedia article:
(a) nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. (b) The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."*
The sentence was changed from The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable
. This change was made, per the NYT, after the Biden campaign complained that the "phrasing was awkward".
*,
*
The edited statement is
currently live on the
Joe Biden BLP without noting the campaign's involvement.
petrarchan47
คุ
ก 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a poll on whether to have an official poll on a settled matter? ANS: NO. I don't see any significant argument here to deprecate the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Biden's campaign is behind the removal of a crucial caveat...is a misleading and bad-faith statement. Zaathras ( talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"the campaign's involvement"is misleading. Journalism happens with reporters talking to subjects, and the subjects can try to correct the record. It seems that the NYT went to the Biden campaign before publishing the article, the Biden campaign made a few points, and the NYT agreed with them. This is standard operating procedure. The NYT comments are valid. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"The Times report was soundly criticized after the paper opted to stealth-edit—i.e., make a change to an article that’s not disclosed in an update or correction".[30] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Is al-Aʻlām by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli reliable for the ethnicity of Al-Tahawi? I know that it's a tertiary source (a tarajim: biographies), but I don't know its reliability. Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The critical views/criticism language of The 1619 Project -- other than the bits of reflexive conservative anklebiting -- is almost completely sourced to the World Socialist Web Site. This does NOT look kosher to me. -- Calton | Talk 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Both sites have issues of their own - postcard has oftentimes posted fake news and at one point its founder was arrested for that ( https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/postcard-news-editor-mahesh-hegde-booked-for-spreading-fake-news-arrested-in-bengaluru-1201009-2018-03-30 ). On the other hand, tfipost seems to at least post true stuff, though it still cherrypicks news from what I understand. So, are both of these sources any good in reporting political news (which is about 90% of what they post)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 ( talk) 07:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:* Hi @
Newslinger:, and thanks for your advice. I noticed that you’d started the discussion about getting OpIndia and Swarajya deprecated, and it interested me (yes, I know that it’s 2 months old). But since the sources weren’t deprecated due to lack of an RfC, I’d like to know if it would be a sensible idea to create a new discussion in the RfC area regarding the sources.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (
talk) 11:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Since tfipost.com is already on the spam blacklist, it would be unnecessary to deprecate it. Postcard News is not yet on the spam blacklist, but since it is a fake news website, I recommend removing the current citations and then requesting blacklisting if editors continue to add this domain into articles after the existing citations are removed. An RfC is not required for this. — Newslinger talk 10:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask the community to review the ban on Verywell. Verywell is a family of four websites: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, and Verywell Family. They deliver short articles on very basic topics, written in simple, plain language. Generally, they don't offer much content that can't be found in better, more professional sources. However, outright banning the Verywell sites is excessive. They don't seem to be unreliable. They just offer high-school level content, written in simple language, aimed at a wide audience. As a tertiary source, it may be of use in certain situations. Recently, I tried to cite a Verywell Mind article at ICD-11 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it turned out to be on the spam-blacklist. I bypassed this by using links from Google and archive.today, but instead of skirting the rules, I'd rather see the ban lifted.
Verywell is part of Dotdash, the successor of About.com, which closed down in 2017. Dotdash and its websites are currently listed at WP:RSPSOURCES with a mark. The entry claims that the Verywell sites are on there "[d]ue to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". No source is given for this claim. The entry lists 16 threads. 15 of them discuss the now defunct About.com. Only one of them, from December 2018, is about Verywell, but it wasn't really a discussion. I found no actual debate on Verywell anywhere on Wikipedia, although I did find two LinkReports regarding verywell.com, a domain which now redirects to verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com ( search).
Each Verywell site has a team of reviewers consisting of board-certified physicians and other professionals, who approve articles before they are posted (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). Also, each Verywell site has a certificate from the Health On the Net Foundation, which should assure some degree of quality (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family).
Also listed in the Dotdash entry at WP:RSPSOURCES are: The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, and TripSavvy. I think each should have their own entry and explanation, similar to Investopedia, which is also owned by Dotdash, but has its own entry. Furthermore, I wonder if Dotdash itself should be on the WP:RSPSOURCES list, because the website dotdash.com is in itself not a source.
I suggest the Verywell websites be marked as , with an explanation that they are tertiary references, should be used with caution, and only as ancillary sources.
Thanks for reading, Manifestation ( talk) 18:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As clear from the blacklisting requests and the reports that COIBot saved, this was blacklisted because it was spammed, and rather clear COPYVIO violations. That some organisation is well respected, or that a site is regarded to be a reliable source does not exclude that said organisation is participating in aggressive SEO activities. It is unlikely to be unbanned until the spamming has stopped. Whitelisting is your way forward for the material you really need. Seen the multitude of IPs (there are IPs in a couple of ranges who have been adding this) and editors (there is a sockpuppetry case) this is better controlled through whitelisting (no, 1 year is generally not enough).
Note: do not evade the ban, you are violating policies. Get what you really need whitelisted. — Dirk Beetstra T C 04:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As for my personal opinion, I think Verywell's reliability is similar to the reliability of Dotdash's other websites ( marginally reliable), although WP:MEDRS – which emphasizes the importance of high-quality academic sources and warns against the use of popular press sources including Verywell for "scientific and medical information" (in WP:MEDPOP) – should be taken into account. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Very surprised to see NPR listed as "No consensus" on WP:RSP. On discussions on this noticeboard it seems fairly unanimously accepted as a reliable source ( [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] etc); this is the closest I can find to a centralised discussion. Of the two listed in the perennial sources summary, neither seems to discuss the points mentioned (for example, that it is "generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of American politics") or give any evaluation of the organisation's accuracy as a whole ( the first not at all, the second discusses a possible mistake in what is supposedly an NPR report).
