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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
I've been creating articles for Tennis players, mainly based on the databases of WTA and ITF. These are script-based databases: one interrogates them, and is shown results. They don't produce URLs that one can use to show this or that piece of information. So, although all of the information is in those databases, inline citations cannot be created for specific pieces of information. I have been placing the links to the WTA/ITF player pages in External links, and leaving it at that. Anyone who wants to check the information will have to press the appropriate buttons at the WTA or ITF sites.
Recently, one of these was hit with a {{
No footnotes}}
tag. On one hand, I can't deny that the warning is literally true, but on the other hand, there's nothing that can be done about it when the sources are in this form.
I am not here for arbitration, I just want advice. Am I justified in removing the tag? Is there another tag that would be more appropriate? Any comments would be welcome. Ordinary Person ( talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this considered a reliable source? The site is dedicated to media with a detective theme and is not publicly edited like Anime News Network encyclopedia. Currently it's used to source List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) at its Detective Conan episode section. DragonZero ( talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ethel Merman has a fact tag challenging the assertion that she is a mezzo-soprano. I found this, which describes her as mezzo-soprano/alto. Can I use this to cite her as a mezzo-soprano/alto? Dlabtot ( talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings all, I likely will be making a few trips here but wanted to start with the most complex one as the others are pretty basic. Julie Bindel is a writer, Guardian columnist and a career activist. We have a group of editors intent on including information about some of Bindel's opinions on transgenderism which would be fine except it's being done in problematic ways. I don't consider myself an expert on trans issues but certainly rather well-informed. My interest however is neutralizing the information to remove POV and poor sourcing. This has been steadfastly opposed so I've called in support from ANI and ... it's currently mired in circular discussion. (sigh)
Meanwhile I've had one lingering concern I need help clarifying. National Union of Students of the United Kingdom has annual conferences where various platforms are presented and voted on. These seem awfully politicized and I have doubts on their notability for use in this manner. We are reporting:
“ | Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference, she was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award, which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. | ” |
sourced to NUS LGBT Summer Campaign Conference 2008 Motions Document
and
“ | In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign. | ” |
Sourced to NUS Women’s Campaign 2009 Motion Documents and NUS Women’s Campaign 2009
If these platform votes are not reported in reliable sources do they belong at all? If we do include them what is the NPOV way to do so? Any advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion I propose that these sources and the content related to them be removed as they are primary sources used on a BLP and likely not notable as the content is not published by third-party reliable sources.
The consensus seems to be clear to remove. If no one is opposed I think we should close this and if an admin would be willing to remove the content we can move on to other issues on this BLP. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are scans of copies of marriage certificates considered reliable sources? Another editor is claiming he has these for Bob Ross and wants to use them in the article but would like to confirm they are considered reliable considering they are scans of copies. How do we "authenticate" them? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The BBC Trust#2009 Editorial Standards Committee report section (which has been moved from the Jeremy Bowen article following an edit war, protection and 3rd opinion) discusses a recent report of the BBC Trust issued following complaints made against Middle East reporting by Bowen and BBC News. One editor is insistent that the comments of the complainants following the report should be included, in particular that some comments by someone called Jonathan Turner should be quoted. I do not believe that Turner is a reliable source and his opinions should not be recorded here, irrespective of his partially successful complaint. His comments have been widely reported including in The Jerusalem Post and the Guardian, which I assume to be reliable themselves. However, I do not think that makes any difference to the reliability of Turner's comments.
One particular quote that this editor wishes to include is something to the effect that the BBC took 2 years to correct an article that was found to breach accuracy regulations. The full comment from Turner is that this (and Bowen's reporting in general) has had an impact on anti-Semitic attacks. That, to me, is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source and Turner is not an exceptional source. Further, the Guardian article linked to above is particularly critical of this statement and says it is an "unfounded slur". Now, both the comment and the response could be included in the article, but I think that including this comment by an unreliable source is over-representing a minority viewpoint and should be left out altogether.
Other comments on this whole affair have been made by CAMERA and the Zionist Federation. The Guardian article is equally critical of their comments and, in my view, CAMERA had the chance to voice their opinions in the ESC Report. While I am not as bothered about including quotes from these parties (since they are established organisations rather than individuals) I still think doing so is putting undue weight on their apparently minority opinions.
Sorry for the long explanation, but the whole issue of Middle East reporting is very sensitive and (as I mention above) prone to cause edit wars so I wanted to give people as much info as I could. GDallimore ( Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to define the journal of "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" as a non reliable source since it has as sponsors many groups with conflict of interests [1] and many of its articles are written by employees of consulting companies like Cantox/Intrinsik whose role is defined as "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market" [2]. Nutriveg ( talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized the journal by name as "read[ing] more like a house organ of big business than an independent, peer-reviewed scientific journal... It is hard for anyone to have confidence in RTP's published research when blatant conflicts of interest are concealed." ( [3]). In the book Doubt Is Their Product (Michaels, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780195300673), RTP is described as the best known of a group of "vanity journals that present themselves to the unwary as independent sources on information and science... the peer reviewers are carefully chosen, like-minded corporate consultants sitting in friendly judgment on studies that are exquisitely structured to influence a regulatory proceeding or court case."
We've had an entry on RTP in a (completely informal) list of "Questionable Sources" for awhile now. I agree with Dlabtot - context is important, and it's hard to make binary, blanket pronouncements about reliability, but there's certainly a case for a large grain of salt here. I would, however, hesitate to extend the six-degrees-of-separation approach suggested by II, unless similarly reliable sources are similarly critical of Crit Rev Toxicol. MastCell Talk 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A user sourced material at The Good Witch of the West using allcinema.net. Is someone well versed in Japanese willing to check if this is a reliable source? WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Maria Surfs The Web is a spot on KTTV (Fox news channel in LA) where Maria Quiban reviews web sites. Reliable source for establishing notability or any other uses? Examples here --neon white talk 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a total fluff piece that shows nothing more than the fact that the site exists. It is not "news" by any means, and does not contain any useful commentary or analysis. Neon is editwarring to use it to supplement other existing RS sources (which actually offer analysis and have some sense of journalistic integrity). If this installment of MSTW was the only source for a website, I think an article about that site would fail AFD. Can we have this conversation with the other editors on the talk page instead of hiding it here? NJGW ( talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The article about the Oom Yung Doe martial arts school relies heavily on the book "An Introduction to Traditional Moo Doe", copyrighted by Oom Yung Doe and used within the school as a sort of training manual. The book is available online[ [5]]. It seems pretty obvious that this is not a reliable source for controversial information about the school (such as the quality of the training or the accomplishments of the founder of the school), but is it a valid source for noncontroversial information (such as when the school was founded or what styles are taught)? Subverdor ( talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, I assume you have looked at the Oom Yung Doe article and the online book in question [6]. This links to a discussion of the author "jumping from the equivalent of an 11-story building" and the author "has taught some instructors [...] They are now able to jump and land from a 2 or 3-story building without injury". Could you tell me which of these Wiki conventions you feel applies to this author? Thanks! jmcw ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | ” |
— WP:RELIABLE#Self-published_sources |
“ | Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. | ” |
— WP:PRIMARY |
“ | Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | ” |
— WP:SPS |
“ | Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information [...] so long as: [...] 4 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources. | ” |
— WP:SELFPUB |
I would like to propose a guideline as to what can be used from the Handbook: Posit: If a Wiki editor visited a school, could she/he usually see the activity or item being referenced. For example, if the Handbook say "During training, students hit themselves with bags of herbs", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "Students and instructors wear various coloured belts", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "There is a legend ...", this would not be acceptable because a visitor could not verify the legend.
I think the Handbook would be more valuable to the article if there were less "statement of fact about the book" usage. Let us use what is reliable and discard the rest. jmcw ( talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The article on Gerry Maclochlainn is being edited continuously because one person rejects the Western Mail newspaper as a reliable paper of record. I need someone who knows something about Wales and the Western Mail to intervene here. It is a paper of record but perhaps O fenian does not know this. He needs to check this rather than just acting on an assumption. I have tried to discuss this but he ignores my posts and removed my edits
The proper link is Gerry MacLochlainn. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The Western Mail is a reliable source. Robert Hazell in The State and the Nations (Imprint Academic, 2000) calls it the closest thing Wales has to a paper of record. It's not accurate to call it a tabloid, with the derogatory connotations that implies. It is perceived as having moved downmarket in recent years, especially since a new editorial direction in 2005 put more emphasis on stories about leisure and entertainment. (Meryl Aldridge. Understanding the Local Media, McGraw-Hill International, 2007). However it continues to cover hard news, its stories are quoted extensively in literature about the press, and the cite in question is from 1980.
If you have doubts about the cite, it's reasonable to ask that the editor include the author of the piece, and quote you the relevant passages. Note though that the information he wishes to add is backed up elsewhere, for instance the National Library of Wales is holding MacLochlainn's Prison Letters 1981-1983 and describes it thus: "Twenty-seven letters, 1981-1983, from Gerry Maclochlainn, a Sinn Fein activist on the United Kingdom mainland, from Maidstone prison to Ioan M. Richard, organiser of 'Dros Ryddid', a left wing republican movement in South Wales. At the time, Maclochlainn was serving a four year prison term following conviction on conspiracy charges." [8] And a journal called The Blanket, published under the aegis of An Phoblacht, ran a piece by Liam O Ruairc which said "The former Sinn Fein organiser in Wales was released from Maidstone Prison in November 1983 after serving two and a half years of a sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions". [9] 86.44.45.98 ( talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
RFCbio}}
) are still available to you before editing the article. I agree that the unsourced stuff should be removed persistently.
86.44.27.38 (
talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)An IP editor is arguing that biographies on NME are copies of Wikipedia text in this article. I can't say I agree, so if others can take a look at the site and add their input, it would help. — Σ xplicit 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Details here. Please weigh in there, not here. It's about the current flu outbreak all over every inch of the news media and on our main page. rootology ( C)( T) 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have a particularly frustrating situation here. Okay, here's the story: voice actress Jennifer Hale purportedly voices a character named Samus Aran in the Metroid Prime trilogy of video games. I say 'purportedly' because there were no reliable sources to support this, only dubious ones like the IMDb, until this video interview with Hale was conducted by a blogger named Sadie a.k.a. "UltraNeko" and placed on her (Sadie's) blog late last year. She has performed several other interviews with voice actors, as well as other people in the video game industry. Within the video interview, Jennifer Hale confirms she voiced Samus (it's at about 2:10 into the video). So, I added that information to the Samus Aran and Jennifer Hale articles and used the video interview as the source, but a user named Gary King removed the information, stating the video isn't reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". Is that reasonable? Because to claim that one of Sadie's interviews isn't authentic is to claim they're all inauthentic. These voice actors look like themselves, and they even perform their characters' voices within the interviews.
