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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
RE Cold Fusion. We have an unquestionalbly source that states the patent office does not grant a type of patent. Someone has found a patent that, while it does not use the exact language that the patent office says they do not allow "cold fusion," does grant a patent on a method of generating energy by repeating the steps that "cold fusion" entails (dipping metal in water and running a current through it.) The patent is located at [1]. How do we deal with this? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The other involved editor went with this to ANI, but I think this is rather a reliable sources issue. When I need a lead and had to summarize 2 millennia of a debate within Christianity, I went for this version:
Coffey's book was the first introductory textbook on the topic that I could find. What has provoked strong opposition by (at least) one particular editor is the last part of the paragraph, that "all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration." I think that Coffey is quite explicit on this, the whole quote can be found on the article talk page, but to take concern about this into account, I reworded it to something more verbatim. But, the disagreement continues, because the other editor thinks that other sources would disagree. I could completely grand this point, under one condition. He needs to bring the reliable sources that do this forward on the talk page (or simply add them to the article) which so far simply hasn't happened. Those sources that he brought forward simply aren't good enough. Currently it appears as if this hasn't been made obvious enough, so I would appreciate it if someone from this noticeboard could look at the issue. Zara1709 ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A dispute has a risen over two areas. They both revolve around wiither or not a ource is accurate if it attributes to anotehr source something that source does not claim. The first is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299533096&oldid=299532753 The dailey Express article claims that the BNP constutution bans membership to those not native after 1066. The current constiution makes no such claim. Indead the user who posted the comment even seems to admit that this is true. However http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299653734&oldid=299653388. Though he does not provide that source (IE the constitution he has seen). The second instance is this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299532753&oldid=299301330. Here the situation is less clear cut. The EHRC letter does say that "Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP." but does not state that it will. As such to claim that it has been considerd cannot be verified by the source. It cannot even be demonstrated that they have actualy discused it (as no decision seems to have been made). Nor is the letter clear that any breach of the law has occured, so again it makes it hard to demonstrate that there is any clear posibility of legal action. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick query regarding Texas Tech University and asking for a few more eyes on the subject: What do we do if reliable sources are wrong? Not-so-hypothetical question: 2 normally reliable sources claim something, but simple observation of the object in question shows these sources to be wrong, but no one has published anything else in another reliable source to "prove" otherwise. WP:V seems to indicate we should only include the "reliable" source information, but policies aren't a suicide pact and Jimbo Wales stated "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Seeing as it is misleading information, how should we address it? Remove it altogether? Note that it is a campus legend? Note that it is a campus legend and it is false? Cite WP:IAR and just fix it? etc?
I have no issue with the other people involved; we're just trying to reach a consensus and appropriately annotate the legend. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Note, she wrote "know for certain", not "think you know". I take that to mean that John Q. Public will review the evidence and agree with you. I don't have the time to research whether this is indeed the case for the statue on campus but it seems you have made a strong case for it. Also note that in the example I quote above, the article was a bio of a living person which requires us to be even more diligent than usual about not republishing false information from a "reliable" source, whereas in the case of a statue there is no special urgency to get it right immediately. -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. Verifiability not truth is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all.
Pajhwok Afghan News is cited through the encyclopedia ( [2]). Is this a reliable source? How about for non-negative information about living persons? Hipocrite ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion is now somewhat moot. I've completely rewritten the article, and Pajhwok is now used only as a source for what Pajhwok did at the time. It's obviously a reliable source for a statement about its own activities, though I wouldn't care to use it as a source for anything else. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Related to the David Rohde discussion, though not to the reliability of Pajhwok Afghan News, I have made a draft proposal at Wikipedia:News suppression. The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we just say that it's a reliable source, and that, as always, care should be taken with BLP and other extraordinary claims, like all RSs? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Musicmight is a reliable source? Thanks. ( JoaquimMetalhead ( talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
Join the MusicMight community to add information REGISTER HERE
About MusicMight: Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!
You can add as much or as little information as you'd like. We are actively seeking potential "Guardians", those dedicated fans that have enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to oversee key areas of the database. If you think you're the person to look after all NWOBHM acts, Finnish Death Metal bands, all Californian AOR bands or whatever - get in touch with us!
Fairly straightforward, isn't it? Not a reliable source as it does not meet any of the criteria suggested at WP:RS. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
And then, I can use this site as a reliable source? ( JoaquimMetalhead ( talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
The Times of London published an article about Lyndon LaRouche's AIDS initiative, California Proposition 64 (1986). It includes a report on verbal harassment of a local minister and his mother by LaRouche supporters. The excerpted text is at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#1986 2nd half (search for "minister"). An editor has asserted that the source is simply wrong, but he hasn't offered any source that disputes the reporting. This concerns a draft, at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS, intended to replace the material currently at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS. (While we're here, the editor has also complained about using similar reporting from the Frederick Post.) So the question is: are these two mainstream newspapers reliable sources for reporting these incidents? Will Beback talk 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Both sources are reliable and usable in the article. If there is a dispute over whether the newspaper articles are reliable sources for a specific statement, we can handle it here. Other noticeboards such as WP:NORN, WP:POVN or the (hot off the press!) WP:CNB, may also be relevant depending upon the exact nature of the dispute. Happy forum shopping! ← is in jest :-) Abecedare ( talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am seeking assistance in resolving a dispute on the talk page of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The sources cited in the article for two lists whose accuracy has been disputed is this book and this archived copy of a page formerly carried on the author's personal web-site. Since the book was printed by Xulon press, which produces and distributes books at their authors' expense, it would appear to be a self-published source. While the author, Olivier Thill, seems to be an enthusiatic, erudite and well-read amateur historian, he does not appear to be recognised as an established expert on the history of science. On the back cover of his book, he describes himself as "a computer engineer and specialist of the European Renaissance", and here he describes himself as a "Computer programmer, amateur historian of Copernicus, Descartes, and Peiresc."
Since the editor who cited these sources says "I don't think this list appears in the book" he apparently has not actually checked it. So until somebody does so, the web page is really the only source we have as supposed support for the cited lists.
I would appreciate any opinions on whether either the web-site or the book can be regarded as
reliable sources.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am a recognised 'expert' on the De revolutionibus, if only a very minor one, and an amateur historian of science, albeit a professionally trained one, and I find the lists from Oliver Thill less than helpful. Not knowing his book and having never come across references to it I have bought a copy via the intertubes and await delivery. However I don't think that reading his book will change my opinion that the lists should be removed.
Thony C. (
talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A little matter of contention over on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis: Are the New York Times and the Associated Press reliable sources concerning legal questions? We have one user claiming that because such newspapers and services called what transpired a coup d'etat, we should also because they are reliable sources. I contend that they are not reliable in this context, in that legal scholars and specialists in Honduran law are neither reading nor checking the articles. Which is correct? Bkalafut ( talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Thirty-Seventh Special Session of the OAS General Assembly adopted a resolution strongly condemning the coup d’Etat in Honduras and demanded the immediate and unconditional return of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to his constitutional duties. OAS News
The General Assembly today condemned this weekend’s coup d’état in Honduras, calling for the restoration of the democratically-elected President and constitutional Government. UN News
Also note that Bkalafut's characterization that "one user" claims that NYT, AP (they left out UN general assembly, OAS, EU, etc...) are RS on this question is simply wrong, as any random sampling of Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis will show. So wrong that it really stretches my WP:AGF, though not quite past the breaking point. Homunq ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be two different questions here. One of them is whether mass-market newspapers such as the New York Times are reliable sources for the events on the ground in Honduras: that is, the "who-what-when-where" of the situation. A second question is whether mass-market newspapers are reliable sources for interpretation of these events, and specifically whether these events are accurately described as a "coup d'état" -- a word which may have technical meanings in international law, military history, etc.