NPR has clear and extremely detailed guidelines on ethics including accuracy, impartiality, transparency and so on, one of the highest trust-to-distrust ratios among major media outlets, [1] beaten only by the Economist and the BBC, and its listeners have been found on more than one occasion to be the most informed and least likely to believe misinformation. [2] [3]
(Also, since I'm here, PBS used to be listed on WP:RSP and I'm unsure how to find out where/why it's gone?)
Thanks. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
References
There appear to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I would like to discuss the wording, Here is my first shot:
Feel free to suggest other wording. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 08:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I believe that those responding to the suggestion above supported the following wording instead of my my first shot:
Do we agree on the above wording? and on turning the entry green? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for NPR at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources -- assuming the chart's description is based on those two short discussions, the current wording of the Wikipedia chart entry is a complete misrepresentation of those two discussions. How does that happen? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the BBB a reliable source for this statement at Genesis Communications Network?
"Anderson created the network in 1998 "as a way to promote his company, Midas Resources, a precious metals firm which as of September 11, 2015, Theodore Anderson's bullion coin representative registration. No. 40389579, was revoked. Further, Theodore Anderson was prohibited from being an owner, officer, member, or shareholder of any entity that holds a bullion coin dealer registration in the State of Minnesota for two years. [1] [2] "
I've underlined the text in question, the promotion bit is from the other source. Note that the " before 'as a way' has no concluding ". Doug Weller talk 14:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Is this a reliable source? I wanted to use it to source a sentence about vegetation changes in Ethiopia during the African humid period, but I know nothing about this publication. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Article
Andrija Zmajević, section
Biography, sentence Zmajević was born to a Serbian family in Perast, in the Bay of Kotor, at the time part of the Republic of Venice (now Montenegro) in late July 1628.
Are the following sources reliable for the claim "to a Serbian family"?
U svom literarnom radu ispoljavao je višestruko interesovanje prema istoriji, kulturi i narodu "kraljevstva Srbije". Održavao je prijateljske veze sa najistaknutijim srpskim prvacima svog doba, s hercegovačkim mitropolitom Vasilijem Jovanovićem (Sveti Vasilije Ostroški) i s patrijarhom Arsenijem III Čarnojevićem. O patrijarhu je pisao da je "po starini zemljak naš, drag prijatelj" (ovo se može videti u ilustraciji iz njegovog kapitalnog dela "Ljetopis crkovni").
ZNAO je crkvenoslovenski jezik i ćirilicu i tim pismom, o kojem je primetio da se njime "služi čitava naša nacija", pisao je. Za sebe je govorio da je "vatreni katolik i vatreni Srbin".
Od Zmajevićevih velikih književnih dela sačuvana su dva. Spev "Slovinska Dubrava" i "Ljetopis crkovni". To je istorija svetskih ideja, od postanja do epohe baroka, pisana dvostubačno - sleva na našem narodnom jeziku i ćirilicom, zdesna na latinskom, na 1.000 stranica. Jedna verzija nalazi se u Splitu a druga, kompletnija, na ćirilici, čuva se - prvi deo u Vatikanu, drugi u Padovi. Tu su ušle mnoge narodne legende i predanja, narodna istorija, epsko viđenje događaja i autorov lični doživljaj prošlosti i savremenosti.
Andrija Zmajević je bio rođeni stric Matije Zmajevića, ruskog admirala i svakako jednog od najzapaženijih izdanaka peraške familije.
English translation provided by a fellow editor:
In his literary work, he expressed multiple interest in history, culture and people of the "Kingdom of Serbia". He maintained friendly relations with the most prominent Serbian notable personalities of his day, with the Metropolitan of Herzegovina Vasili Jovanovic (Saint Basil of Ostrog) and with Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević. He wrote about the patriarch as "our old countryman, dear friend," (this can be seen in the illustration from his capital work "Chronicle of the Church").
He knew the Church Slavonic language language and the Cyrillic alphabet and that letter, for which he noted was "used by our entire nation," he wrote. He used to say that he was a "fierce Catholic and fierce Serb".
Two of Zmajevic's great literary works have been preserved. The song "Slovinska Dubrava" and "Chronicle of the Year". It's a history of world ideas, from the beggining to the Baroque era, the whole work is written in two paragraphs - left in our national language and in Cyrillic, right in Latin, 1,000 pages long. One version is in Split and the other, more complete, in Cyrillic, is kept - the first part in the Vatican, the second in Padua. Many folk legends and traditions, folk history, epic perceptions of events and the author's personal experience of the past and present have entered into it.
Andrija Zmajevic was the born uncle of Matija Zmajevic, a Russian admiral and certainly one of the most notable members of the Perast family.
Za svoju tvrdnju da je Matija Zmajević sebe smatrao Hrvatom, Denis Krnić ne može naći nijedan istorijski izvor. Stoga, vjerovatno nije slučajno zašto dotični zaobilazi relevantne istorijske izvore, koji nedvosmisleno ukazuju da su Zmajevići bili srpska porodica katoličke vjere.
English translation provided by a fellow editor:
For his claim that Matija Zmajevic considered himself to be Croat, Denis Krnic can't find a single historical source. Therefore, it most probably isn't a coincidence that he is bypassing relevant historical sources, which unequivocally indicate that the Zmajevics were a Serb family of the Catholic faith.
Regards, -- T*U ( talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
fierce Serbdoes not necessarily mean "Serb family". -- T*U ( talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
References
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 285 | ← | Archive 290 | Archive 291 | Archive 292 | Archive 293 | Archive 294 | Archive 295 |
PinkNews was last discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 47#Pink News. It came to my attention recently when it was used as a source for claims that Anne Frank was bisexual.