At Gary King's request, I brought this to a user named Ealdgyth and she agreed with him that the video interview isn't reliable enough. But the fact still stands that Jennifer Hale confirmed she voiced Samus and I have the video to prove it. The interviews are definitely authentic, so why can't they be used? Or can they? Thanks to anyone that responds. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The results of this discussion aren't exactly conclusive, so I would greatly appreciate more input on this. Thanks to anyone who further responds. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just a question to help back me up. Are forum threads from a website a good reference for the article talking about the website? I think not, but I need opinions. Thanks!-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Blockland Forum is what people are planning on using as a source.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
They are using a thread about the game being sold to Lego to prove that the event happened along with numerous other things that I am not fully informed of.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
They want to use the thread as proof that LEGO had an interest in buying the game.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The page they want to use the thread on is Blockland and one of the forum threads they want to use is this one.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Are Helium.com articles reliable sources? The article in question is Travian.-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is so silly that I sort of hesitate to bring it up here, but I don't know of a better forum for discussing what's an acceptable source. The Oom Yung Doe article currently has several citations to court cases (as opposed to specific court documents) -- the two references used are, in their entirety, "United States v. Kim, No. 1:95-cr-00214 (N.D. Ill. 1995)." and "People of the State of Illinois v. John C. Kim, et. al. No. C89-CH-10044 (N.D. Ill. 1992)". The editors who inserted these references have refused (or failed to respond to) several requests to identify in detail which document from the cases in question supports the statements that bear those citations.
My feeling is that this is not acceptable; a court case is an event, not a document that can be cited. A filing or transcript from a court case is, of course, a perfectly acceptable source. Can someone confirm that my feeling is correct?
Thanks. Subverdor ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In summary: What is the policy on Hate, White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Extremists concerning their validity as reliable sources?
Unfortunately, many of these haters, white supremacists and holocaust deniers have Ph.D., masters degrees (like Dr. Butz) and other advanced technical degrees from universities, colleges, technical schools etc... or these haters don't have top degrees, but extensive experience for example in execution technology like Fred Leuchter for instance (who worked in many states rebuilding execution technology and so forth see the movie Mr. Death about Fred Leuchter).
I don't condone these people getting advanced degrees in engineering or getting extensive experience in technology oriented fields, im just mainly concerned about their validity as reliable sources for example. Which came first the Holocaust Denier or the Holocaust Denier getting extensive experience in execution technology and then using that knowledge to claim or realize after extensive forensic study the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated. Holocaust Denial is something I abhor.
I started a conversation in the discussion talk area of the Leuchter Report article on wikipedia about including a link to the actual article the Leuchter Report, a research report which promotes Holocaust Denial. The problem I am having is DougWeller and a number of other editors for emotional and political reasons keep deleting and editing my discussion thread in the Leuchter Report Talk Discussion area preventing me from discussing the links to the actual research article called the Leuchter Report and thus preventing others from discussing it as well.
They also keep deleting the link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter report article because of hurtful feelings, sensitive political and emotional reasons, and I was wondering what the policy is on Reliable sources and can someones feelings or emotions be a reason to prevent such a link from an article. I make no personal attacks against the deleters, just their statements came off as very empty, hollow, lacking in merit and substance.
When I add the link to the actual Leuchter Research Report by Execution Technician Fred Leuchter to the actual Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia, User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon and a number of other editors keep deleting or arguing against the links, saying WP is not a directory of hate links, well I only added 1 or 2 links, as an argument against that, then they change the reason and say something along the lines Hate Sites links are not allowed on wikipedia or that you can't link to hate sites, Then I say there is no policy on linking to hate sites on a hate article. They then say / elude to hate sites are not valid and reliable sources, not notable, not good sources, one even said because of fears these links might convert people into neo-nazies by making it easy for them or make it to easy for people to find information on hate sites which arent considered valid or reliable they elude to. To restate they would rather people have to take the extra step and go to google to find the actual Leuchter Report, they dont want it easy for people to find the information.
I'm not suggesting we use references links from hate sites as sources or references for the mainstream version of the Holocaust, im just suggesting there should be a link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia and I keep meeting with emotionalism, politics, pseudo intellectual red herrings like the Hitler card or hate card. I make no personal attacks towards these editors User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon, my criticism is on their reasons and behavior - not the people themselves. Infact, I think these editors are very nice people in general, and their heart is in Wikipedia, I just find the emotionalism Politics to be against wikipedia neutrality and lacking in any kind of substance, but other than that: User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon are really really nice people with good hearts.
I do not in anyway shape or form support these hate sites, I just think on a hate article, there should be a link to the original source.
So what is the policy on hate sites? What is the policy on linking to hate sites? Is it not allowed on Wikipedia? What is the policy on hate references? etc.. etc..
Is there an administrator who can put their hatred of nazis (a hatred I share) aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point and help give me some clarity?
Markacohen (
talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of books have forwards. How would a forward invalidate a book or article? Would you not publish a link to the book mein kampf on the mein kampf book article because the forward was by the Angel of Death Dr. Mengele? It's like saying, because the research document has a forward on it, some how the document is no longer valid or the Forward some how changes the substance of the original document. In good faith assume most people are intelligent enough to form their own opinions on a book or research document.
Would it help if all the hate, holocaust denial, extremist and other fringe and pseudo academic works were all put on Archive.org which is a neutral source? Would this help solve the problem here? I have yet to hear anything of any Wikipedia substance or merit as to why you wouldn't link to an original source the article was about.
Markacohen ( talk) 11:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole substance and supposition of this entire exchange was to make this point, if you are going to write an article about the Leuchter Report or any report for that matter, you need to link to at least link the original document. If the document could not be found on a Neutral site, then the only alternative would be to link to it from a hate site - which is 100% valid according to Wikipedias policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI.
I'm glad you guys put the hurt sensitive feeling and emotions aside for a moment in the name of making WP a better place by putting a copy of the document on a Neutral site (rather than no link at all). However, I think a better solution would be to put the document on a more long term web site like www.Archive.org as I'm guessing it will be a matter of time before the original document is deleted off Flickr.com and when it is I will put a copy on Archive.org where it can not be deleted and re-link it on the Leuchter Report.
So everything concerning only this specific issue seems to be Kosher for the time being, now on to the next struggle for putting emotional politics aside for neutrality and building a Wikipedia with proper sources.
The next conflict I was having was over Germar Rudolf, there is no Neutral web sites on the Internet where Germar Rudolfs books can be found. So I linked to a hate site to link to Germar Rudolf books online, and they were deleted for again reasons without Wikipedia substance or merit. What would be the solution here? To put the books on Archive.org a neutral site, before linking to them, so there aren't links to them from hate sites?
Question is this, can we talk more about the policy of linking to Hate sites from articles about individuals Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and Haters? There seems to be numerous links all over Wikipedia to hate sites from articles about haters, Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and so forth. It seems the policy is clear, you can link to hate sites from articles about individual Haters and Organizations.
I would like to put links on the Germar Rudolf page to the books he wrote, but coming up against the same group of people deleting the links for reasons that lack Wikipedia substance and merit. What do I do here?
Markacohen ( talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the Amnesty International website appropriate for a source in the article Troy Davis case. I question their neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis' plea for innocence. JakeH07 ( talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually believe JakeH07 that he questions Amnesty International's neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis. He claimed that because they "represent" Troy Davis they are not an independent source. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI work. In the archives I found two previous comments about AI's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch in a slightly different context:
The question is of course not whether AI is reliable for a statement about what AI think. The question is whether Amnesty International agreeing with the European Parliament, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter that Troy Davis is a victim of a miscarriage of justice outweigh a one-line decision by the US Supreme Court to not consider his case. The practical application is how much space should be given to exonerating evidence and Troy Davis' claims of innocence. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I can find no policy indicating specifically that search engine results cannot be used as a source. Am I missing something? If not it really ought to be stated somewhere directly, as I've come across articles which try to use them as sources.-- Cúchullain t/ c 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
http://deviousmud.tripod.com/ I don't believe so; sounds like an indiviual's blog hosted by Tripod.com. No author is provided. No date of publication. TechOutsider ( talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a question about whether an author's claim about how many newspapers he's been published in can be accepted. There are no sources contradicting the number given, but one editor thinks it's "doubtful" and that it's an "exceptional claim" ( WP:REDFLAG). See Irfan Yusuf#Self-published sources. Rd232 talk 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is in regards to this edit [15]. The entire section is sourced to a single cite [16]. Is Scribd a reliable source? I'm not that familiar with that Web site but it appears than anyone can upload a document to it. Even if it was reliable and the document accurate, I'm concerned that this constitutes WP:OR. I did an albeit brief Google search and did not find any reliable sources that covers the release of this document. I also posted my concern on that articles talk page here [17]. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As others have said, it's a convenience link, nothing more. -- NE2 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDyC0QRyM0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLz-ChkPQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8
Above are three youtube movies which are in an information/lecture format with an expert delivering the information to the camera. They are in the public domain, produced by the US Geological Survey and available on YouTube. They tie directly to the subjects of Supervolcanoes and Volcanism in Yellowstone National Park. There is no better source for information on these topics than the individual, Jake Lowenstern, speaking on each short movie. He's the scientist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and he's in many ways refuting widespread misinformation about the Yellowstone's volcanic status. Is there a better source? I tried posting these as "external links" in the "supervolcano" page at the bottom they were quickly dumped i guess due to the youtubiness of the links. Can someone please help me get around this problem? TravisBickleLogic 18:08, April 24, 2009
At Talk:Republic of China#"De facto" capital? and Talk:Republic of China#Email from the government of ROC (automatic translation) a source has been provided that consists of an email that one of the editors claims was received from the ROC Ministry of Interior. Normally this would not count as a verifiable source, but in this case there is a twist. The claim has been made that if we send the same inquiry to Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior, we will get the same response. This would make the source verifiable because any editor can write the government agency for verification.
I have not done so myself to test the verification because My Chinese reading and writing skills aren't up to the task of using the link that was provided. But assuming I could do this task, and did to this task, and received the expected result that agreed with the other editor's letter, would this be considered a reliable source? Readin ( talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. Readin ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A user recently added " http://folk.uio.no/morters/wot/WintersHeartv6/Chapter22.html" as a source to the Minor Wheel of Time characters article. I haven't explored it thoroughly, but it appears to be a verbatim copy of most of the books of the Wheel of Time series on a Norwegian website. This has got to be some kind of copyright violation on the part of that website, right? Should we be using something like this as a source? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the work above be considered a reliable source for information on the Soviet positions and POVs of various subjects? John Carter ( talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that all of the sources in this BLP may be unreliable. I'm concerned about the following in particular:
All of the sources definitely need assessment.
Born Gay ( talk) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get some clarification on whether or not documents published by the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights (specifically this document) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) ( specifically this document) are WP:RS' in the context of a debate over how to describe the Israeli locality of Ramot. An editor at Talk:Ramot seems to be suggesting that precedence should be given to "mainstream, neutral, English-language sources" rather than those from "other organizations". It is my belief that these UN affiliated organizations are mainstream English-language sources (I'd also argue that they are neutral but that's really irrelevant since NPOV does not preclude expressing POVs that are properly attributed) and do in fact constitute high quality RS's. Could someone take a look see and offer their thoughts? Thanks. Tiamut talk 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that UNDPR would, in general, be a reliable source for use on wikipedia. Note though that the document linked in the first post is a a media review containing abstracts of media reports in the region. Searching for Ramot in the page, I found the following quote:
Israeli bulldozers started to raze agricultural land in the village of Beit Hanina At-Tahta located near the "Ramot" settlement north of Jerusalem for the construction of the separation wall. Israeli forces prevented villagers from approaching their land after having declared the area a closed military zone.