It seems to me that the answer to the first question is assuredly yes. Although the mass-market press sometimes makes factual errors, we have nothing better to go on. The second question is more difficult: whether the crisis in Honduras "is" a coup is not a matter of physical fact but of historical and political interpretation and judgment. Pointedly, it appears that supporters of Zelaya universally call it a coup and his opponents universally do not. Is the New York Times a reliable source for such judgment? That is not so clear. It seems to me that we should stand off from such judgments, refer to the situation as a "crisis" or as the "deposing of Manuel Zelaya", and point out that different writers of different political views refer to it as a coup d'état or not. -- FOo ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
He's kinda turned out not to be telling the whole truth about himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8130351.stm
However we use his books as refs in a few plages eg:
Is this likely to be a problem?© Geni 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has questioned the reliability of the Norfolk Mills website. I've opened a discussion at the Mills WikiProject and would appreciate input on the question there. Mjroots ( talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a Portuguese-language Brazilian music website. Is it a WP:RS for WP:BLPs of Brazilian musicians? It apparently takes content from Brazilian newspapers, and doesn't look like a very good source to me - especially for controversial claims about musician's beliefs and private lives. This came up from discussion at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira, which has unrelated WP:BLP and WP:OR problems, being discussed at BLPN here and on the talk page. Verbal chat 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We are consumers just like you and not professional critics -- even though you might have seen our names in other publications. That is why most of the reviews you will read here are positive. We tend to buy the music we review and only write about the good ones. Yes, of course we have made bad purchases, but we will keep those on our shelves.
I want to cite the source given in the second post of [5] . Optiboard is a respectable site. A user with 6000 posts is probably a respectable poster. Can I cite a forum posters source? I assume not, but given that he gave us the book's name, authors, and page number someone should be able to look it up easily. Do we have a mechanism to facilitate this? (Perhaps a list of specific facts with the specific sources that require verification?) I have detailed my specific issue at Talk:Human eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric Rogue ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Our article on Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, claims that this chimpanzee attempted suicide but was rushed to the hospital and saved. The cited sources are The Times of India and The Telegraph. While these sources are generally considered reliable, I was skeptical. How would a chimpanzeee even try to commit suicide? Slit its wrists? Overdose on medication? A gunshot wound to its head? Anyway, I posted the question "Can a chimpanzee really commit suicide?" on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Of those who took the question seriously, none thought it was likely and one chaulked it up to sloppy journalism. I added a {dubious} tag to the article on the grounds that a suicidal chimpanzee seems like an exceptional claim and that these are just reporters writing entertainment articles and probably don't have a background in primatology and therefore aren't qualified to make this claim. The discussion can be found at WP:Talk:Bubbles_(chimpanzee)#Suicide. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
is it a reliable source for articles such as LokiTorrent? LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
How about the other source used prominently in that article - afterdawn.com ? LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Google News is now indexing advertisements. This is extremely useful for academic research purposes in general, but not so good for us. It adds a lot of noise for using it to find news articles to use as reliable sources. See, for example my search to see if there were any decent sources for "color-net" a real estate sales network, [8], which turned up such items as [9]. We already know there is pure PR in there, so everything has to be screened anyway, but this certainly makes using raw counts from it absurd. I use GN archive a lot for finding book reviews--now I'll have all the advertisements to sort out as well. DGG ( talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Raw Google counts were abusrd as an argument for inclusion even before this, so it shouldn't change anything. Blogs and press releases and entertainment and parody sites have all already been in those links for a long time. In fact, this newest change might even help us by forcing the people who use bad sources on a regular basis to more readily realize that the links found there can be totally useless for our purposes. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently edited the Tucker Max article and stated that he appeared on Sirius Radio, referencing his own website as a source. This was quickly reverted and McJeff kindly told me that I needed third party sources. After searching the net, I found that his radio appearance is on YouTube and it is mentioned on another website with a biography about him, as well as being referenced to in a couple forums (links at the bottom). My question is this: are these reliable enough sources to prove his radio appearance?
I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am still new and would like to know how to contribute more to Wikipedia.
Sources:
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1w5ZOBQF8
Biography:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/tu/tucker_max.htm
Forums:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=39677 and
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=443270
Not to mention his own website.
How reliable is WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com). Can they be trusted to represent facts as fact and to represent opinions as opinion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Sonoran News is a Weekly newspaper published in Cave Creek, Arizona (near Phoenix). Their website says
Sonoran News is published weekly by Conestoga Merchants, Inc. dba Sonoran News, and distributed free of charge to 43,000+ homes and businesses throughout the Cave Creek, Carefree, Desert Hills, New River, Tatum Ranch, Rio Verde, N. Phoenix and N. Scottsdale areas including Desert Mountain, Terravita, Legend Trail, Winfield, Troon, The Boulders and Pinnacle Peak, all of Zip Codes 85331, 85327, 85377, 85255, 85262 and 85266
Their website lists about 50 Arizona Newspapers Association Awards in various areas, going back to 1996 [11]. I have had an editor remark of them, "Maybe I should have bolded the words reliable sources when I was asking for examples. That hardly qualifies as such." Are they considered a reliable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The site exampleproblems.com is linked to from several articles [13]. As the site violates WP:EL (it's a wiki and not a reliable source per our normal standards) I was going to nuke these links but they appear to have been added by established user Tbsmith ( talk · contribs). So, rather than cause a potential conflict with this user I'd like a few second opinions on this. Am I being too strict here or should I nuke these? Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Softwaretop100.org attempts to list companies by software revenue. I first noticed this cited on the Ubisoft page, and searching wikipedia gives 25 results. Viewing the source, I happened to notice that Sony was excluded, with no plausable reason given in the site's disclaimer. Since I estimate Sony to be at 5th place, I think this is a gross omission which discredits softwaretop100.org . Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A contributor to List of vegetarians is pushing to use "Supreme Master TV" ( http://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=ve&wr_id=25) as a source for validating claims about people. I have challenged this on the basis that it's not a valid source. The Supreme Master is a Chinese spiritual leader and these are broadcasts from her organisation. I object to their use on the basis that they clearly promote an agenda and there appears to be no journalistic objectivity (Jesus Christ pops up as a renowned vegetarian too which as a Catholic is news to me!). I wouldn't mind so much if these films actually had interviews with the people themselves or even recognised authorities on the subject (in fact I would accept them as sources in those cases). I could be wrong on this so I would appreciate an impartial opinion. This is the second time I'd had to remove this source and obviously I don't want to keep removing it if I'm in the wrong. Thanks to anyone who taks a look at the site. Betty Logan ( talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We're working on wikipedia-spotlight on Marco Polo but we don't have many reliable source on the web. We have however access to the 1947 edition of Venetian adventurer By Henry Hersch Hart which describes Marco's life in a very scientific and scholarly level. It has also received a good review and is cited by many other books. The problem is that the book was written in 1947 and I was wondering if that would pose a problem when nominating the article for GA or FA, thank you.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is celebritywonder.com a reliable source for non-controversial biographical information? Specifically, is the following article [14] a reliable source for actress Jamie Chung's birthdate? Celebritywonder.com is owned by UGO Entertainment (a division of Hearst Corporation) whose 1up.com website is generally considered to be a reliable source. Celebritywonder.com does have a Contact Us page with a physical address, but it redirects to Ugo's main Contact Us web page. They appear to have a professional editorial staff but again it redirects to Ugo's main editorial staff [15]. It's currently referenced by about 110 Wikipedia articles. [16] It doesn't appear to be cited by very many established reliable sources. Opinions? Comments? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Tom Goldstein is a notable and highly respected Supreme Court practitioner and court watcher. His blog, SCOTUSblog, is also notable and highly respected. Both are regarded as reliable sources by the media. E.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Is a post by Goldstein at SCOTUSblog about a justice of the Supreme Court a reliable source for purposes of that Justice's Wikipedia article?
Although blogs are troublesome as sources at Wikipedia, they are not entirely banned. WP:SPS allows that "[s]elf-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article," as Goldstein is, if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," as Goldstein's has been (e.g. [22]; indeed, he was wheeled out as a court expert on The News Hour tonight!).
Furthermore, WP:GAME and WP:WL are explicit that the language of a policy should give way to the policy's purpose. Even if the text of WP:SPS seemed to rule out SCOTUSblog as a source (it does not, as we have seen), the purpose of the policy supports inclusion. The concern underlying WP:SPS is explicitly-stated: that "[a]nyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason," emphasis added, self-published sources such as blogs are frowned upon as sources. But it would be ludicrous to pretend that a court expert (indeed, practitioner) as esteemed and established as Goldstein is not an expert in the relevant field, viz. the court.