URL: [ https://www.pinknews.co.uk/ ].
It is currently linked to (including talk pages) 2143 times. [1]
It is cited 714 times. [2] Many of the pages cited are BLPs and in many cases PinkNews is used to support a claim that someone is gay or homophobic.
Does everyone still agree with the conclusion of the previous RSNB discussion?
Under what circumstances should statements cited only to PinkNews be removed? BLPs only? All articles?
Under what circumstances should citations to PinkNews be replaced with Citation Needed but the claim retained? BLPs only? All articles?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
*Generally reliable. Has editorial oversight and is an important source for LGBT news. It should not be used for Frank's sexuality, as this is a topic that has significant academic writing.--
Eostrix (
talk) 06:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. And if the view is represented only in a PinkNews article and not in the numerous biographies and peer-reviewed papers, then it is a view of extremely low prominence. -- MarioGom ( talk) 08:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Dlthewave has removed passages from the race and intelligence article ( 9 February and 24 February) with the rationale that they are primary sources. Now he tagged another passage with the primary source inline template ( 27 April). Grayfell reverted my removal of the primary tag, so the interpretation clearly is controversial.
There were a few other sources that were claimed to be primary sources, but this one was in all three edits:
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)Is this a WP:PRIMARY source?
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law is a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Psychological Association. A scientific review article released in such a journal, even if authored by controversial authors like Jensen and Rushton, isn't a primary source. The name of the article, Thirty Years of Research..., already reveals the nature of it. They are reviewing research on the topic and then offering their own conclusions, like a normal article in such a journal. Wikipedia then attributes their conclusion on the research and cites the article.
WP:PRIMARY only states that something like this is a primary source: a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment
. However, in the
discussion on Dlthewave's talkpage, he cited
WP:ALLPRIMARY which states that A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)
. WP:ALLPRIMARY is titled "All sources are primary for something". Then what's the point of the primary source tagging if every source is a primary source in some way? Are you allowed to remove any peer-reviewed journal article on this basis?
With the recent race and intelligence RfC determining some race and intelligence authors as WP:FRINGE, like Jensen and Rushton, editors should be even more careful here. The policy has an extensive section on sourcing which is of use here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Sourcing. -- Pudeo ( talk) 07:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argued for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races., which is cited to R&J 2005. This specific content is talking about Rushton and Jensen's views, and that's cited to Rushton and Jensen's paper expressing their views. R&J are primary sources for their own opinion. But, I think all that misses the point a bit. The problem is that the primary source doesn't establish neutrality – i.e., that inclusion of R&J's opinion is WP:DUE. If R&J's opinion were WP:DUE, we should be able to source it to someone else describing R&J's opinion (a secondary source). So I think an {{ undue}} tag is better than a {{ primary}} tag personally, but either way, I agree the content isn't properly sourced in accordance with WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Levivich dubious – discuss 07:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
"Jensen and Rushton argued that the existence of biological group differences does not rule out, but raises questions about the worthiness of policies such as affirmative action or placing a premium on diversity. They also argued for the importance of teaching people not to overgeneralize or stereotype individuals based on average group differences, because of the significant overlap of people with varying intelligence between different races."which is sourced to Rushton and Jensen (free access available here courtesy of Linda Gottfredson).
"A peer-reviewed journal article may begin by summarizing a careful selection of previously published works to place the new work in context (which is secondary material) before proceeding into a description of a novel idea (which is primary material)."In this case, Rushton and Jensen's paper consists mainly of a secondary review of previous research, but it also includes their own views such as
"Still other policy issues (e.g., affirmative action, the value of diversity) might merit reconsideration based on the degree to which heredity as opposed to culture turns out to be the causal agent"which is a primary source for the authors' views. As others have pointed out, the real concern here is that a primary-source opinion does not necessarily meet WP:DUE WEIGHT which is based on secondary coverage, so perhaps an "undue" tag would have been more appropriate. – dlthewave ☎ 12:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how or when to add a source to the list, but as it was recently challenged by a new editor, would like it to be considered for inclusion so that it can be easily referenced. It is Creative Spirits, a resource for matters relating to Indigenous peoples in Australia. Although I was initially a bit cautious because it is a self-published source (created by Jens Korff), I always check sources, and have found his material to be pretty meticulously sourced. (This means that I have often also gone to the original source, if available.) I have also found him cited in other sources upon occasion. As he says on the page I've linked to "Some of my content, both articles and images, have also been published in other works around the world", including a Year 10 textbook. The National Library of Australia catalogue entry is here, and that also leads to their archiving of the website here. He is quoted on the Victorian education website here - History: Aboriginal Australia and on Austlit and there's an article on Artshub (paywall). It's cited in an article in Aboriginal History (journal) and others here, here, here, and others. Can someone please advise if/how this can be recorded as an RS, or does it need to be posted elsewhere for debate? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 03:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Is HITC news piece " Never Have I Ever: Who is Darren Barnet? Explore the age, Instagram and previous roles of Paxton actor" a reliable source for the Darren Barnet article? Specifically for his DOB. Other sources state his birthday is April 27 but not the year. An IP user keeps adding it back to the article. TJMSmith ( talk) 15:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
This is a reliable source " [13]" written by Metro, which can conclude has born circa 1991. You can change it back, because IP user 2600:1700:5040:3cf0:4195:535c:1a77:be2d keeps deleting it. It is clear Metro spoke to the actor. Factchecking139 ( talk) 08:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello. There is some disagreement about the Cyntoia Brown article.