— Ma'an News Agency
If this is the bit we plan to cite, it should attributed to the Ma'an News Agency and not quoted as UNDPR's position. Abecedare ( talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion does not represent the crux of the issue. Putting aside whether advocacy organizations are reliable sources (they should not be, and clearly there's no consensus that they are), the question is whether these orgs' terms are given greater precedence then the terms employed by international mainstream news sources. The readers are probably well aware, but what's behind this thread is the debate in the article Ramot whether it should be described as a "settlement" or a "neighborhood". The only sources that use the word "settlement" are the UN-affiliated orgs and Ma'an News Agency, a PA affiliated news source. The other mainstream sources, NY Times, LA Times, BBC all use the term "neighborhood" and never use the term "settlement" when describing the area. So even if were to accept that these terms employed by these orginizations are somewhat reliable, their terms never trump the terms used by mainstream international news organizations.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
IP editors keep removing the whole controversy section from this article as can be seen in this edit. Are these sources reliable enough that the article be reverted and locked from editing if necessary?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-02-04-598541874_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956815/
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5343
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004163328_webintelius04.html
http://www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=157142
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Verizon+Intelius&cf=all
Thank you
— Zener 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
[26] Apparently this is not a reliable source, allegedly because it links to a travel site. This is being used to justify removing a cite on Ushuaia, substituting with a dubious tag. I personally can't see a problem with the cite but as it seems to be the locus of a content dispute thought I'd bring it here. Justin talk 21:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Planet Bollywood a reliable source? It seems to somewhat gossipy to me. I also noticed that on its About Us page it says it has been featured by major news organisations, but not used as a source. None of the articles appear to have credited authors, just the somewhat ambiguous (and misspelled) byline "Planet Bollywood Special Correspondant". Copana2002 ( talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently, an article I had created about the tacosort sorting algorithm was deleted for a lack of reliable sources. However, since the deletion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology included this in their dictionary of data structures and algorithms in this article: [27]. Would this constitute a reliable source and be grounds to recreate the article using this new information? Mbernard707 ( talk) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You should probably build up a paragraph on Tacosort within an article on sorting algorithms instead of a separate article. I've been on too many AFDs that went bad even when sources were being found. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Audrey magazine a generally reliable source? (It appears to be borderline gossip mag) Particularly for this quote from an interview in the article Freida Pinto: Pinto states that she is "completely pure Indian", but her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto. Sung, Helena. "Destiny's Child". Audrey Magazine (February - March 2009). Retrieved 2009-04-29.
Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like some feedback regarding the inclusion of a Facebook link to a page for a group supporting Philip Markoff (the accused in the Boston Craigslist killing and assaults).
A rather contentious editor, Theo789 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who I believe previously edited as 63.215.27.57 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has insisted on this wording and link:
I have removed the Facebook link and swapped it for the following identical text with a reliable source as citation:
My understanding of policy is that Facebook is not a reliable source, and links to it are to be avoided, per WP:ELNO. Since the Albany Times-Union RS citation covers the matter and is not problematic, I have tried to explain to User:Theo789 that we should go with the RS, not the Facebook link, but he has repeatedly reverted and attacked me and my edit as somehow representing that Markoff is guilty, which in fact has nothing at all to do with it.
Please note that this is not a content dispute - the text is identical. It is completely a sourcing issue.
I'm not an expert on precedents regarding Facebook links here, so I would appreciate some opinions on how to proceed. And we can use some help over on that article to keep it neutral - Theo789 has not sought or received consensus for his edits, and is just doing as he sees fit, insulting editors and ignoring policy. (See Talk: Philip Markoff#Commentary and Talk: Philip Markoff#Edits by Tvoz, for example - other examples in edit histories and elsewhere on the Talk page.) Thanks. Tvoz/ talk 22:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
← Now this same editor has added this footnote which is a link to a Facebook discussion page. Could you explain to him why this is not an acceptable source? I'm about to give up on this. Tvoz/ talk 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that WP prefers newer sources to outdated ones, for example a 2003 source is better than a 1920 one. Where's the policy/guideline dealing with that? Squash Racket ( talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Ajaxian a reliable source for information on software or websites? This came up in an AFD. To me it screams non-RS but I've never been particularly trusting of blogs and other not particularly traditional websources so I'm trying to see if I'm in a minority here. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor wants the publications of the
Shakespeare Oxford Society (
[28]) to be considerecd RS. The SOS, which is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, is dedicated to the belief that
Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. His argument is that "the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration."
[29] The fact is that all these people are committed Oxfordians (Stritmatter is also Wikipedia editor under the name
user:BenJonson). The journal is a purely private publication with an absolutely polemical agenda. As we know, it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants. The fact remains that this is the internal publication of an organisation dedicated to a fringe theory.
Paul B (
talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The claims by Paul Barlow in this thread seem to me to be full of abundant misdirection.
These seem to me to be misdirections and trumped up alarms and inflammatory falsehoods to cover the fact that Paul simply does not like the well-sourced, meticulously researched and cited information contained within the source and noted in the Wikipedia article. I might add that Paul seems to me to be attempting to exercise WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, the bulk of which he created and which he seems to be patrolling so as not to allow sourced viewpoints which disagree with his own, which is in violation of NPOV. Softlavender ( talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Dr. Wright, (obtained from Concordia University website): "Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom." Reliable source? I would hope so. Smatprt ( talk) 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Dr. Strittmatter, (obtained from UMass Amherst): "The marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential discovery, literary reasoning, and historical consequence, by Roger A Stritmatter, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Abstract - This dissertation analyzes the findings of a ten year study of the 1568-70 Geneva Bible originally owned and annotated by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and now owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C. (Folger shelf mark 1427). This is the first and--presently--only dissertation in literary studies which pursues with open respect the heretical and thesis of John Thomas Looney (1920), B. M. Ward (1928), Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1984) and other "amateur" scholars, which postulates de Vere as the literary mind behind the popular nom de plume "William Shakespeare." The dissertation reviews a selection of the many credible supports for this theory and then considers confirmatory evidence from the annotations of the de Vere Bible, demonstrating the coherence of life, literary preceden, and art, which is the inevitable consequence of the theory. Appendices offer detailed paleographical analysis, review the history of the authorship question, consider the chronology of the Shakespearean canon, and refute the claim of some critics that the alleged connections between the de Vere Bible and "Shakespeare" are random." Smatprt ( talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Felicia Londre: Dozens of books, articles, essays (from a quick search on Amazon Books) The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present (The history of world theater) by Felicia Hardison Londre and Daniel J. Watermeier; De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londré; No Applause--Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous.(Book review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; Words at Play: Creative Writing and Dramaturgy (Theater in the Americas) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - April 1999); Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism) by Felicia Londre (Paperback- Nov 2, 2000); Alexander Shurbanov and Boika Sokolova. Painting Shakespeare Red: An East-European Appropriation.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Drama by Felicia Hardison Londre; Federico Garcia Lorca. by Felicia Hardison Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1984); A History of African American Theatre.(Book Review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1998); The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : F by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 2000); The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (A Frederick Ungar Book) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 1999). Wow - Now I'm impressed. Ms. Londre appears to be more reliable than many of the sources being used in the articles in question. Smatprt ( talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Anne Pluto:(brief websearch) Much Ado About Nothing, Anne Pluto editor, Oxfordian Shakespeare Series/Llumina Press; Pluto is a published poet and professor of English at Leslie University. Will attempt to do more research on her this weekend. But in short, yes she has been published on Authorship matters. Smatprt ( talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Not an RS for Shakespeare studies. A fringe organisation pushing a fringe belief (in the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship and the public at large). Verbal chat 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The question we have apparently been asked is determine whether an article published by the Shakespeare Fellowship is a reliable source "to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar", not to cite that that Shakespearean authorship has been disputed (which is easy to source from many, many indisputably reliable sources). The V and A representatives are named living people who in an email correspondence with Burris apparently made certain statements. [35] Burris, the reporter of these comments is, all (including the SF website) appear to agree is "an amateur art historian", not a published scholar in the field. She is publishing her work in a newsletter affiliated with an organization dedicated to the promotion of one particular viewpoint of Shakespearian authorship. Despite the listings above, the newsletter does not appear to be peer-reviewed in any real sense of the term given that none of the editorial board listed is an art historian; in fact Burris' article was critiqued later by others, as also noted by the website itself. [36].
So, no, I do not consider this newsletter to be a reliable source for this information or any other information. This particularly the case because it involves quoting living people. I am also concerned about undue weight; if these views of scholars from the V and A are notable and significant, then they will be also be expressed and published in other, better, sources. -- Slp1 ( talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Such representations and distortions about William Shakespeare are not the accepted scholarly consensus among literary historians, which is the difference, and which really is the heart of the topic in this discussion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
...is an online journal devoted to film. About the journal: it has an ISSN (ISSN 1443-4059), is financially assisted by Screen Australia and Film Victoria, indexed by Google Scholar and the MLA (Modern Language Association of America) International Bibliography, and is listed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. It does not seem to claim any academic affiliations or be run by credentialed scholars (its founding editor is an "independent filmmaker"), but does seem to be cited in the literature.
Is this a reliable source? Any comments appreciated. Skomorokh 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
www.hiphopdx.com has, for a long time, been used as a reference to source album sales. For a long time, I've deemed this site unreliable as it wouldn't get past GA as a reliable source, let alone pass an FA. I tried search for information of Cheri Media Group (the apparent host of HipHopDX) and I've found nothing, except its website, which provides absolutely nothing. I'd like to get other eyes on HipHopDX to determine whether or not this should be used as a source. — Σ xplicit 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Does having writers constitute a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's the main probably I see. Also, would this be able to pass an FA? — Σ xplicit 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not specifically out for updating sales every week, but getting a closer approximate of current sale figures, as some albums don't have any information past the first week from other sources. So in this case, it seems HipHopDX would work. — Σ xplicit 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Tough one, as most of these are in German. For your convenience, here is the link for Google Translate: [43].
The majority, if not all, of these references, look to me to be not reliable sources, but simple announcements of performances, program notes, or self-published. Where the sources do appear reliable, Hauke Harder is just briefly mentioned.
FYI, most of these sources have been added after I nominated the article for deletion.