Goldstein posted an assesment of the term just concluded, and made some remarks about Justice Clarence Thomas. Since Goldstein is an expert on the court, his assesment of Thomas might be thought to have some weight, a fortiori to the extent it is an admission against partisan interest (Goldstein has made it quite clear that he disagrees strongly with Thomas, but his assesment was complimentary):
“ | No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking [as Thomas]. The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia. I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice." | ” |
I therefore added it to the section of Thomas' article about his recent years on the court. [23] user:RafaelRGarcia has now removed it twice on the pretext that it is "irrelevant to section, non-notable, blog, entirely opinion, undue weight." [24] [25] Argument has ensued. [26] It seems clear to me that SCOTUSblog generally and Goldstein particularly are reliable sources for articles about the Supreme Court and its members. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate having some more pairs of eyes on this one in case I'm the one being the WP:DICK. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
SCOTUSblog is read and is considered authoritative by leading appellate lawyers who practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. Likewise, Goldstein is sufficiently notable and respected that his conclusions and opinions are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (although not necessarily the last or only word on an issue where experts differ). Finell (Talk) 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was tracing a particular dispute over Church of Kish, which involves Samvel Karapetian. This scholar does not seem to be a third-party and this largely affects the neutrality of the related article on church. Furthermore, Karapetian hardly passes any of the criteria per WP:ACADEMIC. The head of the Yerevan branch of Research on Armenian Architecture does not sound like a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. I think Norwegian scholar Bjornar Storfjell, whom I mentioned at church's talk, is more authoritative and reliable. Brand t 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You are gaming your topic ban, but I will still answer you. Bjornar Storfjell is more authoritative and reliable than Karapetian? LOL! He's from the Thor Heyerdafl Research Center, from the article on Wikipedia: The controversy surrounding the search for Odin-project was in many ways typical of the relationship between Heyerdahl and the academic community. His theories rarely won any scientific acceptance, whereas Heyerdahl himself rejected all scientific criticism and concentrated on publishing his theories in popular books aimed at the general public.
Heyerdahl claimed that the Udi ethnic minority in Azerbaijan was the descendants of the ancestors of the Scandinavians. He traveled to Azerbaijan on a number of occasions in the final two decades of his life and visited the Kish church. Heyerdahl's Odin theory was rejected by all serious historians, archaeologists, and linguists. [28]
It's the same 'research center' which was engaged in another church (Armenian Church) restoration and this was accompanied by the erasing of a long and important building inscription in Armenian above its entrance and Armenian inscriptions on gravestones in the church's graveyard. The destruction was strongly condemned by Norway's ambassador to Azerbaijan, who refused to attend the church's reopening. That's the notable and more 'reliable' Bjornar Storfjell, who BTW could not even tell you the differences between a Church and Monastery. And had Brand read the discussion here he would have seen a 19th century non-Armenian source, naming it Armenian and calling it St. Elisheus Church. The official returns were provided too. - Fedayee ( talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a dispute at Tui T. Sutherland about use of the Jeopardy Archive as a source. The objections are that it's "self published" or "run by fans." However, the site exercises a high degree of editorial control and is extremely accurate. I fully expect that the site has considerably fewer inaccuracies than any edition of any major newspaper. The fact that it's run by fans should not invalidate the incredible degree of accuracy and information contained there. There would be no objection to a throwaway local newspaper article or local TV report being cited for the same kind of information, yet it's much more likely that those kinds of local news reports would get their facts wrong with respect to what happened on the show than this website would. It has been cited by numerous authors, such as Ken Jennings and Bob Harris (writer), who have written books about Jeopardy. Croctotheface ( talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's "created by fans, for fans". What editorial control is there, that Croctotheface can point to? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Its article sourcing a BLP seems to be quoting someone without any fact checking at all. After a quick look at other articles, it seems like a poorly checked tabloid. Any Ozzies know it better? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-07-07t17:58z
Not an Ozzie, but this statement
[29] about the publishers, the National Civic Council, means that it is likely to be highly POV.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/physical/climate/ be considered reliable for details on the Climate section of Mumbai. The website is of a very popular research institute in Mumbai - Department of Theoretical Physics ( Tata Institute of Fundamental Research). Thanks, Kensplanet T C 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Can a Juvenile Non fiction book like Global Cities (Mumbai) be considered reliable for some general claims about people as below.
Not for History, Climate and other important sections. Only for the above claims. Thanks, Kensplanet T C 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Depends on the newspaper. At least for FAC purposes, I tend to stick to major city dailies that are usually accepted as authoritative, NYT, WP, LAT. For purposes of history in matters not covered by larger papers, sometimes smaller papers are needed. However, this is plainly not the case here. Why can't you find a better source for what seems like very commonplace claims about Mumbai?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I had a general essay at User:YellowMonkey/FAR as I found that the same queries might be brought up by a lot of people. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for material about living people? Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Geschiedenis is being used as a reference for participants from the Netherlands. Bearing in mind that any mention of Bilderberg is usually used as an attack on the person, is the reference enough? There's a constant struggle on the Bilderberg pages about sources. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have an insight into the reliability of this book ( ISBN 9781846681233)? Is it, like The Economist itself, to be treated in questions of fact as gospel unless contradicted? Skomorokh 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.
The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." [1] [2] [3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.
What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?
The diffs start here, and we jaust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.-- Asdfg 12345 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
References
There is disagreement over the verifiability of the sourcing for this BLP, comments welcome on the talk page. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-07-09t17:56z
An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article and has twice tagged it with a 'Notability" tag. I believe it meets all notability criterias. Could someone please take a look??-- Beehold ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article. True, I have used IMDB for few details - but I thought that was OK for non-controversial movie listings, rather than biographical facts. I have just removed the 'Notability' tag that the IP put on the article, as I truly believe that subject of the article to be WP:Notable (film producer/literary agent/playwright), but I just wanted to check in with you lot as well. Thankyou. The disputed refs are here - together with the IP's comments.My comments are in italics underneath:
(The details of the films are listed on numerous other sites, but individually, rather than in a neat list at IMDB - so I went for the neat list. The details are non-controversial and all reported elsewhere.)
(Interviews may be considered primary sources, but they are allowable - especially if providing/supporting non-controversial facts)
(This is a press release containing non-controversial details - used for supplementary details)
(This is the New York Times - one of the most WP: Reliable sources going I would imagine).
(This is an independent website - despite what the IP claims. It is viewed as "the bible" of the literary world...apparently)
(A primary source perhaps - but again providing non-controversial facts).
-- Beehold ( talk) 11:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How reliable is compassdirect.org for news? Can it be trusted on articles about living people? Cheers. VR talk 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I dug into BBC and WP's citations of CDN and the lesson is "Beware of Google News hits" when you cannot read the article itself! Despite appearances ( [41], [42]") Compass Direct News has never been used as a source by BBC or Washington Post. Let me explain:
The above information is from
Lexis-Nexis. Note that Lexis-Nexis itself does not archive CDN; in fact no major US or World publication indexed in that database has ever directly cited CDN as a news source or reported on its activities, with one exception: A January 26, 2000 article in
Washington Times headlined "Saudi Arabia tops group's list of worst Christian persecutors" reports about a list released by CDN (Quote: A "world watch list" released by a watchdog religious persecution group named Saudi Arabia as last year's "worst persecutor of Christians.").
My conlcusion is that CDN does not seem to be reliable independent source, although as a "watchdog religious persecution group" its views may be notable if they are cited by other reliable sources as listed above.
Abecedare (
talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I missed one (because it's in Arabic and didn't show up in the Lexis search): This report is by BBC (and not BBC Monitoring), but according to Google's translation it is an item about a report released by CDN and subsequent events, rather than a news story relying on CDN's reporting. Abecedare ( talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. Another user and I encountered a conflict when it came to citing sources on band pages. Many band pages (and articles relating to them such as of band members, albums, and singles) such as System of a Down, Korn, Children of Bodom and until recently, Disturbed cite fansites. Wikipedia doesn't allow fansites to be cited, because they aren't reliable, since anybody can make one. Although this is true, many of the articles wouldn't have much context, or even exist if fansites weren't cited. I admit that I have two band fansites, but did not intend to use Wikipedia to self promote it (I had no decrease in traffic after the links were taken off). The official site(s) often delete information after a while, and sometimes it isn't on the Archive. Should fansites be continued to be cited against policy, or should the info just be taken down in its entirety, or should the articles just have the cites replaced with citation needed until the information is deleted/another source is found? Thanks for your time, The Weak Willed 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Are the US Navy primary source documents of log book, action reports, war diary, and cruise reports considered reliable for Wikipedia use?