People removed the references to court documents that I added. They are claiming that the article should not use primary sources, such as court documents because they could be misinterpreted or taken out of context. I disagree and would like for the Cyntioa Brown article to cite court documents, along with secondary sources.
Below is a list of quotes from the Brown article. For each quote, I copied and pasted the exact expert in the court document that it references. All of the article text that cites court documents is completely supported by those court documents. On top of that, I referenced specific page numbers so that Wikipedia readers who click on the documents know exactly where to look. There is absolutely no way these documents could be misinterpreted or taken out of context.
I will also point out that court documents are far more reliable than opinion pieces and news articles. A judge writing an opinion is much less likely to make a mistake than a journalist. Additionally, many other articles about crimes and people convicted of crimes (including cases for more controversial than the Brown one) cite court documents. I believe that primary sources should be allowed in the Brown article.
ARREST AND TRIAL SECTION Example 1. Article text "Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot. Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. [1]" Document text "Based upon the nature of the victim’s wound and the lividity of his body, the medical examiner concluded that, when the petitioner fired the gun, the victim was lying in his bed in the same manner as he was later found, on his right side and stomach and with his fingers partially interlocked." The court doc does not say he was asleep. But several other secondary soruces cited do. Example 2. Article text "A forensic pathologist testified at trial that, due to the nature of Allen's injury, he would not have been able to make any voluntary movements after being shot. Thus, in her opinion, Allen's hands were clasped at the time of his death. [2]" Document text "She (Dr. McMaster, the forensic pathologist) added, 'Because of the nature of the wound, I would not expect [the victim] to have any type of voluntary movement or to be able to move his extremities or his body in any way' after being shot. Thus, Dr. McMaster said that in her professional opinion, the victim's hands were clasped at the time of his death, as they were in the crime scene photographs taken by police after the incident." Example 3. Article text "Allen's gunshot wound had characteristics of those fired at close range. Additionally, gunshot residue from Allen's pillowcase showed that the gun was three to six inches away when fired. [3]" Document text "Although the medical examiner classified this as an indeterminate range wound, the stellate lacerations around the entrance wound are “typically” seen with “close range fire,” within “a couple inches or less, a few inches.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1973; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14- 15, PageID# 1993, 2005-2007.) Gunshot residue from one of the victim’s pillowcases indicated that the gun was three to six inches from the pillowcase when the gun discharged. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1550-1552, 1563-1564.)" Example 4. Article text "On August 14, Brown was taken to the Western Mental Health Institute for an evaluation. According to court documents, Brown attacked and threatened a nurse at the Mental Health Institute after the nurse did not allow her to call her adoptive mother. Brown jumped over the nurse's desk, grabbed her hair and face, and hit her, giving her several bruises and abrasions. During the attack, Brown allegedly told the nurse 'I shot that man in the back of the head one time, bitch, I’m gonna shoot you in the back of the head three times. I’d love to hear your blood splatter on the wall.' The nurse, along with another Western Mental Health Institute employee who witnessed the incident testified at trial. [2] [4]" Document text Source 4. Sixth Circuit. "On August 14, 2004, while a patient at Western Mental Health Institute in Bolivar, the petitioner demanded to make a phone call to her mother, but the nurse, Kathy Franz, told her that she could not use the phone. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1479-1480, 1483, 1527-1528, 1530.) The petitioner “got angry” and attacked Ms. Franz. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1528.) She jumped over the nurses’ desk, grabbed Ms. Franz by the hair and face, and hit her. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1480, 1485, 1528.) They both struggled onto the floor, and Ms. Franz received abrasions and bruises from the attack. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1485, 1528.) The petitioner threatened Ms. Franz’s life, saying: I’m going to do you like I did him, but I’m not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I’m going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-12, PageID# 1481, 1528-1529.)" Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Kathy Franz testified that on August 14, 2004, she worked as a nurse at a facility[4] at which she encountered the defendant. Franz said that one day, the defendant asked her to use the telephone. Franz told the defendant that she could not use the telephone, at which point the defendant grabbed her by the hair and by the face; after that, the two women struggled and "both wound up [on] the floor." According to Franz, the defendant told her, "I'm going to do you like I did him, but I'm not going to shoot you once in the back of the head. I'm going to shoot you three times and listen while your blood splatters on the wall." Eventually, four or five of the facility's staff physically restrained the defendant. Another of the facility's employees, Sheila Campbell, witnessed this episode and testified about it at trial. The substance of Campbell's testimony largely mirrored that of Franz's, although Campbell added that the defendant asked permission to phone her mother before the incident and that the incident left Franz with bruises and abrasions." Example 5 Article text "A recording of a phone call Brown made to her adoptive mother while in jail was presented as further evidence against her, as in the conversation she said, referring to Johnny Allen, 'I executed him.' [5]" Document text "During a recorded telephone conversation on October 29, 2005, between the petitioner and her adoptive mother, Ellenette Washington, the petitioner stated to Ms. Washington, “I killed somebody. . . . I executed him.” (Telephone Recording, R.E. 14-6, PageID# 715; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1915; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-15, PageID# 2041-2044.)"