Your comments would be appreciated. As a regular poster at RSN, I'll recuse myself from the discussion. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
http://www.charternet.com/greatgear/captains-free.html
file:///C:/eric/profesiona%3b%20mariner.htm
file:///C:/eric/Automatic_Identification_System.htm
file:///C:/eric/bermuda%20maritime.htm
A dispute over accuracy has arisen in the article Led Zeppelin over the number of albums the group has sold worldwide (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales). A figure of 300 million is cited by some sources while 200 million is cited by other sources. It has been suggested that the references showing 300 million are a case of circular sourcing (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#300_million. The sources supporting the 300 million figure are: CNN [44], VH1 [45], The Local, a Swedish online newspaper [46], The Daily Telegraph [47] and the Mail & Guardian, a South African weekly newspaper [48]
Two of the better sources listed above, CNN and The Daily Telgraph are contradicted by other articles published by the same orginizations: [49] and [50]
Sources supporting the 200 million figure include the group's record company, Atlantic Records (see atlanticrecords.com/ledzeppelin) and Led Zeppelin's official web site (see ledzeppelin.com/news), plus these publications: The Times [51], The Guardian [52], The Independent [53], Press Association [54], Los Angeles Times [55] and Billboard [56].
Also, two published book sources cite 200 million:
Hulett, Ralph; Prochnicky, Jerry Whole Lotta Led: Our Flight with Led Zeppelin (2005)
Can any of these sources be considered more reliable than others? Piriczki ( talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, what would be more reliable to source Case Closed air dates. toonzone.com or anime.futurizmo.com. Toonzone has the airdates in once place but I'm not sure about the relibility of the site. Futurizmo lists episodes off the adult swim schedule from their site so it seems more reliable. Please reply to my talk, sorry if that's troublesome. DragonZero ( talk) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it a realiable source? http://theroadcompany.com/ Simone Jackson ( talk) 14:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about what people think about the reliability of this source. I came across it at Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Impact. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. Among those are; Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html ; Onwar.com http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/pacific1879.htm and Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm One user claims these sources are not reliable since they don’t list any references. Is this the case? I read somewhere that Encarta, Britannica and other online encyclopedias are authoritative. Please advice.
Likeminas ( talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There are sources that claim that Bolivia declared war on March 1st, March 8th, and March 14th; along with the sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war. Like I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think that it would be best if the information was presented in a neutral point of view where it is noted that it is unknown if Bolivia truly declared war at that particular date.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"On March 1st, Bolivia passed an internal decree against Chilean interests, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war"
Arafael ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, one of the contributors in Republic of China is using the sources below as a basis for some of his edits. In particular, he wants to put in the article that Nanjing is the de jure capital of the ROC. However, some of us argue that these sources are not acceptable since they all take their content from Wikipedia (see the small prints at the bottom of the pages). There are no sources other than these five links, which he keeps bringing them to the discussion. So are these sources considered reliable per Wikipedia's criteria? Laurent ( talk) 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
There's a very good Spanish source for Rivadavia here, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? ( Google Translate link) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Fox News website a reliable source? I am editing the Human Rights and the United States page and another editor wishes to use this Fox News article as a source for the number of times waterboarding was used on detainees: Article here. I am happy to use the ICRC report linked to in the article, but I am not sure about the testimony from the un-named "US official". I would also question the reliability and credibility of Fox News generally, but not sure of its acceptability on Wikipedia. Pexise ( talk) 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fox news puts us in a pickle. As does huffington post. Both entities have named authors on the byline, they have editorial staff, they state that fact checking is performed and they are (as has been said above) national news services. Both organizations have seats at the press briefing room in the white house. Both organizations run a mix of reported material and opinion and are usually clear when a piece is obviously one thing or obviously another. So, if we play the straight man, both sources are reliable. They can technically be used to support 99% of all claims made in our articles...
But hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors. Both Fox and Huffpo (among other "news" sources ranging from the unreliable to the fairly reliable) are relentlessly partisan and while they distinguish pure opinion from reported material, their editorial slant sneaks in to reportage constantly. Apart from the obvious bias involved with selection of content (which thankfully isn't too big a deal with us), presentation of facts, use of data and couching of spin will push left for huffpo and right for Fox. Far enough for either organization that I would be hesitant to use them as sources unless I really had to.
So my 'official' recommendation is "Of course Fox News is a reliable source". My recommendation for the personal practice of editors is that the fewer contentious claims we source to organizations like Huffpo or FNC the better. Protonk ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No, Fox News doesn't put us in a pickle. We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. We do this all the time even for sources that are much more partisan than Fox. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It is factual that David Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers, under the pseudonym, Dorothy Vanderbilt. But it can't be substantiated that the book, Finder's Keepers, contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable and the secondary sources cited do not actually cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers. If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on Wikipedia.
Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources, especially when the secondary sources don't cite the primary source!
Shady References:
1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." [80]
2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here: [81]
3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content. [82]
-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.
[83] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.
-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying Wikipedia defers to notable/reputable publishing houses as the authority on the content of a book, and not the actual book itself? -- Bureaucracy ( talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, asking for proof is silly. So far, Wikipedia is relying on three sources which fail to backup a serious charge.
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. — Hillel-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph [85]
BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User:
Will Beback
talk 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) who seems to want to defer rather than fact check.
--
Bureaucracy (
talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, good lord. There are literally a half dozen other book sources noting the same connection. I don't think this can be attributed to Powell, Tyler and the ADL making up the claim. Protonk ( talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, I agree, there are half a dozen sources characterizing the book as giving sexual advice. There seems to be two competing descriptions, one is dating advise for women and the other is "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Not one of these sources cites the book itself, not even a footnote in these scholarly works.
Perhaps these scholars are chasing each others' tail. Perhaps they know they won't be held accountable because it's David Duke. Or, perhaps Duke did indeed published a pornographic book.
I'm with Ordinary Person. Should I contact Powell or is that the responsibility of the Administrators?-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Protonk. I suppose it is not impossible that these sources have all relied on a set of false sources, but I think that should be enough weight for now. (To my mind, suggesting that Duke wrote such a book only enhances his reputation by implying that at one time he wrote something potentially helpful.) Still, it would be nice if someone can lay their hands on a copy of Finders Keepers, so that a couple of confirming quotes can be placed in the article. I'm emailing Powell anyway: you never know your luck.
Ordinary Person (
talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Treat it as true, until something contradicts it. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) (
contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I did contact Professor Powell, explained the circumstances, and he gave a very helpful reply:
I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University. It is in its "Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism" collection. (For what it's worth, Patsy Sims can be reached at Goucher College in Baltimore, where she heads the MFA Program in Non-Fiction.)
I visited the collection today and photocopied pertinent pages of Finders-Keepers. Arlington Press (a neo-nazi house, if memory serves) released it in 1976. Duke wrote it under the pseudonym James Konrad and Dorothy Vanderbilt. I'm more than happy to send you Chapter Ten: "Toward a More Fulfilling Sex-Life."
Meanwhile, here are a few representative quotations that clinch the argument:
p. 115-- "One simple exercise you can do (and you can do it any time of the day--driving to work, sitting at your desk, or watching TV--and nobody will know you are doing it) involves merely contracting the vaginal muscles. It is not difficult to learn. Get in a sitting position, and imagine you are urinating (sounds gross, doesn't it?). Now use the same muscles you would use to stop the urination. Do you feel the muscles tighten?....Another exercise you can do involves the vibrator."
pp. 117-8-- "In fellating your lover, you can assume any position that is comfortable and in close proximity to his penis, In your normal foreplay of kissing this area, kiss him up and down the shaft of the penis and lubricate it quite well with your tongue."
p. 119-- "A very sensitive and erogenous area to both yourself and your lover is the anus....Some women occasionally place (carefully) one of their fingers in it during intercourse when body position makes it possible Most men really enjoy such activity on your part during lovemaking....Many couples today see nothing wrong with limited anal sex."
I think this nails it.
Ordinary Person (
talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ordinary Person, nice one. I think Duke's pages needs a new section: Pornographer. Can you forward me the photocopies or post them? I'd like to see.... since Powell went to the trouble of copying them.-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | → | Archive 40 |
I've been creating articles for Tennis players, mainly based on the databases of WTA and ITF. These are script-based databases: one interrogates them, and is shown results. They don't produce URLs that one can use to show this or that piece of information. So, although all of the information is in those databases, inline citations cannot be created for specific pieces of information. I have been placing the links to the WTA/ITF player pages in External links, and leaving it at that. Anyone who wants to check the information will have to press the appropriate buttons at the WTA or ITF sites.
Recently, one of these was hit with a {{
No footnotes}}
tag. On one hand, I can't deny that the warning is literally true, but on the other hand, there's nothing that can be done about it when the sources are in this form.
I am not here for arbitration, I just want advice. Am I justified in removing the tag? Is there another tag that would be more appropriate? Any comments would be welcome. Ordinary Person ( talk) 04:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Is this considered a reliable source? The site is dedicated to media with a detective theme and is not publicly edited like Anime News Network encyclopedia. Currently it's used to source List of Case Closed episodes (season 1) at its Detective Conan episode section. DragonZero ( talk) 22:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Ethel Merman has a fact tag challenging the assertion that she is a mezzo-soprano. I found this, which describes her as mezzo-soprano/alto. Can I use this to cite her as a mezzo-soprano/alto? Dlabtot ( talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings all, I likely will be making a few trips here but wanted to start with the most complex one as the others are pretty basic. Julie Bindel is a writer, Guardian columnist and a career activist. We have a group of editors intent on including information about some of Bindel's opinions on transgenderism which would be fine except it's being done in problematic ways. I don't consider myself an expert on trans issues but certainly rather well-informed. My interest however is neutralizing the information to remove POV and poor sourcing. This has been steadfastly opposed so I've called in support from ANI and ... it's currently mired in circular discussion. (sigh)
Meanwhile I've had one lingering concern I need help clarifying. National Union of Students of the United Kingdom has annual conferences where various platforms are presented and voted on. These seem awfully politicized and I have doubts on their notability for use in this manner. We are reporting:
“ | Despite continuing disapproval of her views from the transgender community and a vote of censure against her at the National Union of Students LGBT Campaign's 2008 Conference, she was nominated for the UK LGB rights organisation Stonewall's 2008 "Journalist of the year" award, which was eventually won by Dr Miriam Stoppard. | ” |
sourced to NUS LGBT Summer Campaign Conference 2008 Motions Document
and
“ | In 2009, her continued publication of controversial articles led to a no-platform motion being passed against her by the NUS Women's Campaign. | ” |
Sourced to NUS Women’s Campaign 2009 Motion Documents and NUS Women’s Campaign 2009
If these platform votes are not reported in reliable sources do they belong at all? If we do include them what is the NPOV way to do so? Any advice appreciated. -- Banjeboi 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion I propose that these sources and the content related to them be removed as they are primary sources used on a BLP and likely not notable as the content is not published by third-party reliable sources.
The consensus seems to be clear to remove. If no one is opposed I think we should close this and if an admin would be willing to remove the content we can move on to other issues on this BLP. -- Banjeboi 21:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Are scans of copies of marriage certificates considered reliable sources? Another editor is claiming he has these for Bob Ross and wants to use them in the article but would like to confirm they are considered reliable considering they are scans of copies. How do we "authenticate" them? -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The BBC Trust#2009 Editorial Standards Committee report section (which has been moved from the Jeremy Bowen article following an edit war, protection and 3rd opinion) discusses a recent report of the BBC Trust issued following complaints made against Middle East reporting by Bowen and BBC News. One editor is insistent that the comments of the complainants following the report should be included, in particular that some comments by someone called Jonathan Turner should be quoted. I do not believe that Turner is a reliable source and his opinions should not be recorded here, irrespective of his partially successful complaint. His comments have been widely reported including in The Jerusalem Post and the Guardian, which I assume to be reliable themselves. However, I do not think that makes any difference to the reliability of Turner's comments.