The four documents are standard US Navy documents and were created aboard ship by the ship's staff and signed by the ship's commanding officer. These documents are a record of ship activity without personal opinions. They are in a neutral point of view of who, what, where and when. The questions of why and how are not involved.
Log Book - covers a every important aspect of ship activity
War Diary - is an abbreviated version of the log book
Action Reports - records the detail of a ship's combat operation
Cruise Reports - a chronological listing of the ship's movements
In the Battleship Texas wiki article, the aforementioned documents are needed to correct errors in secondary sources that are cited in the article. I have posted excerpts of the documents in the Commons area with the needed information to make the corrections. The needed information are times, dates, geographical location of the ship, names of objects and names of people. The action reports are the most used documents and the full documents are posted on an internet site of mine at http://users.hal-pc.org/~cfmoore/. Further information as to my extensive knowledge of the ship can be found on another webiste of mine at http://www.bb35library.usstexasbb35.com/
Use of the ship's primary source documents above does not constitute original research. This was the consensus of a discussion in the No original research notice board. Based on the that consensus, one of the two article primary editors (TomStar81) will allow me to use the documents as a source if there is a consensus that the documents are reliable.
I posted the reliability question to the article's discussion section but TomStar81 said I should post the question here. IronShip ( talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the US National Archives and Records Administration does not have an online catalogue for these records. I also scanned and placed the complete 130 page War Diary for 1944 on the BB35Library. I also the have thee complete 1945 War Diary but it has not yet been scanned. IronShip ( talk) 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I would like to query the removal of a link to a scanned in version of book III of Ockham's Summa Logicae ( Sum of Logic. Two editors have now deleted it on the grounds that the text is on a 'personal website'. However, given that the text is a primary source, simply a scanned-in version, why should it matter that the website is 'personal'? It is certainly verifiable, as you can look at the original 13th century text in any reference library and see that the online text matches the other. There is no other version of book III on the net, and it seems a shame to delete.
Also, if we are going to remove links because it is a 'personal website', why not remove all the other links? For example, why not also remove the links to here [43] which is books I and II of the same work?
Why not remove the link to Paul Vincent Spade's translation of the first book [44], since that is his personal website? Why not remove Ed Buckner's translation of sections of Book II, [45] given that appears also to be a personal website? If we follow the 'personal website' logic, 90% of links to medieval philosophy and logic will disappear. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to comment, I have a similar situation where I have a very popular blog post that gets about 10-15 page views (from natural search) per day. It is (as far as I know) the only free site on the Internet that assembles the publicly disclosed customer churn rates of various companies across many industries, all with cited documentation. I briefly asked on the Wikipedia article talk page if it would be okay to include a link as an External link. Nobody objected, so I added it to the article. I was receiving about an additional 15 click-throughs per day from Wikipedia -- obviously Wikipedia readers were craving additional information. Then the link was deleted, because the blog and its author aren't famous enough (or other reasons). I have since found that a reliable published source has even cited my blog post in print. Still, no dice. So, I shopped the content over at Wikisource, but they too rejected it. Then I went to Wikibooks, and while they were more open to the idea, still buried it in caveats that put me to flight. Click for more details. -- Thekohser 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
MyWikiBiz was recently discussed on the talk page of WP:EL and found to not meet the rules for external links. Based upon the discussion there, I can't imagine how it would meet WP:RS either, for situations where that would be relevant, which it is not in this case. And, as an aside, 10-15 views a day is a far cry from being a "very popular blog post", not that alleged popularity has anything to do with meeting WP:RS or WP:EL anyway. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In the George Trenholm biography, an editor inserted his fringe theory that the fictitious character Rhett Butler in the novel Gone with the Wind is modeled after George Trenholm.
I tagged, challenged and removed the fringe theory almost one year ago. There are simply no reliable sources on this subject, other than the self-published book by the creator of this theory. Just recently, another editor believed the theory should be included in the biography, and inserted:
It is claimed that novelist Margaret Mitchell patterned her fictional character, Rhett Butler, on the life of Trenholm
The references given are:
This has lead to an edit war, as the references given are not solid enough to be included in an historical figure biography. The references are repeating hearsay/rumors and do not go into explanation on the matter. The 3O who is trying to assist is on the fence, but cited WP:UNDO and the claim/rumor should be dropped if no WP:RS could be cited.
Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm
Jim ( talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is an argument on the left and right-wing politics whether a book British politics today ( ISBN 9780719065095) is a reliable source for defining "left-wing" and "right-wing". Source for the definition is an appendix of the book in which the authors describe how are the terms usually used by political scientists. One of the two authors, Dennis Kavanagh, is a Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and the book was published by the Manchester University Press. Is this a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I do not normally edit here at reliable sources, but I missed the discussion about examiner.com and I would like to have the opportunity to contribute. The archived discussion is here:
Below are some comments that I have prepared on criticisms from the archive. However, the most pertinent point is this: the examiner.com company uses Internet technology to harness the efforts of hundreds of writers, just like Wikipedia, and has credibility issues, just like Wikipedia. I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically.
The quality and qualifications of examiner.com writers is all over the map, just like Wikipedia's. Quality contributions bubble to the top here, and so do they at examiner.com. I am not suggesting that the entire site should be accepted unquestioningly, but it seems very much an overreaction to condemn the entire site based on a few ill-conceived perceptions and a couple of bad apples. It always strikes me as unjust when such happens to Wikipedia, and I think the same justice should apply when deciding the fate of examiner.com.
My specific comments on the archive criticism:
That’s it for now. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jarhed ( talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Examiner.com is a blog. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.
"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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
At best, Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source and only if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the same field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as SPS. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Jarhed, arguments like examiner.com is not any worse than wikipedia (as you said in your earlier posts) or huffingtonpost.com (as you are arguing now) are not the way to establish that a source is reliable. To judge reliability we need to show that examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for analysis of its accuracy and the only somewhat relevant link I found is
this article which gives qualified praise to its pro-am model. Do you know of any other or more detailed analysis ?
Secondly, at RSN we rarely (if ever) pronounce a source to be always or never reliable and it would be a mistake to do so in this instance; for example, examiner.com can perhaps be used as a source for its contributors' biographical articles on wikipedia, just like any SPS.
Thirdly, we should always endeavor to use the best available source and not the source that just-about-clears some imaginary "reliability bar". In general (as I said before) examiner.com will be very down on the totem pole of reliable sources (for all the reasons listed above, including in your original post) and whether it can be used at all will depend upon the wikipedia article, availability of alternate sources, author and form of the examiner.com article, and the statement that is to be cited. If you have an actual (rather than hypothetical) dispute on the use of the website in a particular wikipedia article, please feel free to bring it up here, now or later. Cheer.
Abecedare (
talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at this in some detail now, I consider examiner.com an unreliable source in most instances, and it should be used with caution only in exceptional circumstances when a positive argument for the reliability of a particular article can be made. Note also, that its FAQ says:
Our most successful Examiners spend time marketing their content to their social and business networks using tools like Twitter, Digg, Email lists, message boards, and good old-fashioned word-of-mouth. If all of this sounds new, Examiner.com provides the resources you need to learn and use these tools to master online marketing.
and we should be wary of wikipedia being used to spam examiner.com links. Note that the website is linked from over 1000 wikipedia pages including several BLPs, and each of these mainspace link needs to be reexamined. Abecedare ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Given:
What's the best way of notifying the community that The Examiner is not a reliable source unless the author is an established expert per the above definition? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering that when I first brought this up as a problem just a short time ago there were only about 300 or so links to examiner.com and now there are apparently more than 1,200 there has to be spamming involved for it to have jumped by that much in that short amount of time. I submitted a request for the XLinkBot to remove the links (any admin want to go add it to the list, please?), but we could be needed a total spamblock soon. This is insane. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose adding it to XLinkBot Agree to adding it to XLinkBot The Examiner is a company. What is publishes has some level of editorial oversight - the company can pull the stories (has it ever?). Like all media companies, it's looking for traffic, but it also has a basic reputation to maintain. The people who work for it writing articles can be considered part-time journalists, and they do use their real names. It might be on par with a small-town newspaper - in some cases worse, in some cases better. Anyway, can't agree to blocking the domain. Editors can decide on a case-by-case basis whether articles from it make sense. Spamming from it could be a problem, but that's a problem we have with a lot of things. See updated thoughts a couple responses below.