Example 6 Article text "Brown also spoke to several jail cellmates about the crime, and confessed to killing Allen "just to see how it felt to kill somebody." [2] [6]" Document text Source 6. Sixth Circuit. "In November 2004, while confined in Davidson County, the petitioner discussed the murder with three other detainees, including Shayla Bryant, who heard the petitioner give the following explanation for her criminal charges: She basically . . . said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1655-1656.) Ms. Bryant did not believe the petitioner because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) Ms. Bryant told the petitioner that she was lying, at which point the petitioner started laughing. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656.) The petitioner then confided that she shot the victim 'just to see how it fe[lt] to kill somebody.'” Source 2. Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death. The defendant told Bryant about the charges she was facing, and Bryant overheard a conversation between the defendant and Williamson in which the defendant 'basically said this guy that she was talking to used to send her out to prostitute. And she was mad at him. And the man tried to rape her, so she shot him.' Bryant told the defendant that she did not believe the defendant's account because the story 'just seemed too perfect.' Bryant testified that the defendant then 'started laughing.' Through notes, the defendant 'basically said she shot the man just to see how it feel[s] to kill somebody.' Bryant said that the defendant appeared 'as jolly as she wanted to be' while discussing the victim's death. Bryant added, 'it didn't look like she had any remorse. She didn't cry. . . . She was just there.'" Example 7 Article text "The cellmate later gave police a note Brown had given her which said 'everything is the truth, I swear it on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feeling of nervousness.' At trial, a forensic document examiner testified that the note was written by Brown. The cellmate whom Brown had given the note to and spoken with also testified at trial. [2] [6]" Document text Source 2. 2008 Court of Criminal Appeals. "Shayla Bryant testified that in November 2004, while in jail, the defendant spoke to her and two other inmates, Lashonda Williamson and Sheila Washington, about the victim's death...Bryant said that she and the defendant passed notes to each other through a hole in the wall between their cells. On cross-examination, she said that she flushed most of the defendant's notes down the toilet but that she kept one of the notes, which she eventually gave to police. The note read: 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life, except for `I thought he was getting a gun' and the feelings of nervousness.'" Source 6. Sixth Circuit."Like other detainees, Ms. Bryant and the petitioner routinely passed notes, and Ms. Brown retained and disclosed one note in which the petitioner wrote, 'Everything is the truth, I swear on my life except for ‘I thought he was getting a gun’ and the feelings of nervousness.” (Handwritten Note, R.E. 14-5, PageID# 600; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-13, PageID# 1656-1658, 1683-1684, 1788-1789, 1797-1798; Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-14, PageID# 1868-1869, 1894-1896.) MURDER OF ALLEN SECTION Example 8 Article text On August 7, Brown had a neighbor drive her to the Walmart where she had left Allen's truck. She asked the neighbor to drive her back to Allen's house so that she could steal more items but he refused. Brown told him that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns.” [7] Document text "Later that day, around 5:00 p.m., the petitioner knocked on the door at the InTown Suites of roommates Richard Reed and Samuel Humphrey. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331.) Mr. Reed answered the door, and the petitioner asked him to drive her to Wal-Mart, which he agreed to do. (Trial Testimony R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1331-1334.)." En route back to the hotel, the petitioner asked Mr. Reed for a ride to a nearby house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1337.) She explained that she “shot somebody in the head for fifty thousand dollars and some guns,” and she wanted Mr. Reed “to go over there and help her clean it out.” (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1337.) Mr. Reed did not believe her, and he refused to drive her to the house. (Trial Testimony, R.E. 14-11, PageID# 1336-1339.) Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 17:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
Slatersteven You said one of the documents says he was asleep when shot. Did you mean none of the documents say he was asleep when shot? The court docs don't directly say he was asleep when shot but many secondary sources we cited do. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
References
|
---|
|
I have collapsed the references from this section, they were appearing in other sections. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I refereed to STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CYNTOIA DENISE BROWN as the Court of Criminal Appeals doc because it is an opinion from Tennessee's Court of Criminal Appeals. That doc talks about the forensic pathologist saying Allen's hands were clasped when he died. That's what the text says. Other secondary sources back up the claim that investigators believe he was asleep.
There is no original research or interpretations of the documents. The article says what the docs (and other sources used) state. I truly do not see why this should not be allowed. Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 19:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Ginegrbreadhouse97
Slatersteven I'm not following you. Can you explain what you mean? Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 20:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
The secondary sources do say he was asleep when shot in words. And the court docs talk about the position his body was found. If you want, I will use the court docs only after the text about how he was found. And I will only use the secondary sources for the claim that police believe he was asleep when shot. It will read like this
"Based on the position in which Allen's body was discovered, investigators believed that Allen may have been asleep when he was shot.Secondary sources Forensics noted that, postmortem, Allen was laying ... and his fingers interlocked. Primary sources [1]" Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 21:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
Reference
|
---|
Again, I've collapsed that reference. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
So that each claim has a specific source.
Can we use primary court documents or not? Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 22:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
We are advised not to use them? But does that mean we are completely banned form using them? Or just that we should do so sparingly? I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out. May I add some of the Brown court documents back? Slatersteven Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 22:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
@
Gingerbreadhouse97: In the case of assertions about living person, which appears to apply here since the linked article is about a living person and this seems to concern what she may or may not have done, then do not use them as the sole source per
WP:BLPPRIMARY which says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
"
As for "I and other editors have used court documents in many crime articles and moderators never took them out", well firstly there is no such thing as a moderator here. Second, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Third when the issue comes to the attention of BLP experienced editors, the end result is nearly always the removal of the information sourced solely to court documents. This often results in complaints, even though BLP policy clearly says not to do it.
So basically all you and your fellow crime article editors are doing is creating more work for everyone, and creating ill-feeling when the inevitable happens. Yes sometimes such additions skate by for years before someone notices them, but that's still not helping anything. Instead, you need to write articles which comply with our policies and guidelines, such as using reliable secondary sources, so that someone else doesn't have to fix things for you. It may be okay to add the primary sources in addition to the secondary sources but make sure that all assertions you make are supported exclusively by the secondary sources.