One particular quote that this editor wishes to include is something to the effect that the BBC took 2 years to correct an article that was found to breach accuracy regulations. The full comment from Turner is that this (and Bowen's reporting in general) has had an impact on anti-Semitic attacks. That, to me, is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source and Turner is not an exceptional source. Further, the Guardian article linked to above is particularly critical of this statement and says it is an "unfounded slur". Now, both the comment and the response could be included in the article, but I think that including this comment by an unreliable source is over-representing a minority viewpoint and should be left out altogether.
Other comments on this whole affair have been made by CAMERA and the Zionist Federation. The Guardian article is equally critical of their comments and, in my view, CAMERA had the chance to voice their opinions in the ESC Report. While I am not as bothered about including quotes from these parties (since they are established organisations rather than individuals) I still think doing so is putting undue weight on their apparently minority opinions.
Sorry for the long explanation, but the whole issue of Middle East reporting is very sensitive and (as I mention above) prone to cause edit wars so I wanted to give people as much info as I could. GDallimore ( Talk) 13:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to define the journal of "Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology" as a non reliable source since it has as sponsors many groups with conflict of interests [1] and many of its articles are written by employees of consulting companies like Cantox/Intrinsik whose role is defined as "protect client interests while helping our clients achieve milestones and bring products to market" [2]. Nutriveg ( talk) 14:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has criticized the journal by name as "read[ing] more like a house organ of big business than an independent, peer-reviewed scientific journal... It is hard for anyone to have confidence in RTP's published research when blatant conflicts of interest are concealed." ( [3]). In the book Doubt Is Their Product (Michaels, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780195300673), RTP is described as the best known of a group of "vanity journals that present themselves to the unwary as independent sources on information and science... the peer reviewers are carefully chosen, like-minded corporate consultants sitting in friendly judgment on studies that are exquisitely structured to influence a regulatory proceeding or court case."
We've had an entry on RTP in a (completely informal) list of "Questionable Sources" for awhile now. I agree with Dlabtot - context is important, and it's hard to make binary, blanket pronouncements about reliability, but there's certainly a case for a large grain of salt here. I would, however, hesitate to extend the six-degrees-of-separation approach suggested by II, unless similarly reliable sources are similarly critical of Crit Rev Toxicol. MastCell Talk 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A user sourced material at The Good Witch of the West using allcinema.net. Is someone well versed in Japanese willing to check if this is a reliable source? WhisperToMe ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Maria Surfs The Web is a spot on KTTV (Fox news channel in LA) where Maria Quiban reviews web sites. Reliable source for establishing notability or any other uses? Examples here --neon white talk 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a total fluff piece that shows nothing more than the fact that the site exists. It is not "news" by any means, and does not contain any useful commentary or analysis. Neon is editwarring to use it to supplement other existing RS sources (which actually offer analysis and have some sense of journalistic integrity). If this installment of MSTW was the only source for a website, I think an article about that site would fail AFD. Can we have this conversation with the other editors on the talk page instead of hiding it here? NJGW ( talk) 19:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The article about the Oom Yung Doe martial arts school relies heavily on the book "An Introduction to Traditional Moo Doe", copyrighted by Oom Yung Doe and used within the school as a sort of training manual. The book is available online[ [5]]. It seems pretty obvious that this is not a reliable source for controversial information about the school (such as the quality of the training or the accomplishments of the founder of the school), but is it a valid source for noncontroversial information (such as when the school was founded or what styles are taught)? Subverdor ( talk) 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Blueboar, I assume you have looked at the Oom Yung Doe article and the online book in question [6]. This links to a discussion of the author "jumping from the equivalent of an 11-story building" and the author "has taught some instructors [...] They are now able to jump and land from a 2 or 3-story building without injury". Could you tell me which of these Wiki conventions you feel applies to this author? Thanks! jmcw ( talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
“ | Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | ” |
— WP:RELIABLE#Self-published_sources |
“ | Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. | ” |
— WP:PRIMARY |
“ | Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | ” |
— WP:SPS |
“ | Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information [...] so long as: [...] 4 there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5 the article is not based primarily on such sources. | ” |
— WP:SELFPUB |
I would like to propose a guideline as to what can be used from the Handbook: Posit: If a Wiki editor visited a school, could she/he usually see the activity or item being referenced. For example, if the Handbook say "During training, students hit themselves with bags of herbs", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "Students and instructors wear various coloured belts", this would be acceptable. If the handbook say "There is a legend ...", this would not be acceptable because a visitor could not verify the legend.
I think the Handbook would be more valuable to the article if there were less "statement of fact about the book" usage. Let us use what is reliable and discard the rest. jmcw ( talk) 12:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The article on Gerry Maclochlainn is being edited continuously because one person rejects the Western Mail newspaper as a reliable paper of record. I need someone who knows something about Wales and the Western Mail to intervene here. It is a paper of record but perhaps O fenian does not know this. He needs to check this rather than just acting on an assumption. I have tried to discuss this but he ignores my posts and removed my edits
The proper link is Gerry MacLochlainn. -- Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The Western Mail is a reliable source. Robert Hazell in The State and the Nations (Imprint Academic, 2000) calls it the closest thing Wales has to a paper of record. It's not accurate to call it a tabloid, with the derogatory connotations that implies. It is perceived as having moved downmarket in recent years, especially since a new editorial direction in 2005 put more emphasis on stories about leisure and entertainment. (Meryl Aldridge. Understanding the Local Media, McGraw-Hill International, 2007). However it continues to cover hard news, its stories are quoted extensively in literature about the press, and the cite in question is from 1980.
If you have doubts about the cite, it's reasonable to ask that the editor include the author of the piece, and quote you the relevant passages. Note though that the information he wishes to add is backed up elsewhere, for instance the National Library of Wales is holding MacLochlainn's Prison Letters 1981-1983 and describes it thus: "Twenty-seven letters, 1981-1983, from Gerry Maclochlainn, a Sinn Fein activist on the United Kingdom mainland, from Maidstone prison to Ioan M. Richard, organiser of 'Dros Ryddid', a left wing republican movement in South Wales. At the time, Maclochlainn was serving a four year prison term following conviction on conspiracy charges." [8] And a journal called The Blanket, published under the aegis of An Phoblacht, ran a piece by Liam O Ruairc which said "The former Sinn Fein organiser in Wales was released from Maidstone Prison in November 1983 after serving two and a half years of a sentence for conspiracy to cause explosions". [9] 86.44.45.98 ( talk) 16:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
RFCbio}}
) are still available to you before editing the article. I agree that the unsourced stuff should be removed persistently.
86.44.27.38 (
talk) 15:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)An IP editor is arguing that biographies on NME are copies of Wikipedia text in this article. I can't say I agree, so if others can take a look at the site and add their input, it would help. — Σ xplicit 17:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Details here. Please weigh in there, not here. It's about the current flu outbreak all over every inch of the news media and on our main page. rootology ( C)( T) 00:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I have a particularly frustrating situation here. Okay, here's the story: voice actress Jennifer Hale purportedly voices a character named Samus Aran in the Metroid Prime trilogy of video games. I say 'purportedly' because there were no reliable sources to support this, only dubious ones like the IMDb, until this video interview with Hale was conducted by a blogger named Sadie a.k.a. "UltraNeko" and placed on her (Sadie's) blog late last year. She has performed several other interviews with voice actors, as well as other people in the video game industry. Within the video interview, Jennifer Hale confirms she voiced Samus (it's at about 2:10 into the video). So, I added that information to the Samus Aran and Jennifer Hale articles and used the video interview as the source, but a user named Gary King removed the information, stating the video isn't reliable because "the person in a video might not necessarily be who they say they are". Is that reasonable? Because to claim that one of Sadie's interviews isn't authentic is to claim they're all inauthentic. These voice actors look like themselves, and they even perform their characters' voices within the interviews.
At Gary King's request, I brought this to a user named Ealdgyth and she agreed with him that the video interview isn't reliable enough. But the fact still stands that Jennifer Hale confirmed she voiced Samus and I have the video to prove it. The interviews are definitely authentic, so why can't they be used? Or can they? Thanks to anyone that responds. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The results of this discussion aren't exactly conclusive, so I would greatly appreciate more input on this. Thanks to anyone who further responds. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 09:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, just a question to help back me up. Are forum threads from a website a good reference for the article talking about the website? I think not, but I need opinions. Thanks!-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The Blockland Forum is what people are planning on using as a source.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 22:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
They are using a thread about the game being sold to Lego to prove that the event happened along with numerous other things that I am not fully informed of.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 22:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
They want to use the thread as proof that LEGO had an interest in buying the game.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 23:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The page they want to use the thread on is Blockland and one of the forum threads they want to use is this one.-- gordonrox24 ( talk) 14:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Are Helium.com articles reliable sources? The article in question is Travian.-- Joshua Issac ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This is so silly that I sort of hesitate to bring it up here, but I don't know of a better forum for discussing what's an acceptable source. The Oom Yung Doe article currently has several citations to court cases (as opposed to specific court documents) -- the two references used are, in their entirety, "United States v. Kim, No. 1:95-cr-00214 (N.D. Ill. 1995)." and "People of the State of Illinois v. John C. Kim, et. al. No. C89-CH-10044 (N.D. Ill. 1992)". The editors who inserted these references have refused (or failed to respond to) several requests to identify in detail which document from the cases in question supports the statements that bear those citations.
My feeling is that this is not acceptable; a court case is an event, not a document that can be cited. A filing or transcript from a court case is, of course, a perfectly acceptable source. Can someone confirm that my feeling is correct?
Thanks. Subverdor ( talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In summary: What is the policy on Hate, White Supremacist, Holocaust Denier and Extremists concerning their validity as reliable sources?
Unfortunately, many of these haters, white supremacists and holocaust deniers have Ph.D., masters degrees (like Dr. Butz) and other advanced technical degrees from universities, colleges, technical schools etc... or these haters don't have top degrees, but extensive experience for example in execution technology like Fred Leuchter for instance (who worked in many states rebuilding execution technology and so forth see the movie Mr. Death about Fred Leuchter).
I don't condone these people getting advanced degrees in engineering or getting extensive experience in technology oriented fields, im just mainly concerned about their validity as reliable sources for example. Which came first the Holocaust Denier or the Holocaust Denier getting extensive experience in execution technology and then using that knowledge to claim or realize after extensive forensic study the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated. Holocaust Denial is something I abhor.
I started a conversation in the discussion talk area of the Leuchter Report article on wikipedia about including a link to the actual article the Leuchter Report, a research report which promotes Holocaust Denial. The problem I am having is DougWeller and a number of other editors for emotional and political reasons keep deleting and editing my discussion thread in the Leuchter Report Talk Discussion area preventing me from discussing the links to the actual research article called the Leuchter Report and thus preventing others from discussing it as well.