II | (
t -
c) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, User:Jarhed, do you have a WP:COI we should know about concerning Examiner.com? DreamGuy ( talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The website of Kołobrzeg says that a Slavic settlement existed there since the 5th and 6th century. Scholary sources say that Slavic settlement in the area took place in the 7th century (Piskorski et al 1999, Harck et al 2001) and that the actual settlement near modern Kołobrzeg was built in the 9th century (Harck et al 2001, Schich et al 2007). The cited scholars are historians who are experts for both the region and the respective time period. The dates published by them are not a revolutionary new theory, but based on long known archaeological findings. In the 5th and 6th centuries, when the website claims a Slavic settlement at modern Kołobrzeg, the area was part of the Dębczyn culture, which is also long established (source eg RGA).
Schould the website be treated as a reliable source and its position be included in the article as if there were diverging views on the origin of the town, or should the website be treated as an unreliable source and thus be excluded? Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Before any further comments on this topic are made, it should be noted that this is (at least) the FOURTH time that Skapperod has brought this to question to this board. In each of the THREE previous times, editors disagreed with Skapperod, and the general gist was that town websites can be treated as reliable, though self-published, sources, as long as this is properly attributed (as in "the town's website states that...") - please see here [55], here [56], and here [57].
I think it's not going to be taken as a violation of AGF here if I ask Skapperod to read policy on forum shopping. In particular: This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, RFC, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted, bringing up the same issue at the same forum multiple times
Forum shopping falls under the category of "Inappropriate canvassing" and according to "Responding to disruptive canvassing"; The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices.. I think since this is the FOURTH time that this is being done makes that last part applicable. Hence, Skapperod, will you please stop trying to restart the same debate again and again until you get the "right" answer? radek ( talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is enough to put an end to the allegations that Kołobrzeg's city website contradicts academic literature. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would have expected that inside covers of books ought to tell the truth at least, but in the case of Roland Perry, the inside covers of his books and his publisher says that he won the UK Cricket Society book of the year in 2006. I presume that it was a typo and meant The Cricket Society, but a look at the website shows that someone else won the award and a google search shows that Perry's book was not in the shortlist. Do inside covers of books tell upfront lies about the CV of the author?? YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
An interesting issue came up in the MLM article. Several of the papers I found that are scholarly and/or peer reviewed use self published websites to back up their claims. Here are two just as samples.
Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".
Sandbek, Terry "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology
Four issues come to mind.
If a self published website is used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source as reference in support of statements and/or conclusions is it a reliable source in its own right that can be used directly?
If the reference source has been put on the author's own website can it be used directly since it was referenced in a scholarly or peer reviewed source? Must it be in its original form if this allowable?
If an author is used in many scholarly or peer reviewed source and at least one uses his self published website in addition to what scholarly or peer reviewed material he has produced is the site now a reliable source?
Finally, on URLs in general if a scholarly or peer reviewed source use a url of a page that has updated since the paper wed published is the reference used a reliable source? Or do we have to use internet archive and hope that the version the scholarly or peer reviewed paper source used is there?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Our article on him indicates that he is primarily an economist, affiliated with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Although the article is a stub, it does not show the relevance of Iranistics to him either. And indeed, Clawson's publications deal mainly with policy and security, this is probably why his notions in the Greater Iran in particular look explicitly biased and out of his scope. A good example is: Iran today is just a rump of what it once was. At its height, Iranian rulers controlled Iraq, Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, much of Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Many Iranians today consider these areas part of a greater Iranian sphere of influence. Quite an overbold statement for economist and Near East politics expert. Actually Clawson is cited six times in the Greater Iran, including one-sided and highly disputable excerpt, which further exposes his stance and one-sided approach to historical issues: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Azerbaijan, Armenia, much of Georgia, and Afghanistan were Iranian, but by the end of the century, all this territory had been lost as a result of European military action. This sounds odd even for a history hobbyist and I believe the further usage of Clawson in historical issues will corrupt the neutrality and proper weight. Brand t 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm breaking this, and several more RS/N posts to come, out of a more generic discussion elsewhere on RS/N [60]. Two editors are wishing to use www.pyramidshemealert.org as a source on the Multi-level marketing article. At present, this specifically includes the article Why the FTC Lets MLM Run Wild in America". as a source for "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The argument against allowing it as a source is three fold -
The arguement for allowing it is that
More details on that discussion can be found here. 3rd party input appreciated. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the above, two editors are wishing to use the website mlm-thetruth.com as a source for the Multi-level_marketing article. Specifically -
The first reference is being used to support the assertion "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above as well as the poor scholarly quality of the article itself.
The second source is being used to support the claim "There are even claims that the success rate for breaking even or even making money are far worse than other types of businesses" and "Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company."
The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above. In addition arguments against are the poor scholarly quality of the article itself, many of which have been addressed by others [61] [62].-- Insider201283 ( talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record apparently does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.
The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." [1] [2] [3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.
What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source appears to have actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?
The diffs start here, and we joust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.
PS: To Simonm223: if you find the above characterisation of the issue lacking, please supplement it below, rather than dismissing it again. Since you did not explain what was wrong with it, I've just gone ahead using the same characterisation. I'm not sure what else to do. I expect you'll be proactive in supplementing anything I have left out this time.-- Asdfg 12345 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Not looking too closely, but maybe he said it somewhere other than in that speech? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
References
This article cites no reliable sources about anything! Needs eyes, and citations. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to gather some opinions regarding Xinhua News. It's a well known Chinese news agency which is used in many articles in Wikipedia. However, I've read recently that it has been described by RSF as the world's biggest propaganda agency. The way I see it, it means it shouldn't be used at all on WP since any facts coming from it is most likely distorted in favor of the PRC (and against China's main enemies). I'd be interested to know what you think about it - do you think the source can be used at all? or should it be systematically removed from articles? Laurent ( talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Apart from propagating the PRC point of view it is completely unreliable for political, international politics, social issues etc. It will never be allowed at FAC, for example. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:26, 9 July 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
RE Cold Fusion. We have an unquestionalbly source that states the patent office does not grant a type of patent. Someone has found a patent that, while it does not use the exact language that the patent office says they do not allow "cold fusion," does grant a patent on a method of generating energy by repeating the steps that "cold fusion" entails (dipping metal in water and running a current through it.) The patent is located at [1]. How do we deal with this? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The other involved editor went with this to ANI, but I think this is rather a reliable sources issue. When I need a lead and had to summarize 2 millennia of a debate within Christianity, I went for this version:
Coffey's book was the first introductory textbook on the topic that I could find. What has provoked strong opposition by (at least) one particular editor is the last part of the paragraph, that "all significant Christian denominations embrace religious toleration." I think that Coffey is quite explicit on this, the whole quote can be found on the article talk page, but to take concern about this into account, I reworded it to something more verbatim. But, the disagreement continues, because the other editor thinks that other sources would disagree. I could completely grand this point, under one condition. He needs to bring the reliable sources that do this forward on the talk page (or simply add them to the article) which so far simply hasn't happened. Those sources that he brought forward simply aren't good enough. Currently it appears as if this hasn't been made obvious enough, so I would appreciate it if someone from this noticeboard could look at the issue. Zara1709 ( talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A dispute has a risen over two areas. They both revolve around wiither or not a ource is accurate if it attributes to anotehr source something that source does not claim. The first is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299533096&oldid=299532753 The dailey Express article claims that the BNP constutution bans membership to those not native after 1066. The current constiution makes no such claim. Indead the user who posted the comment even seems to admit that this is true. However http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299653734&oldid=299653388. Though he does not provide that source (IE the constitution he has seen). The second instance is this http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:British_National_Party&diff=299532753&oldid=299301330. Here the situation is less clear cut. The EHRC letter does say that "Failure to do so may result in the Commission issuing an application for a legal injunction against the BNP." but does not state that it will. As such to claim that it has been considerd cannot be verified by the source. It cannot even be demonstrated that they have actualy discused it (as no decision seems to have been made). Nor is the letter clear that any breach of the law has occured, so again it makes it hard to demonstrate that there is any clear posibility of legal action. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
A quick query regarding Texas Tech University and asking for a few more eyes on the subject: What do we do if reliable sources are wrong? Not-so-hypothetical question: 2 normally reliable sources claim something, but simple observation of the object in question shows these sources to be wrong, but no one has published anything else in another reliable source to "prove" otherwise. WP:V seems to indicate we should only include the "reliable" source information, but policies aren't a suicide pact and Jimbo Wales stated "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information". Seeing as it is misleading information, how should we address it? Remove it altogether? Note that it is a campus legend? Note that it is a campus legend and it is false? Cite WP:IAR and just fix it? etc?