If you do so, the end result is a better article (from the POV of what we consider a good article) and less time wasted by editors adding stuff which is going to be removed, and editors needing to remove the stuff which should never have been added, and needless discussion on the removal of such additions. If you cannot find secondary sources discussing some aspect you feel is important, the unfortunate conclusion is it's probably not as important as you think it is.
Some questions.
What if the text cites court docs alongside secondary sources and is not completely based on court docs?
Can we cite court docs when writing articles about events rather than people?
What if the court doc is the only source available for a specific piece of information? In some cases there are no secondary sources to cite and only court docs.
Why can't we use court docs in articles about living people? Court docs are much more objective than news articles or opinion pieces. A judge writing a legal opinion is far less likely to get the facts wrong than a columnist writing a biased op-ed to promote political opinions.
Thanks Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 16:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
What if the perp is not alive? Gingerbreadhouse97 ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Gingerbreadhouse97
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
Some other passing mentions as well. As far as I can tell The Canary (website) is often but not universally regarded as unreliable. It's being used on Julian Assange ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), twice, both for opinion not fact, pretty much in its area of maximum bias. I'm hardly a renowned right-winger but there's no way I would ever use this site as a source. Their "mission" is "A free and fair society where we nurture people and planet." Nothing to do with accurate reporting. Guy ( help!) 23:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
References
We are going completely off subject, this board is not about political positions of news outlets, its about Reliability. We should not mistake having a different political viewpoint for whether a source's factual reliability is good or bad (that is irrelevant). The Canary does not hide their left of centre bias but it has a clean factual record and they always source their information to credible media outlets such as Forbes, BBC, The Guardian and Huffington Post etc. Perhaps opposing editors could present concrete evidence of unreliability rather than say its unreliable just because of its political viewpoint. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Israeli scholar Ilan Pappé has pushed-backed against what he characterises as the 'weaponisation' of antisemitism allegations. … [T]he historian, known for his work on Zionism and the destruction of Palestine, says this is being done in order to suppress debate and discussion on Palestine. ... Pappé says antisemitism allegations are "a tool to stifle the debate on Palestine, but it also, it kind of weaponises the allegation of antisemitism against the promotion to positions of power of people that Israel and it’s supporters do not want to be in those positions".
Can we close and put an end to what may well turn into antisemtism and gets users banned? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
References
Off-topic thread
|
---|
OT; Can someone please explain me why
User:JzG sometime tag as Guy (as here) and sometimes as JzG (as on
Julian Assange)?
|
There is a clear consensus that Global News is a generally reliable source including for news and current affairs coverage.
Is Global News [26] a generally reliable source for news and current affairs coverage? -- TheSandDoctor Talk 17:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
"Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source: how did you come to consider it worth questioning? - David Gerard ( talk) 19:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Is using this Daily Mail article as a source for a quote acceptable? I used this on an article I created, Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina. The author of the Daily Mail article, Eddie Hearn (it states above the article "by Eddie Hearn for the Daily Mail"), is Anthony Joshua's promoter/matchmaker. The quote used is Hearn revealing his shortlist of potential opponents for Joshua's 10 December 2016 bout. It's not a random journalist's opinion or a second hand quote, it's the man himself stating who he has in mind for the bout. The 'Background' section in boxing event articles details potential opponents, the decision making process and negotiations leading up to the event itself.
I know the Daily Mail is deemed "generally unreliable", and since finding Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, I've always checked and based which sources I use off this list. But does the above usage come under the "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." aspect? – 2. O. Boxing 14:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times has admitted to removing facts editing their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign.
*,
* Are there any limitations on how this piece can be used in his BLP? For instance, would the edited passage be allowed?
Before: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
*
After: No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden.
*
Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 03:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times reported that "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."(links to NYT) petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
"Last year, Ms. Reade and seven other women came forward to accuse Mr. Biden of kissing, hugging or touching them in ways that made them feel uncomfortable."is still noted in the article. What they did was correct a somewhat ambiguous statement that could be interpreted to mean that there are other cases of misconduct, which was not what their reporting found. There has been some justifiable criticism of the Times for not including an edit notice with the correction. According to Times executive editor Dean Baquet
“We didn’t think it was a factual mistake. I thought it was an awkward phrasing issue that could be read different ways and that it wasn’t something factual we were correcting,” Baquet said.It is not unusual for a subject of an article, or anyone else for that matter, to request a clarification. We expect reliable sources to correct statements which could easily be misinterpreted. Making a correction does not invalidate a source. The corrected statement reflects a summary of their reporting and could be included although whether it should be is a different issue. CBS527 Talk 05:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
"No other allegation about sexual assault or sexual misconduct surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of physical boundary violations by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable."By removing the text about inappropriate touching, the NYTs is further separating those behaviors from sexual misconduct. But regardless, the statement as a whole is problematic because it inaccurately states that staff could not corroborate details, when in the same article they write than two interns remember Reade abruptly stopped supervising them in April 1993. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times reported about the allegation some weeks after several other publications; it stated that "[n]o other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden".How should this be handled? Should it stand as is, without a note that the phrasing includes some editing advice from the subject of the "investigation"? petrarchan47 คุ ก 05:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times has admitted to removing facts from their article about alleged sexual assault by Joe Biden at the request of his campaign." The fact at issue therein is the text "beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." which was removed from the paragraph that begins with "No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting..." after the article was first published.
Should the following text be used in any Wikipedia article:
(a) nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. (b) The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."*
The sentence was changed from The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable
. This change was made, per the NYT, after the Biden campaign complained that the "phrasing was awkward".