They also keep deleting the link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter report article because of hurtful feelings, sensitive political and emotional reasons, and I was wondering what the policy is on Reliable sources and can someones feelings or emotions be a reason to prevent such a link from an article. I make no personal attacks against the deleters, just their statements came off as very empty, hollow, lacking in merit and substance.
When I add the link to the actual Leuchter Research Report by Execution Technician Fred Leuchter to the actual Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia, User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon and a number of other editors keep deleting or arguing against the links, saying WP is not a directory of hate links, well I only added 1 or 2 links, as an argument against that, then they change the reason and say something along the lines Hate Sites links are not allowed on wikipedia or that you can't link to hate sites, Then I say there is no policy on linking to hate sites on a hate article. They then say / elude to hate sites are not valid and reliable sources, not notable, not good sources, one even said because of fears these links might convert people into neo-nazies by making it easy for them or make it to easy for people to find information on hate sites which arent considered valid or reliable they elude to. To restate they would rather people have to take the extra step and go to google to find the actual Leuchter Report, they dont want it easy for people to find the information.
I'm not suggesting we use references links from hate sites as sources or references for the mainstream version of the Holocaust, im just suggesting there should be a link to the Leuchter Report from the Leuchter Report Article on wikipedia and I keep meeting with emotionalism, politics, pseudo intellectual red herrings like the Hitler card or hate card. I make no personal attacks towards these editors User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon, my criticism is on their reasons and behavior - not the people themselves. Infact, I think these editors are very nice people in general, and their heart is in Wikipedia, I just find the emotionalism Politics to be against wikipedia neutrality and lacking in any kind of substance, but other than that: User:DougWeller, User:RCS, User:WilliamH, User:jpgordon are really really nice people with good hearts.
I do not in anyway shape or form support these hate sites, I just think on a hate article, there should be a link to the original source.
So what is the policy on hate sites? What is the policy on linking to hate sites? Is it not allowed on Wikipedia? What is the policy on hate references? etc.. etc..
Is there an administrator who can put their hatred of nazis (a hatred I share) aside, and look at this from a neutral stand point and help give me some clarity?
Markacohen (
talk) 13:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of books have forwards. How would a forward invalidate a book or article? Would you not publish a link to the book mein kampf on the mein kampf book article because the forward was by the Angel of Death Dr. Mengele? It's like saying, because the research document has a forward on it, some how the document is no longer valid or the Forward some how changes the substance of the original document. In good faith assume most people are intelligent enough to form their own opinions on a book or research document.
Would it help if all the hate, holocaust denial, extremist and other fringe and pseudo academic works were all put on Archive.org which is a neutral source? Would this help solve the problem here? I have yet to hear anything of any Wikipedia substance or merit as to why you wouldn't link to an original source the article was about.
Markacohen ( talk) 11:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole substance and supposition of this entire exchange was to make this point, if you are going to write an article about the Leuchter Report or any report for that matter, you need to link to at least link the original document. If the document could not be found on a Neutral site, then the only alternative would be to link to it from a hate site - which is 100% valid according to Wikipedias policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and Wikipedia:PSCI.
I'm glad you guys put the hurt sensitive feeling and emotions aside for a moment in the name of making WP a better place by putting a copy of the document on a Neutral site (rather than no link at all). However, I think a better solution would be to put the document on a more long term web site like www.Archive.org as I'm guessing it will be a matter of time before the original document is deleted off Flickr.com and when it is I will put a copy on Archive.org where it can not be deleted and re-link it on the Leuchter Report.
So everything concerning only this specific issue seems to be Kosher for the time being, now on to the next struggle for putting emotional politics aside for neutrality and building a Wikipedia with proper sources.
The next conflict I was having was over Germar Rudolf, there is no Neutral web sites on the Internet where Germar Rudolfs books can be found. So I linked to a hate site to link to Germar Rudolf books online, and they were deleted for again reasons without Wikipedia substance or merit. What would be the solution here? To put the books on Archive.org a neutral site, before linking to them, so there aren't links to them from hate sites?
Question is this, can we talk more about the policy of linking to Hate sites from articles about individuals Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and Haters? There seems to be numerous links all over Wikipedia to hate sites from articles about haters, Holocaust Deniers, Extremists and so forth. It seems the policy is clear, you can link to hate sites from articles about individual Haters and Organizations.
I would like to put links on the Germar Rudolf page to the books he wrote, but coming up against the same group of people deleting the links for reasons that lack Wikipedia substance and merit. What do I do here?
Markacohen ( talk) 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the Amnesty International website appropriate for a source in the article Troy Davis case. I question their neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis' plea for innocence. JakeH07 ( talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually believe JakeH07 that he questions Amnesty International's neutrality because they have voiced support for Davis. He claimed that because they "represent" Troy Davis they are not an independent source. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI work. In the archives I found two previous comments about AI's reliability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Human Rights Watch in a slightly different context:
The question is of course not whether AI is reliable for a statement about what AI think. The question is whether Amnesty International agreeing with the European Parliament, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter that Troy Davis is a victim of a miscarriage of justice outweigh a one-line decision by the US Supreme Court to not consider his case. The practical application is how much space should be given to exonerating evidence and Troy Davis' claims of innocence. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I can find no policy indicating specifically that search engine results cannot be used as a source. Am I missing something? If not it really ought to be stated somewhere directly, as I've come across articles which try to use them as sources.-- Cúchullain t/ c 02:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
http://deviousmud.tripod.com/ I don't believe so; sounds like an indiviual's blog hosted by Tripod.com. No author is provided. No date of publication. TechOutsider ( talk) 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a question about whether an author's claim about how many newspapers he's been published in can be accepted. There are no sources contradicting the number given, but one editor thinks it's "doubtful" and that it's an "exceptional claim" ( WP:REDFLAG). See Irfan Yusuf#Self-published sources. Rd232 talk 13:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This is in regards to this edit [15]. The entire section is sourced to a single cite [16]. Is Scribd a reliable source? I'm not that familiar with that Web site but it appears than anyone can upload a document to it. Even if it was reliable and the document accurate, I'm concerned that this constitutes WP:OR. I did an albeit brief Google search and did not find any reliable sources that covers the release of this document. I also posted my concern on that articles talk page here [17]. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
As others have said, it's a convenience link, nothing more. -- NE2 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEDyC0QRyM0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBLz-ChkPQo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0cVU-Uv7p8
Above are three youtube movies which are in an information/lecture format with an expert delivering the information to the camera. They are in the public domain, produced by the US Geological Survey and available on YouTube. They tie directly to the subjects of Supervolcanoes and Volcanism in Yellowstone National Park. There is no better source for information on these topics than the individual, Jake Lowenstern, speaking on each short movie. He's the scientist in charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory and he's in many ways refuting widespread misinformation about the Yellowstone's volcanic status. Is there a better source? I tried posting these as "external links" in the "supervolcano" page at the bottom they were quickly dumped i guess due to the youtubiness of the links. Can someone please help me get around this problem? TravisBickleLogic 18:08, April 24, 2009
At Talk:Republic of China#"De facto" capital? and Talk:Republic of China#Email from the government of ROC (automatic translation) a source has been provided that consists of an email that one of the editors claims was received from the ROC Ministry of Interior. Normally this would not count as a verifiable source, but in this case there is a twist. The claim has been made that if we send the same inquiry to Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior, we will get the same response. This would make the source verifiable because any editor can write the government agency for verification.
I have not done so myself to test the verification because My Chinese reading and writing skills aren't up to the task of using the link that was provided. But assuming I could do this task, and did to this task, and received the expected result that agreed with the other editor's letter, would this be considered a reliable source? Readin ( talk) 19:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. Readin ( talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
A user recently added " http://folk.uio.no/morters/wot/WintersHeartv6/Chapter22.html" as a source to the Minor Wheel of Time characters article. I haven't explored it thoroughly, but it appears to be a verbatim copy of most of the books of the Wheel of Time series on a Norwegian website. This has got to be some kind of copyright violation on the part of that website, right? Should we be using something like this as a source? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Would the work above be considered a reliable source for information on the Soviet positions and POVs of various subjects? John Carter ( talk) 15:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that all of the sources in this BLP may be unreliable. I'm concerned about the following in particular:
All of the sources definitely need assessment.
Born Gay ( talk) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get some clarification on whether or not documents published by the United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights (specifically this document) and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) ( specifically this document) are WP:RS' in the context of a debate over how to describe the Israeli locality of Ramot. An editor at Talk:Ramot seems to be suggesting that precedence should be given to "mainstream, neutral, English-language sources" rather than those from "other organizations". It is my belief that these UN affiliated organizations are mainstream English-language sources (I'd also argue that they are neutral but that's really irrelevant since NPOV does not preclude expressing POVs that are properly attributed) and do in fact constitute high quality RS's. Could someone take a look see and offer their thoughts? Thanks. Tiamut talk 08:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that UNDPR would, in general, be a reliable source for use on wikipedia. Note though that the document linked in the first post is a a media review containing abstracts of media reports in the region. Searching for Ramot in the page, I found the following quote:
Israeli bulldozers started to raze agricultural land in the village of Beit Hanina At-Tahta located near the "Ramot" settlement north of Jerusalem for the construction of the separation wall. Israeli forces prevented villagers from approaching their land after having declared the area a closed military zone.
— Ma'an News Agency
If this is the bit we plan to cite, it should attributed to the Ma'an News Agency and not quoted as UNDPR's position. Abecedare ( talk) 13:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion does not represent the crux of the issue. Putting aside whether advocacy organizations are reliable sources (they should not be, and clearly there's no consensus that they are), the question is whether these orgs' terms are given greater precedence then the terms employed by international mainstream news sources. The readers are probably well aware, but what's behind this thread is the debate in the article Ramot whether it should be described as a "settlement" or a "neighborhood". The only sources that use the word "settlement" are the UN-affiliated orgs and Ma'an News Agency, a PA affiliated news source. The other mainstream sources, NY Times, LA Times, BBC all use the term "neighborhood" and never use the term "settlement" when describing the area. So even if were to accept that these terms employed by these orginizations are somewhat reliable, their terms never trump the terms used by mainstream international news organizations.-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
IP editors keep removing the whole controversy section from this article as can be seen in this edit. Are these sources reliable enough that the article be reverted and locked from editing if necessary?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-02-04-598541874_x.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22956815/
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/5343
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004163328_webintelius04.html
http://www.wirelessweek.com/article.aspx?id=157142
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Verizon+Intelius&cf=all
Thank you
— Zener 14:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
[26] Apparently this is not a reliable source, allegedly because it links to a travel site. This is being used to justify removing a cite on Ushuaia, substituting with a dubious tag. I personally can't see a problem with the cite but as it seems to be the locus of a content dispute thought I'd bring it here. Justin talk 21:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Planet Bollywood a reliable source? It seems to somewhat gossipy to me. I also noticed that on its About Us page it says it has been featured by major news organisations, but not used as a source. None of the articles appear to have credited authors, just the somewhat ambiguous (and misspelled) byline "Planet Bollywood Special Correspondant". Copana2002 ( talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Recently, an article I had created about the tacosort sorting algorithm was deleted for a lack of reliable sources. However, since the deletion, the National Institute of Standards and Technology included this in their dictionary of data structures and algorithms in this article: [27]. Would this constitute a reliable source and be grounds to recreate the article using this new information? Mbernard707 ( talk) 05:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You should probably build up a paragraph on Tacosort within an article on sorting algorithms instead of a separate article. I've been on too many AFDs that went bad even when sources were being found. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 17:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Audrey magazine a generally reliable source? (It appears to be borderline gossip mag) Particularly for this quote from an interview in the article Freida Pinto: Pinto states that she is "completely pure Indian", but her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto. Sung, Helena. "Destiny's Child". Audrey Magazine (February - March 2009). Retrieved 2009-04-29.