I have no issue with the other people involved; we're just trying to reach a consensus and appropriately annotate the legend. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Note, she wrote "know for certain", not "think you know". I take that to mean that John Q. Public will review the evidence and agree with you. I don't have the time to research whether this is indeed the case for the statue on campus but it seems you have made a strong case for it. Also note that in the example I quote above, the article was a bio of a living person which requires us to be even more diligent than usual about not republishing false information from a "reliable" source, whereas in the case of a statue there is no special urgency to get it right immediately. -- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)If you know for certain that the information is inaccurate, do not include it. Verifiability not truth is good and well, but we don't intentionally publish false information about living people just because the sources that disprove it are not considered reliable by our standards. If there's no RS correcting the error, then just don't include the information at all.
Pajhwok Afghan News is cited through the encyclopedia ( [2]). Is this a reliable source? How about for non-negative information about living persons? Hipocrite ( talk) 17:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this discussion is now somewhat moot. I've completely rewritten the article, and Pajhwok is now used only as a source for what Pajhwok did at the time. It's obviously a reliable source for a statement about its own activities, though I wouldn't care to use it as a source for anything else. -- ChrisO ( talk) 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Related to the David Rohde discussion, though not to the reliability of Pajhwok Afghan News, I have made a draft proposal at Wikipedia:News suppression. The purpose is to codify that Jimbo and other administrators did the right thing keeping the kidnapping of David Rohde out of his Wikipedia article. It also aims to define when something should be kept out of Wikipedia, even if it is covered in a few reliable sources. There can be no absolute rules for these situations, but some basic principles. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 17:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we just say that it's a reliable source, and that, as always, care should be taken with BLP and other extraordinary claims, like all RSs? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Musicmight is a reliable source? Thanks. ( JoaquimMetalhead ( talk) 23:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC))
Join the MusicMight community to add information REGISTER HERE
About MusicMight: Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!
You can add as much or as little information as you'd like. We are actively seeking potential "Guardians", those dedicated fans that have enthusiasm, knowledge and commitment to oversee key areas of the database. If you think you're the person to look after all NWOBHM acts, Finnish Death Metal bands, all Californian AOR bands or whatever - get in touch with us!
Fairly straightforward, isn't it? Not a reliable source as it does not meet any of the criteria suggested at WP:RS. Jezhotwells ( talk) 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
And then, I can use this site as a reliable source? ( JoaquimMetalhead ( talk) 12:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC))
The Times of London published an article about Lyndon LaRouche's AIDS initiative, California Proposition 64 (1986). It includes a report on verbal harassment of a local minister and his mother by LaRouche supporters. The excerpted text is at Talk:Views of Lyndon LaRouche/sources#1986 2nd half (search for "minister"). An editor has asserted that the source is simply wrong, but he hasn't offered any source that disputes the reporting. This concerns a draft, at Talk:Political views of Lyndon LaRouche/Gays & AIDS, intended to replace the material currently at Views of Lyndon LaRouche#Gays and AIDS. (While we're here, the editor has also complained about using similar reporting from the Frederick Post.) So the question is: are these two mainstream newspapers reliable sources for reporting these incidents? Will Beback talk 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Both sources are reliable and usable in the article. If there is a dispute over whether the newspaper articles are reliable sources for a specific statement, we can handle it here. Other noticeboards such as WP:NORN, WP:POVN or the (hot off the press!) WP:CNB, may also be relevant depending upon the exact nature of the dispute. Happy forum shopping! ← is in jest :-) Abecedare ( talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am seeking assistance in resolving a dispute on the talk page of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. The sources cited in the article for two lists whose accuracy has been disputed is this book and this archived copy of a page formerly carried on the author's personal web-site. Since the book was printed by Xulon press, which produces and distributes books at their authors' expense, it would appear to be a self-published source. While the author, Olivier Thill, seems to be an enthusiatic, erudite and well-read amateur historian, he does not appear to be recognised as an established expert on the history of science. On the back cover of his book, he describes himself as "a computer engineer and specialist of the European Renaissance", and here he describes himself as a "Computer programmer, amateur historian of Copernicus, Descartes, and Peiresc."
Since the editor who cited these sources says "I don't think this list appears in the book" he apparently has not actually checked it. So until somebody does so, the web page is really the only source we have as supposed support for the cited lists.
I would appreciate any opinions on whether either the web-site or the book can be regarded as
reliable sources.
—
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I am a recognised 'expert' on the De revolutionibus, if only a very minor one, and an amateur historian of science, albeit a professionally trained one, and I find the lists from Oliver Thill less than helpful. Not knowing his book and having never come across references to it I have bought a copy via the intertubes and await delivery. However I don't think that reading his book will change my opinion that the lists should be removed.
Thony C. (
talk) 10:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
A little matter of contention over on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis: Are the New York Times and the Associated Press reliable sources concerning legal questions? We have one user claiming that because such newspapers and services called what transpired a coup d'etat, we should also because they are reliable sources. I contend that they are not reliable in this context, in that legal scholars and specialists in Honduran law are neither reading nor checking the articles. Which is correct? Bkalafut ( talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Thirty-Seventh Special Session of the OAS General Assembly adopted a resolution strongly condemning the coup d’Etat in Honduras and demanded the immediate and unconditional return of President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to his constitutional duties. OAS News
The General Assembly today condemned this weekend’s coup d’état in Honduras, calling for the restoration of the democratically-elected President and constitutional Government. UN News
Also note that Bkalafut's characterization that "one user" claims that NYT, AP (they left out UN general assembly, OAS, EU, etc...) are RS on this question is simply wrong, as any random sampling of Talk:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis will show. So wrong that it really stretches my WP:AGF, though not quite past the breaking point. Homunq ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be two different questions here. One of them is whether mass-market newspapers such as the New York Times are reliable sources for the events on the ground in Honduras: that is, the "who-what-when-where" of the situation. A second question is whether mass-market newspapers are reliable sources for interpretation of these events, and specifically whether these events are accurately described as a "coup d'état" -- a word which may have technical meanings in international law, military history, etc.
It seems to me that the answer to the first question is assuredly yes. Although the mass-market press sometimes makes factual errors, we have nothing better to go on. The second question is more difficult: whether the crisis in Honduras "is" a coup is not a matter of physical fact but of historical and political interpretation and judgment. Pointedly, it appears that supporters of Zelaya universally call it a coup and his opponents universally do not. Is the New York Times a reliable source for such judgment? That is not so clear. It seems to me that we should stand off from such judgments, refer to the situation as a "crisis" or as the "deposing of Manuel Zelaya", and point out that different writers of different political views refer to it as a coup d'état or not. -- FOo ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
He's kinda turned out not to be telling the whole truth about himself:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/8130351.stm
However we use his books as refs in a few plages eg:
Is this likely to be a problem?© Geni 19:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
An editor has questioned the reliability of the Norfolk Mills website. I've opened a discussion at the Mills WikiProject and would appreciate input on the question there. Mjroots ( talk) 16:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a Portuguese-language Brazilian music website. Is it a WP:RS for WP:BLPs of Brazilian musicians? It apparently takes content from Brazilian newspapers, and doesn't look like a very good source to me - especially for controversial claims about musician's beliefs and private lives. This came up from discussion at Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira, which has unrelated WP:BLP and WP:OR problems, being discussed at BLPN here and on the talk page. Verbal chat 10:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We are consumers just like you and not professional critics -- even though you might have seen our names in other publications. That is why most of the reviews you will read here are positive. We tend to buy the music we review and only write about the good ones. Yes, of course we have made bad purchases, but we will keep those on our shelves.