*,
*
The edited statement is
currently live on the
Joe Biden BLP without noting the campaign's involvement.
petrarchan47
คุ
ก 14:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a poll on whether to have an official poll on a settled matter? ANS: NO. I don't see any significant argument here to deprecate the NY Times. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Biden's campaign is behind the removal of a crucial caveat...is a misleading and bad-faith statement. Zaathras ( talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"the campaign's involvement"is misleading. Journalism happens with reporters talking to subjects, and the subjects can try to correct the record. It seems that the NYT went to the Biden campaign before publishing the article, the Biden campaign made a few points, and the NYT agreed with them. This is standard operating procedure. The NYT comments are valid. – Muboshgu ( talk) 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
"The Times report was soundly criticized after the paper opted to stealth-edit—i.e., make a change to an article that’s not disclosed in an update or correction".[30] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Is al-Aʻlām by Khayr al-Din al-Zirikli reliable for the ethnicity of Al-Tahawi? I know that it's a tertiary source (a tarajim: biographies), but I don't know its reliability. Regards - TheseusHeLl ( talk) 00:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The critical views/criticism language of The 1619 Project -- other than the bits of reflexive conservative anklebiting -- is almost completely sourced to the World Socialist Web Site. This does NOT look kosher to me. -- Calton | Talk 09:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Both sites have issues of their own - postcard has oftentimes posted fake news and at one point its founder was arrested for that ( https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/postcard-news-editor-mahesh-hegde-booked-for-spreading-fake-news-arrested-in-bengaluru-1201009-2018-03-30 ). On the other hand, tfipost seems to at least post true stuff, though it still cherrypicks news from what I understand. So, are both of these sources any good in reporting political news (which is about 90% of what they post)? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 ( talk) 07:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
:* Hi @
Newslinger:, and thanks for your advice. I noticed that you’d started the discussion about getting OpIndia and Swarajya deprecated, and it interested me (yes, I know that it’s 2 months old). But since the sources weren’t deprecated due to lack of an RfC, I’d like to know if it would be a sensible idea to create a new discussion in the RfC area regarding the sources.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (
talk) 11:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Since tfipost.com is already on the spam blacklist, it would be unnecessary to deprecate it. Postcard News is not yet on the spam blacklist, but since it is a fake news website, I recommend removing the current citations and then requesting blacklisting if editors continue to add this domain into articles after the existing citations are removed. An RfC is not required for this. — Newslinger talk 10:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to ask the community to review the ban on Verywell. Verywell is a family of four websites: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, and Verywell Family. They deliver short articles on very basic topics, written in simple, plain language. Generally, they don't offer much content that can't be found in better, more professional sources. However, outright banning the Verywell sites is excessive. They don't seem to be unreliable. They just offer high-school level content, written in simple language, aimed at a wide audience. As a tertiary source, it may be of use in certain situations. Recently, I tried to cite a Verywell Mind article at ICD-11 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but it turned out to be on the spam-blacklist. I bypassed this by using links from Google and archive.today, but instead of skirting the rules, I'd rather see the ban lifted.
Verywell is part of Dotdash, the successor of About.com, which closed down in 2017. Dotdash and its websites are currently listed at WP:RSPSOURCES with a mark. The entry claims that the Verywell sites are on there "[d]ue to persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". No source is given for this claim. The entry lists 16 threads. 15 of them discuss the now defunct About.com. Only one of them, from December 2018, is about Verywell, but it wasn't really a discussion. I found no actual debate on Verywell anywhere on Wikipedia, although I did find two LinkReports regarding verywell.com, a domain which now redirects to verywellhealth.com, and verywellmind.com ( search).
Each Verywell site has a team of reviewers consisting of board-certified physicians and other professionals, who approve articles before they are posted (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family). Also, each Verywell site has a certificate from the Health On the Net Foundation, which should assure some degree of quality (see here: Verywell Health, Verywell Mind, Verywell Fit, Verywell Family).
Also listed in the Dotdash entry at WP:RSPSOURCES are: The Balance, Lifewire, The Spruce, ThoughtCo, and TripSavvy. I think each should have their own entry and explanation, similar to Investopedia, which is also owned by Dotdash, but has its own entry. Furthermore, I wonder if Dotdash itself should be on the WP:RSPSOURCES list, because the website dotdash.com is in itself not a source.
I suggest the Verywell websites be marked as , with an explanation that they are tertiary references, should be used with caution, and only as ancillary sources.
Thanks for reading, Manifestation ( talk) 18:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As clear from the blacklisting requests and the reports that COIBot saved, this was blacklisted because it was spammed, and rather clear COPYVIO violations. That some organisation is well respected, or that a site is regarded to be a reliable source does not exclude that said organisation is participating in aggressive SEO activities. It is unlikely to be unbanned until the spamming has stopped. Whitelisting is your way forward for the material you really need. Seen the multitude of IPs (there are IPs in a couple of ranges who have been adding this) and editors (there is a sockpuppetry case) this is better controlled through whitelisting (no, 1 year is generally not enough).
Note: do not evade the ban, you are violating policies. Get what you really need whitelisted. — Dirk Beetstra T C 04:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
As for my personal opinion, I think Verywell's reliability is similar to the reliability of Dotdash's other websites ( marginally reliable), although WP:MEDRS – which emphasizes the importance of high-quality academic sources and warns against the use of popular press sources including Verywell for "scientific and medical information" (in WP:MEDPOP) – should be taken into account. — Newslinger talk 12:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Very surprised to see NPR listed as "No consensus" on WP:RSP. On discussions on this noticeboard it seems fairly unanimously accepted as a reliable source ( [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] etc); this is the closest I can find to a centralised discussion. Of the two listed in the perennial sources summary, neither seems to discuss the points mentioned (for example, that it is "generally considered a partisan source for the purposes of American politics") or give any evaluation of the organisation's accuracy as a whole ( the first not at all, the second discusses a possible mistake in what is supposedly an NPR report).