Thanks! -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like some feedback regarding the inclusion of a Facebook link to a page for a group supporting Philip Markoff (the accused in the Boston Craigslist killing and assaults).
A rather contentious editor, Theo789 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (who I believe previously edited as 63.215.27.57 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) has insisted on this wording and link:
I have removed the Facebook link and swapped it for the following identical text with a reliable source as citation:
My understanding of policy is that Facebook is not a reliable source, and links to it are to be avoided, per WP:ELNO. Since the Albany Times-Union RS citation covers the matter and is not problematic, I have tried to explain to User:Theo789 that we should go with the RS, not the Facebook link, but he has repeatedly reverted and attacked me and my edit as somehow representing that Markoff is guilty, which in fact has nothing at all to do with it.
Please note that this is not a content dispute - the text is identical. It is completely a sourcing issue.
I'm not an expert on precedents regarding Facebook links here, so I would appreciate some opinions on how to proceed. And we can use some help over on that article to keep it neutral - Theo789 has not sought or received consensus for his edits, and is just doing as he sees fit, insulting editors and ignoring policy. (See Talk: Philip Markoff#Commentary and Talk: Philip Markoff#Edits by Tvoz, for example - other examples in edit histories and elsewhere on the Talk page.) Thanks. Tvoz/ talk 22:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
← Now this same editor has added this footnote which is a link to a Facebook discussion page. Could you explain to him why this is not an acceptable source? I'm about to give up on this. Tvoz/ talk 05:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that WP prefers newer sources to outdated ones, for example a 2003 source is better than a 1920 one. Where's the policy/guideline dealing with that? Squash Racket ( talk) 15:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Is Ajaxian a reliable source for information on software or websites? This came up in an AFD. To me it screams non-RS but I've never been particularly trusting of blogs and other not particularly traditional websources so I'm trying to see if I'm in a minority here. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
An editor wants the publications of the
Shakespeare Oxford Society (
[28]) to be considerecd RS. The SOS, which is not notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, is dedicated to the belief that
Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, was the true author of Shakespeare's plays. His argument is that "the journal and website are edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, and the publication includes on its editorial staff four PhD's in literary studies -- Dr. Daniel Wright of Concordia University (English), Dr. Felicia Londré of the University of Missouri at Kansas City (Theatre History), Dr. Anne Pluto (English) of Leslie College and Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Instructor of English at Coppin State College in Baltimore, MD. As such, the journal and its website are indeed RS. If you want to fight that, then feel free to take it to another level of Wiki administration."
[29] The fact is that all these people are committed Oxfordians (Stritmatter is also Wikipedia editor under the name
user:BenJonson). The journal is a purely private publication with an absolutely polemical agenda. As we know, it is possible to fill journals with PhDs who support creationism, crystal healing, or anything one wants. The fact remains that this is the internal publication of an organisation dedicated to a fringe theory.
Paul B (
talk) 23:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The claims by Paul Barlow in this thread seem to me to be full of abundant misdirection.
These seem to me to be misdirections and trumped up alarms and inflammatory falsehoods to cover the fact that Paul simply does not like the well-sourced, meticulously researched and cited information contained within the source and noted in the Wikipedia article. I might add that Paul seems to me to be attempting to exercise WP:OWNERSHIP of this article, the bulk of which he created and which he seems to be patrolling so as not to allow sourced viewpoints which disagree with his own, which is in violation of NPOV. Softlavender ( talk) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Dr. Wright, (obtained from Concordia University website): "Dr. Daniel Wright has been a member of the Concordia University faculty since 1991. He is the author of the acclaimed book, The Anglican Shakespeare, as well as over three dozen scholarly articles and reviews in publications such as Germany's Neues Shakespeare Journal, Studies in the Novel, International Fiction Review, The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, Renaissance and Reformation, The Sixteenth Century Journal, The Elizabethan Review, The Oxfordian and Harper's. He currently is completing another book, The Gothic Antichrist, a work that examines the inversion of sacred iconography and rhetoric in 19th-century British Gothic fiction. He teaches Shakespeare, British Literature, The Gothic Novel, Russian Literature, The European Novel, The Psychology of Authorship, Sports Literature, and a number of other engaging and popular courses. Professor Wright is the founder and director of the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, the world's largest academic symposium dedicated to the investigation of the origins of the works by the writer who called himself Shakespeare. Among many affiliations, Professor Wright is an Associate Trustee of the Shakespeare Authorship Trust of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, and he is a Patron of the Shakespeare Fellowship--from whom he also is a recipient of the Outstanding Achievement in Elizabethan Studies Award. He is the Faculty Advisor to Sigma Tau Delta, the English honor society; and he is the Faculty Marshal for the College of Theology, Arts and Sciences. He lectures worldwide, leads study abroad tours, and directs residential study programs for CU in the United Kingdom." Reliable source? I would hope so. Smatprt ( talk) 04:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Dr. Strittmatter, (obtained from UMass Amherst): "The marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential discovery, literary reasoning, and historical consequence, by Roger A Stritmatter, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Abstract - This dissertation analyzes the findings of a ten year study of the 1568-70 Geneva Bible originally owned and annotated by Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and now owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C. (Folger shelf mark 1427). This is the first and--presently--only dissertation in literary studies which pursues with open respect the heretical and thesis of John Thomas Looney (1920), B. M. Ward (1928), Charlton Ogburn Jr. (1984) and other "amateur" scholars, which postulates de Vere as the literary mind behind the popular nom de plume "William Shakespeare." The dissertation reviews a selection of the many credible supports for this theory and then considers confirmatory evidence from the annotations of the de Vere Bible, demonstrating the coherence of life, literary preceden, and art, which is the inevitable consequence of the theory. Appendices offer detailed paleographical analysis, review the history of the authorship question, consider the chronology of the Shakespearean canon, and refute the claim of some critics that the alleged connections between the de Vere Bible and "Shakespeare" are random." Smatprt ( talk) 04:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Felicia Londre: Dozens of books, articles, essays (from a quick search on Amazon Books) The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present (The history of world theater) by Felicia Hardison Londre and Daniel J. Watermeier; De Vere As Shakespeare: An Oxfordian Reading of the Canon by William Farina, Felicia Hardison Londré; No Applause--Just Throw Money: The Book That Made Vaudeville Famous.(Book review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; Words at Play: Creative Writing and Dramaturgy (Theater in the Americas) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - April 1999); Love's Labour's Lost: Critical Essays (Shakespeare Criticism) by Felicia Londre (Paperback- Nov 2, 2000); Alexander Shurbanov and Boika Sokolova. Painting Shakespeare Red: An East-European Appropriation.(Book Review): An article from: Comparative Drama by Felicia Hardison Londre; Federico Garcia Lorca. by Felicia Hardison Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1984); A History of African American Theatre.(Book Review): An article from: Theatre History Studies by Felicia Hardison Londre; History of North American Theater: From Pre-Columbian Times to the Present by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Hardcover - Jan 1, 1998); The History of North American Theater: The United States, Canada, and Mexico : F by Felicia Hardison; Watermeier, Daniel J. Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 2000); The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (A Frederick Ungar Book) by Felicia Hardison Londre; The History of World Theater: From the English Restoration to the Present (History of World Theatre) by Felicia Hardison Londre (Paperback - Jan 1, 1999). Wow - Now I'm impressed. Ms. Londre appears to be more reliable than many of the sources being used in the articles in question. Smatprt ( talk) 04:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
On Anne Pluto:(brief websearch) Much Ado About Nothing, Anne Pluto editor, Oxfordian Shakespeare Series/Llumina Press; Pluto is a published poet and professor of English at Leslie University. Will attempt to do more research on her this weekend. But in short, yes she has been published on Authorship matters. Smatprt ( talk) 05:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Not an RS for Shakespeare studies. A fringe organisation pushing a fringe belief (in the mainstream of Shakespeare scholarship and the public at large). Verbal chat 14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The question we have apparently been asked is determine whether an article published by the Shakespeare Fellowship is a reliable source "to quote representatives from the Victoria and Albert Museum about a portrait and artist with which they were familiar", not to cite that that Shakespearean authorship has been disputed (which is easy to source from many, many indisputably reliable sources). The V and A representatives are named living people who in an email correspondence with Burris apparently made certain statements. [35] Burris, the reporter of these comments is, all (including the SF website) appear to agree is "an amateur art historian", not a published scholar in the field. She is publishing her work in a newsletter affiliated with an organization dedicated to the promotion of one particular viewpoint of Shakespearian authorship. Despite the listings above, the newsletter does not appear to be peer-reviewed in any real sense of the term given that none of the editorial board listed is an art historian; in fact Burris' article was critiqued later by others, as also noted by the website itself. [36].
So, no, I do not consider this newsletter to be a reliable source for this information or any other information. This particularly the case because it involves quoting living people. I am also concerned about undue weight; if these views of scholars from the V and A are notable and significant, then they will be also be expressed and published in other, better, sources. -- Slp1 ( talk) 15:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Such representations and distortions about William Shakespeare are not the accepted scholarly consensus among literary historians, which is the difference, and which really is the heart of the topic in this discussion. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
...is an online journal devoted to film. About the journal: it has an ISSN (ISSN 1443-4059), is financially assisted by Screen Australia and Film Victoria, indexed by Google Scholar and the MLA (Modern Language Association of America) International Bibliography, and is listed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. It does not seem to claim any academic affiliations or be run by credentialed scholars (its founding editor is an "independent filmmaker"), but does seem to be cited in the literature.
Is this a reliable source? Any comments appreciated. Skomorokh 18:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
www.hiphopdx.com has, for a long time, been used as a reference to source album sales. For a long time, I've deemed this site unreliable as it wouldn't get past GA as a reliable source, let alone pass an FA. I tried search for information of Cheri Media Group (the apparent host of HipHopDX) and I've found nothing, except its website, which provides absolutely nothing. I'd like to get other eyes on HipHopDX to determine whether or not this should be used as a source. — Σ xplicit 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Does having writers constitute a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? That's the main probably I see. Also, would this be able to pass an FA? — Σ xplicit 18:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not specifically out for updating sales every week, but getting a closer approximate of current sale figures, as some albums don't have any information past the first week from other sources. So in this case, it seems HipHopDX would work. — Σ xplicit 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Tough one, as most of these are in German. For your convenience, here is the link for Google Translate: [43].
The majority, if not all, of these references, look to me to be not reliable sources, but simple announcements of performances, program notes, or self-published. Where the sources do appear reliable, Hauke Harder is just briefly mentioned.