I want to cite the source given in the second post of [5] . Optiboard is a respectable site. A user with 6000 posts is probably a respectable poster. Can I cite a forum posters source? I assume not, but given that he gave us the book's name, authors, and page number someone should be able to look it up easily. Do we have a mechanism to facilitate this? (Perhaps a list of specific facts with the specific sources that require verification?) I have detailed my specific issue at Talk:Human eye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esoteric Rogue ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Our article on Michael Jackson's pet chimpanzee, Bubbles, claims that this chimpanzee attempted suicide but was rushed to the hospital and saved. The cited sources are The Times of India and The Telegraph. While these sources are generally considered reliable, I was skeptical. How would a chimpanzeee even try to commit suicide? Slit its wrists? Overdose on medication? A gunshot wound to its head? Anyway, I posted the question "Can a chimpanzee really commit suicide?" on the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk. Of those who took the question seriously, none thought it was likely and one chaulked it up to sloppy journalism. I added a {dubious} tag to the article on the grounds that a suicidal chimpanzee seems like an exceptional claim and that these are just reporters writing entertainment articles and probably don't have a background in primatology and therefore aren't qualified to make this claim. The discussion can be found at WP:Talk:Bubbles_(chimpanzee)#Suicide. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 21:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
is it a reliable source for articles such as LokiTorrent? LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
How about the other source used prominently in that article - afterdawn.com ? LoverOfTheRussianQueen ( talk) 23:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Google News is now indexing advertisements. This is extremely useful for academic research purposes in general, but not so good for us. It adds a lot of noise for using it to find news articles to use as reliable sources. See, for example my search to see if there were any decent sources for "color-net" a real estate sales network, [8], which turned up such items as [9]. We already know there is pure PR in there, so everything has to be screened anyway, but this certainly makes using raw counts from it absurd. I use GN archive a lot for finding book reviews--now I'll have all the advertisements to sort out as well. DGG ( talk) 23:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Raw Google counts were abusrd as an argument for inclusion even before this, so it shouldn't change anything. Blogs and press releases and entertainment and parody sites have all already been in those links for a long time. In fact, this newest change might even help us by forcing the people who use bad sources on a regular basis to more readily realize that the links found there can be totally useless for our purposes. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I recently edited the Tucker Max article and stated that he appeared on Sirius Radio, referencing his own website as a source. This was quickly reverted and McJeff kindly told me that I needed third party sources. After searching the net, I found that his radio appearance is on YouTube and it is mentioned on another website with a biography about him, as well as being referenced to in a couple forums (links at the bottom). My question is this: are these reliable enough sources to prove his radio appearance?
I would greatly appreciate any feedback as I am still new and would like to know how to contribute more to Wikipedia.
Sources:
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1w5ZOBQF8
Biography:
http://en.allexperts.com/e/t/tu/tucker_max.htm
Forums:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=39677 and
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=443270
Not to mention his own website.
How reliable is WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com). Can they be trusted to represent facts as fact and to represent opinions as opinion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Sonoran News is a Weekly newspaper published in Cave Creek, Arizona (near Phoenix). Their website says
Sonoran News is published weekly by Conestoga Merchants, Inc. dba Sonoran News, and distributed free of charge to 43,000+ homes and businesses throughout the Cave Creek, Carefree, Desert Hills, New River, Tatum Ranch, Rio Verde, N. Phoenix and N. Scottsdale areas including Desert Mountain, Terravita, Legend Trail, Winfield, Troon, The Boulders and Pinnacle Peak, all of Zip Codes 85331, 85327, 85377, 85255, 85262 and 85266
Their website lists about 50 Arizona Newspapers Association Awards in various areas, going back to 1996 [11]. I have had an editor remark of them, "Maybe I should have bolded the words reliable sources when I was asking for examples. That hardly qualifies as such." Are they considered a reliable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The site exampleproblems.com is linked to from several articles [13]. As the site violates WP:EL (it's a wiki and not a reliable source per our normal standards) I was going to nuke these links but they appear to have been added by established user Tbsmith ( talk · contribs). So, rather than cause a potential conflict with this user I'd like a few second opinions on this. Am I being too strict here or should I nuke these? Vyvyan Basterd ( talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Softwaretop100.org attempts to list companies by software revenue. I first noticed this cited on the Ubisoft page, and searching wikipedia gives 25 results. Viewing the source, I happened to notice that Sony was excluded, with no plausable reason given in the site's disclaimer. Since I estimate Sony to be at 5th place, I think this is a gross omission which discredits softwaretop100.org . Esoteric Rogue ( talk) 19:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A contributor to List of vegetarians is pushing to use "Supreme Master TV" ( http://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/board.php?bo_table=ve&wr_id=25) as a source for validating claims about people. I have challenged this on the basis that it's not a valid source. The Supreme Master is a Chinese spiritual leader and these are broadcasts from her organisation. I object to their use on the basis that they clearly promote an agenda and there appears to be no journalistic objectivity (Jesus Christ pops up as a renowned vegetarian too which as a Catholic is news to me!). I wouldn't mind so much if these films actually had interviews with the people themselves or even recognised authorities on the subject (in fact I would accept them as sources in those cases). I could be wrong on this so I would appreciate an impartial opinion. This is the second time I'd had to remove this source and obviously I don't want to keep removing it if I'm in the wrong. Thanks to anyone who taks a look at the site. Betty Logan ( talk) 10:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
We're working on wikipedia-spotlight on Marco Polo but we don't have many reliable source on the web. We have however access to the 1947 edition of Venetian adventurer By Henry Hersch Hart which describes Marco's life in a very scientific and scholarly level. It has also received a good review and is cited by many other books. The problem is that the book was written in 1947 and I was wondering if that would pose a problem when nominating the article for GA or FA, thank you.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is celebritywonder.com a reliable source for non-controversial biographical information? Specifically, is the following article [14] a reliable source for actress Jamie Chung's birthdate? Celebritywonder.com is owned by UGO Entertainment (a division of Hearst Corporation) whose 1up.com website is generally considered to be a reliable source. Celebritywonder.com does have a Contact Us page with a physical address, but it redirects to Ugo's main Contact Us web page. They appear to have a professional editorial staff but again it redirects to Ugo's main editorial staff [15]. It's currently referenced by about 110 Wikipedia articles. [16] It doesn't appear to be cited by very many established reliable sources. Opinions? Comments? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Tom Goldstein is a notable and highly respected Supreme Court practitioner and court watcher. His blog, SCOTUSblog, is also notable and highly respected. Both are regarded as reliable sources by the media. E.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] Is a post by Goldstein at SCOTUSblog about a justice of the Supreme Court a reliable source for purposes of that Justice's Wikipedia article?
Although blogs are troublesome as sources at Wikipedia, they are not entirely banned. WP:SPS allows that "[s]elf-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article," as Goldstein is, if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," as Goldstein's has been (e.g. [22]; indeed, he was wheeled out as a court expert on The News Hour tonight!).
Furthermore, WP:GAME and WP:WL are explicit that the language of a policy should give way to the policy's purpose. Even if the text of WP:SPS seemed to rule out SCOTUSblog as a source (it does not, as we have seen), the purpose of the policy supports inclusion. The concern underlying WP:SPS is explicitly-stated: that "[a]nyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason," emphasis added, self-published sources such as blogs are frowned upon as sources. But it would be ludicrous to pretend that a court expert (indeed, practitioner) as esteemed and established as Goldstein is not an expert in the relevant field, viz. the court.