NPR has clear and extremely detailed guidelines on ethics including accuracy, impartiality, transparency and so on, one of the highest trust-to-distrust ratios among major media outlets, [1] beaten only by the Economist and the BBC, and its listeners have been found on more than one occasion to be the most informed and least likely to believe misinformation. [2] [3]
(Also, since I'm here, PBS used to be listed on WP:RSP and I'm unsure how to find out where/why it's gone?)
Thanks. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 11:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
References
There appear to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I would like to discuss the wording, Here is my first shot:
Feel free to suggest other wording. --
Guy Macon (
talk) 08:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be a broad consensus to turn the NPR entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources green. I believe that those responding to the suggestion above supported the following wording instead of my my first shot:
Do we agree on the above wording? and on turning the entry green? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I just looked at the Wikipedia entry for NPR at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources -- assuming the chart's description is based on those two short discussions, the current wording of the Wikipedia chart entry is a complete misrepresentation of those two discussions. How does that happen? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 09:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Is the BBB a reliable source for this statement at Genesis Communications Network?
"Anderson created the network in 1998 "as a way to promote his company, Midas Resources, a precious metals firm which as of September 11, 2015, Theodore Anderson's bullion coin representative registration. No. 40389579, was revoked. Further, Theodore Anderson was prohibited from being an owner, officer, member, or shareholder of any entity that holds a bullion coin dealer registration in the State of Minnesota for two years. [1] [2] "
I've underlined the text in question, the promotion bit is from the other source. Note that the " before 'as a way' has no concluding ". Doug Weller talk 14:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Is this a reliable source? I wanted to use it to source a sentence about vegetation changes in Ethiopia during the African humid period, but I know nothing about this publication. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Article
Andrija Zmajević, section
Biography, sentence Zmajević was born to a Serbian family in Perast, in the Bay of Kotor, at the time part of the Republic of Venice (now Montenegro) in late July 1628.
Are the following sources reliable for the claim "to a Serbian family"?
U svom literarnom radu ispoljavao je višestruko interesovanje prema istoriji, kulturi i narodu "kraljevstva Srbije". Održavao je prijateljske veze sa najistaknutijim srpskim prvacima svog doba, s hercegovačkim mitropolitom Vasilijem Jovanovićem (Sveti Vasilije Ostroški) i s patrijarhom Arsenijem III Čarnojevićem. O patrijarhu je pisao da je "po starini zemljak naš, drag prijatelj" (ovo se može videti u ilustraciji iz njegovog kapitalnog dela "Ljetopis crkovni").
ZNAO je crkvenoslovenski jezik i ćirilicu i tim pismom, o kojem je primetio da se njime "služi čitava naša nacija", pisao je. Za sebe je govorio da je "vatreni katolik i vatreni Srbin".
Od Zmajevićevih velikih književnih dela sačuvana su dva. Spev "Slovinska Dubrava" i "Ljetopis crkovni". To je istorija svetskih ideja, od postanja do epohe baroka, pisana dvostubačno - sleva na našem narodnom jeziku i ćirilicom, zdesna na latinskom, na 1.000 stranica. Jedna verzija nalazi se u Splitu a druga, kompletnija, na ćirilici, čuva se - prvi deo u Vatikanu, drugi u Padovi. Tu su ušle mnoge narodne legende i predanja, narodna istorija, epsko viđenje događaja i autorov lični doživljaj prošlosti i savremenosti.
Andrija Zmajević je bio rođeni stric Matije Zmajevića, ruskog admirala i svakako jednog od najzapaženijih izdanaka peraške familije.
English translation provided by a fellow editor:
In his literary work, he expressed multiple interest in history, culture and people of the "Kingdom of Serbia". He maintained friendly relations with the most prominent Serbian notable personalities of his day, with the Metropolitan of Herzegovina Vasili Jovanovic (Saint Basil of Ostrog) and with Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević. He wrote about the patriarch as "our old countryman, dear friend," (this can be seen in the illustration from his capital work "Chronicle of the Church").
He knew the Church Slavonic language language and the Cyrillic alphabet and that letter, for which he noted was "used by our entire nation," he wrote. He used to say that he was a "fierce Catholic and fierce Serb".
Two of Zmajevic's great literary works have been preserved. The song "Slovinska Dubrava" and "Chronicle of the Year". It's a history of world ideas, from the beggining to the Baroque era, the whole work is written in two paragraphs - left in our national language and in Cyrillic, right in Latin, 1,000 pages long. One version is in Split and the other, more complete, in Cyrillic, is kept - the first part in the Vatican, the second in Padua. Many folk legends and traditions, folk history, epic perceptions of events and the author's personal experience of the past and present have entered into it.
Andrija Zmajevic was the born uncle of Matija Zmajevic, a Russian admiral and certainly one of the most notable members of the Perast family.
Za svoju tvrdnju da je Matija Zmajević sebe smatrao Hrvatom, Denis Krnić ne može naći nijedan istorijski izvor. Stoga, vjerovatno nije slučajno zašto dotični zaobilazi relevantne istorijske izvore, koji nedvosmisleno ukazuju da su Zmajevići bili srpska porodica katoličke vjere.
English translation provided by a fellow editor:
For his claim that Matija Zmajevic considered himself to be Croat, Denis Krnic can't find a single historical source. Therefore, it most probably isn't a coincidence that he is bypassing relevant historical sources, which unequivocally indicate that the Zmajevics were a Serb family of the Catholic faith.
Regards, -- T*U ( talk) 20:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
fierce Serbdoes not necessarily mean "Serb family". -- T*U ( talk) 16:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
References