FYI, most of these sources have been added after I nominated the article for deletion.
Your comments would be appreciated. As a regular poster at RSN, I'll recuse myself from the discussion. Dlabtot ( talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
http://www.charternet.com/greatgear/captains-free.html
file:///C:/eric/profesiona%3b%20mariner.htm
file:///C:/eric/Automatic_Identification_System.htm
file:///C:/eric/bermuda%20maritime.htm
A dispute over accuracy has arisen in the article Led Zeppelin over the number of albums the group has sold worldwide (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#Disputed_accuracy_of_worldwide_album_sales). A figure of 300 million is cited by some sources while 200 million is cited by other sources. It has been suggested that the references showing 300 million are a case of circular sourcing (see Talk:Led_Zeppelin#300_million. The sources supporting the 300 million figure are: CNN [44], VH1 [45], The Local, a Swedish online newspaper [46], The Daily Telegraph [47] and the Mail & Guardian, a South African weekly newspaper [48]
Two of the better sources listed above, CNN and The Daily Telgraph are contradicted by other articles published by the same orginizations: [49] and [50]
Sources supporting the 200 million figure include the group's record company, Atlantic Records (see atlanticrecords.com/ledzeppelin) and Led Zeppelin's official web site (see ledzeppelin.com/news), plus these publications: The Times [51], The Guardian [52], The Independent [53], Press Association [54], Los Angeles Times [55] and Billboard [56].
Also, two published book sources cite 200 million:
Hulett, Ralph; Prochnicky, Jerry Whole Lotta Led: Our Flight with Led Zeppelin (2005)
Can any of these sources be considered more reliable than others? Piriczki ( talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, what would be more reliable to source Case Closed air dates. toonzone.com or anime.futurizmo.com. Toonzone has the airdates in once place but I'm not sure about the relibility of the site. Futurizmo lists episodes off the adult swim schedule from their site so it seems more reliable. Please reply to my talk, sorry if that's troublesome. DragonZero ( talk) 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it a realiable source? http://theroadcompany.com/ Simone Jackson ( talk) 14:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering about what people think about the reliability of this source. I came across it at Raiders_of_the_Lost_Ark#Impact. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
There’s an ongoing disagreement on the article War of the Pacific as to whether Bolivia declared war on Chile. Several sources actually state that Bolivia did declare war on Chile. Among those are; Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565235/war_of_the_pacific.html ; Onwar.com http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/papa/pacific1879.htm and Globalsecurity.org http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-of-the-pacific.htm One user claims these sources are not reliable since they don’t list any references. Is this the case? I read somewhere that Encarta, Britannica and other online encyclopedias are authoritative. Please advice.
Likeminas ( talk) 16:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
There are sources that claim that Bolivia declared war on March 1st, March 8th, and March 14th; along with the sources that claim Bolivia declared no war prior to Chile's declaration of war. Like I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think that it would be best if the information was presented in a neutral point of view where it is noted that it is unknown if Bolivia truly declared war at that particular date.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"On March 1st, Bolivia passed an internal decree against Chilean interests, which in turn, were interpreted by the Chilean government as a declaration of war"
Arafael ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, one of the contributors in Republic of China is using the sources below as a basis for some of his edits. In particular, he wants to put in the article that Nanjing is the de jure capital of the ROC. However, some of us argue that these sources are not acceptable since they all take their content from Wikipedia (see the small prints at the bottom of the pages). There are no sources other than these five links, which he keeps bringing them to the discussion. So are these sources considered reliable per Wikipedia's criteria? Laurent ( talk) 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC) [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
There's a very good Spanish source for Rivadavia here, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? ( Google Translate link) — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 06:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the Fox News website a reliable source? I am editing the Human Rights and the United States page and another editor wishes to use this Fox News article as a source for the number of times waterboarding was used on detainees: Article here. I am happy to use the ICRC report linked to in the article, but I am not sure about the testimony from the un-named "US official". I would also question the reliability and credibility of Fox News generally, but not sure of its acceptability on Wikipedia. Pexise ( talk) 20:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fox news puts us in a pickle. As does huffington post. Both entities have named authors on the byline, they have editorial staff, they state that fact checking is performed and they are (as has been said above) national news services. Both organizations have seats at the press briefing room in the white house. Both organizations run a mix of reported material and opinion and are usually clear when a piece is obviously one thing or obviously another. So, if we play the straight man, both sources are reliable. They can technically be used to support 99% of all claims made in our articles...
But hopefully we all have functioning brains and bullshit detectors. Both Fox and Huffpo (among other "news" sources ranging from the unreliable to the fairly reliable) are relentlessly partisan and while they distinguish pure opinion from reported material, their editorial slant sneaks in to reportage constantly. Apart from the obvious bias involved with selection of content (which thankfully isn't too big a deal with us), presentation of facts, use of data and couching of spin will push left for huffpo and right for Fox. Far enough for either organization that I would be hesitant to use them as sources unless I really had to.
So my 'official' recommendation is "Of course Fox News is a reliable source". My recommendation for the personal practice of editors is that the fewer contentious claims we source to organizations like Huffpo or FNC the better. Protonk ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
No, Fox News doesn't put us in a pickle. We can simply cite the CIA for what it says and cite Fox for what Fox said. We do this all the time even for sources that are much more partisan than Fox. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 17:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It is factual that David Duke published the book, Finders-Keepers, under the pseudonym, Dorothy Vanderbilt. But it can't be substantiated that the book, Finder's Keepers, contained advice on "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Why? Because the book is unavailable and the secondary sources cited do not actually cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers. If someone can link to the book, Finders-Keepers, the matter can be resolved. Until then, it's hearsay and does not belong on Wikipedia.
Even though David Duke is widely despised, Wikipedia ought to maintain its standards and require that extreme claims be backed by primary sources, especially when the secondary sources don't cite the primary source!
Shady References:
1. The 1992 article, "The Picayune Catches Up With David Duke", does not cite a primary source, it defers only to this mysterious book having received front-page play in the Shreveport Journal on August 21, 1990. The article does not provide any reference but claims the book deals with "Vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." [80]
2. The book, Troubled Memory, by Lawrence N. Powell, plays on the phrase with "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex". But Powell does not cite the book Finder's Keepers nor any page number. Powell's claim is totally unsubstantiated. Check Powell's book, page 448, here: [81]
3. The ADL article discusses Duke's pseudonym but cites nothing for the book's sexual content. [82]
-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
You have made an error. The book Troubled Memory is available in its entirety.
[83] The book, Troubled Memory, does not cite the primary source, Finder's Keepers, yet it characterizes the book with, "vaginal contraction exercises, fellatio and anal sex." That's shady scholarship. Again, I care not for publishing prestige, especially when negligence is involved.
-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying Wikipedia defers to notable/reputable publishing houses as the authority on the content of a book, and not the actual book itself? -- Bureaucracy ( talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, asking for proof is silly. So far, Wikipedia is relying on three sources which fail to backup a serious charge.
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. — Hillel-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 04:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, Yes. The wiki sources do not substantiate that Duke's book offers advice on "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." The Wiki page cites authors, Lawrence Powell and Jeanne W. Amend - but these authors failed to consult Duke's book, Finder's Keepers, because it's out of print and not available online. Powell's bibliography doesn't even list the book, because he couldn't find it, yet he characterized it without having read it. Here's the claim with no footnote, it's in the first paragraph [85]
BTW....I was directed here from the talk page by User:
Will Beback
talk 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) who seems to want to defer rather than fact check.
--
Bureaucracy (
talk) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, good lord. There are literally a half dozen other book sources noting the same connection. I don't think this can be attributed to Powell, Tyler and the ADL making up the claim. Protonk ( talk) 06:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Protonk, I agree, there are half a dozen sources characterizing the book as giving sexual advice. There seems to be two competing descriptions, one is dating advise for women and the other is "vaginal exercises, fellatio and anal sex." Not one of these sources cites the book itself, not even a footnote in these scholarly works.
Perhaps these scholars are chasing each others' tail. Perhaps they know they won't be held accountable because it's David Duke. Or, perhaps Duke did indeed published a pornographic book.
I'm with Ordinary Person. Should I contact Powell or is that the responsibility of the Administrators?-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Protonk. I suppose it is not impossible that these sources have all relied on a set of false sources, but I think that should be enough weight for now. (To my mind, suggesting that Duke wrote such a book only enhances his reputation by implying that at one time he wrote something potentially helpful.) Still, it would be nice if someone can lay their hands on a copy of Finders Keepers, so that a couple of confirming quotes can be placed in the article. I'm emailing Powell anyway: you never know your luck.
Ordinary Person (
talk) 07:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Treat it as true, until something contradicts it. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) (
contribs) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I did contact Professor Powell, explained the circumstances, and he gave a very helpful reply:
I did look at the book, and should have cited it. During Duke's meteoric rise in Louisiana politics in the late 1980s and early '90s, the PAC we set up to expose him came into possession of Finders-Keepers, courtesy of independent journalist Patsy Sims. She had interviewed Duke extensively for her book, The Klan (NY: Dorset Press, 1978). On p. 212, she discusses Duke's clumsy efforts to enlist her help in placing his sex manual with her literary agent. She also talked with klansmen who had been alienated by Duke's over-the-top narcissism . When Sims sent us her personal copy of Finders-Keepers, we made copies for distribution to the media, and deposited one photocopy with the Amistad Research Center at Tulane University. It is in its "Louisiana Coalition Against Racism and Nazism" collection. (For what it's worth, Patsy Sims can be reached at Goucher College in Baltimore, where she heads the MFA Program in Non-Fiction.)
I visited the collection today and photocopied pertinent pages of Finders-Keepers. Arlington Press (a neo-nazi house, if memory serves) released it in 1976. Duke wrote it under the pseudonym James Konrad and Dorothy Vanderbilt. I'm more than happy to send you Chapter Ten: "Toward a More Fulfilling Sex-Life."
Meanwhile, here are a few representative quotations that clinch the argument:
p. 115-- "One simple exercise you can do (and you can do it any time of the day--driving to work, sitting at your desk, or watching TV--and nobody will know you are doing it) involves merely contracting the vaginal muscles. It is not difficult to learn. Get in a sitting position, and imagine you are urinating (sounds gross, doesn't it?). Now use the same muscles you would use to stop the urination. Do you feel the muscles tighten?....Another exercise you can do involves the vibrator."
pp. 117-8-- "In fellating your lover, you can assume any position that is comfortable and in close proximity to his penis, In your normal foreplay of kissing this area, kiss him up and down the shaft of the penis and lubricate it quite well with your tongue."
p. 119-- "A very sensitive and erogenous area to both yourself and your lover is the anus....Some women occasionally place (carefully) one of their fingers in it during intercourse when body position makes it possible Most men really enjoy such activity on your part during lovemaking....Many couples today see nothing wrong with limited anal sex."
I think this nails it.
Ordinary Person (
talk) 03:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Ordinary Person, nice one. I think Duke's pages needs a new section: Pornographer. Can you forward me the photocopies or post them? I'd like to see.... since Powell went to the trouble of copying them.-- Bureaucracy ( talk) 06:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)