Goldstein posted an assesment of the term just concluded, and made some remarks about Justice Clarence Thomas. Since Goldstein is an expert on the court, his assesment of Thomas might be thought to have some weight, a fortiori to the extent it is an admission against partisan interest (Goldstein has made it quite clear that he disagrees strongly with Thomas, but his assesment was complimentary):
“ | No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking [as Thomas]. The irony of course is that there remains a public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia. I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice." | ” |
I therefore added it to the section of Thomas' article about his recent years on the court. [23] user:RafaelRGarcia has now removed it twice on the pretext that it is "irrelevant to section, non-notable, blog, entirely opinion, undue weight." [24] [25] Argument has ensued. [26] It seems clear to me that SCOTUSblog generally and Goldstein particularly are reliable sources for articles about the Supreme Court and its members. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate having some more pairs of eyes on this one in case I'm the one being the WP:DICK. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
SCOTUSblog is read and is considered authoritative by leading appellate lawyers who practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. Likewise, Goldstein is sufficiently notable and respected that his conclusions and opinions are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (although not necessarily the last or only word on an issue where experts differ). Finell (Talk) 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I was tracing a particular dispute over Church of Kish, which involves Samvel Karapetian. This scholar does not seem to be a third-party and this largely affects the neutrality of the related article on church. Furthermore, Karapetian hardly passes any of the criteria per WP:ACADEMIC. The head of the Yerevan branch of Research on Armenian Architecture does not sound like a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. I think Norwegian scholar Bjornar Storfjell, whom I mentioned at church's talk, is more authoritative and reliable. Brand t 21:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You are gaming your topic ban, but I will still answer you. Bjornar Storfjell is more authoritative and reliable than Karapetian? LOL! He's from the Thor Heyerdafl Research Center, from the article on Wikipedia: The controversy surrounding the search for Odin-project was in many ways typical of the relationship between Heyerdahl and the academic community. His theories rarely won any scientific acceptance, whereas Heyerdahl himself rejected all scientific criticism and concentrated on publishing his theories in popular books aimed at the general public.
Heyerdahl claimed that the Udi ethnic minority in Azerbaijan was the descendants of the ancestors of the Scandinavians. He traveled to Azerbaijan on a number of occasions in the final two decades of his life and visited the Kish church. Heyerdahl's Odin theory was rejected by all serious historians, archaeologists, and linguists. [28]
It's the same 'research center' which was engaged in another church (Armenian Church) restoration and this was accompanied by the erasing of a long and important building inscription in Armenian above its entrance and Armenian inscriptions on gravestones in the church's graveyard. The destruction was strongly condemned by Norway's ambassador to Azerbaijan, who refused to attend the church's reopening. That's the notable and more 'reliable' Bjornar Storfjell, who BTW could not even tell you the differences between a Church and Monastery. And had Brand read the discussion here he would have seen a 19th century non-Armenian source, naming it Armenian and calling it St. Elisheus Church. The official returns were provided too. - Fedayee ( talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
There's currently a dispute at Tui T. Sutherland about use of the Jeopardy Archive as a source. The objections are that it's "self published" or "run by fans." However, the site exercises a high degree of editorial control and is extremely accurate. I fully expect that the site has considerably fewer inaccuracies than any edition of any major newspaper. The fact that it's run by fans should not invalidate the incredible degree of accuracy and information contained there. There would be no objection to a throwaway local newspaper article or local TV report being cited for the same kind of information, yet it's much more likely that those kinds of local news reports would get their facts wrong with respect to what happened on the show than this website would. It has been cited by numerous authors, such as Ken Jennings and Bob Harris (writer), who have written books about Jeopardy. Croctotheface ( talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It's "created by fans, for fans". What editorial control is there, that Croctotheface can point to? Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Its article sourcing a BLP seems to be quoting someone without any fact checking at all. After a quick look at other articles, it seems like a poorly checked tabloid. Any Ozzies know it better? -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-07-07t17:58z
Not an Ozzie, but this statement
[29] about the publishers, the National Civic Council, means that it is likely to be highly POV.
Jezhotwells (
talk) 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Can http://theory.tifr.res.in/bombay/physical/climate/ be considered reliable for details on the Climate section of Mumbai. The website is of a very popular research institute in Mumbai - Department of Theoretical Physics ( Tata Institute of Fundamental Research). Thanks, Kensplanet T C 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Can a Juvenile Non fiction book like Global Cities (Mumbai) be considered reliable for some general claims about people as below.
Not for History, Climate and other important sections. Only for the above claims. Thanks, Kensplanet T C 11:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Depends on the newspaper. At least for FAC purposes, I tend to stick to major city dailies that are usually accepted as authoritative, NYT, WP, LAT. For purposes of history in matters not covered by larger papers, sometimes smaller papers are needed. However, this is plainly not the case here. Why can't you find a better source for what seems like very commonplace claims about Mumbai?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I had a general essay at User:YellowMonkey/FAR as I found that the same queries might be brought up by a lot of people. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 15:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for material about living people? Tom Harrison Talk 19:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Geschiedenis is being used as a reference for participants from the Netherlands. Bearing in mind that any mention of Bilderberg is usually used as an attack on the person, is the reference enough? There's a constant struggle on the Bilderberg pages about sources. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have an insight into the reliability of this book ( ISBN 9781846681233)? Is it, like The Economist itself, to be treated in questions of fact as gospel unless contradicted? Skomorokh 13:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.
The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." [1] [2] [3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.
What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?
The diffs start here, and we jaust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.-- Asdfg 12345 21:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
References
There is disagreement over the verifiability of the sourcing for this BLP, comments welcome on the talk page. -- Jeandré ( talk), 2009-07-09t17:56z
An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article and has twice tagged it with a 'Notability" tag. I believe it meets all notability criterias. Could someone please take a look??-- Beehold ( talk) 18:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
An anon IP is questioning all of the refs I have used for this article. True, I have used IMDB for few details - but I thought that was OK for non-controversial movie listings, rather than biographical facts. I have just removed the 'Notability' tag that the IP put on the article, as I truly believe that subject of the article to be WP:Notable (film producer/literary agent/playwright), but I just wanted to check in with you lot as well. Thankyou. The disputed refs are here - together with the IP's comments.My comments are in italics underneath:
(The details of the films are listed on numerous other sites, but individually, rather than in a neat list at IMDB - so I went for the neat list. The details are non-controversial and all reported elsewhere.)
(Interviews may be considered primary sources, but they are allowable - especially if providing/supporting non-controversial facts)
(This is a press release containing non-controversial details - used for supplementary details)
(This is the New York Times - one of the most WP: Reliable sources going I would imagine).
(This is an independent website - despite what the IP claims. It is viewed as "the bible" of the literary world...apparently)
(A primary source perhaps - but again providing non-controversial facts).
-- Beehold ( talk) 11:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
How reliable is compassdirect.org for news? Can it be trusted on articles about living people? Cheers. VR talk 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I dug into BBC and WP's citations of CDN and the lesson is "Beware of Google News hits" when you cannot read the article itself! Despite appearances ( [41], [42]") Compass Direct News has never been used as a source by BBC or Washington Post. Let me explain:
The above information is from
Lexis-Nexis. Note that Lexis-Nexis itself does not archive CDN; in fact no major US or World publication indexed in that database has ever directly cited CDN as a news source or reported on its activities, with one exception: A January 26, 2000 article in
Washington Times headlined "Saudi Arabia tops group's list of worst Christian persecutors" reports about a list released by CDN (Quote: A "world watch list" released by a watchdog religious persecution group named Saudi Arabia as last year's "worst persecutor of Christians.").
My conlcusion is that CDN does not seem to be reliable independent source, although as a "watchdog religious persecution group" its views may be notable if they are cited by other reliable sources as listed above.
Abecedare (
talk) 04:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I missed one (because it's in Arabic and didn't show up in the Lexis search): This report is by BBC (and not BBC Monitoring), but according to Google's translation it is an item about a report released by CDN and subsequent events, rather than a news story relying on CDN's reporting. Abecedare ( talk) 04:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello all. Another user and I encountered a conflict when it came to citing sources on band pages. Many band pages (and articles relating to them such as of band members, albums, and singles) such as System of a Down, Korn, Children of Bodom and until recently, Disturbed cite fansites. Wikipedia doesn't allow fansites to be cited, because they aren't reliable, since anybody can make one. Although this is true, many of the articles wouldn't have much context, or even exist if fansites weren't cited. I admit that I have two band fansites, but did not intend to use Wikipedia to self promote it (I had no decrease in traffic after the links were taken off). The official site(s) often delete information after a while, and sometimes it isn't on the Archive. Should fansites be continued to be cited against policy, or should the info just be taken down in its entirety, or should the articles just have the cites replaced with citation needed until the information is deleted/another source is found? Thanks for your time, The Weak Willed 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Are the US Navy primary source documents of log book, action reports, war diary, and cruise reports considered reliable for Wikipedia use?
The four documents are standard US Navy documents and were created aboard ship by the ship's staff and signed by the ship's commanding officer. These documents are a record of ship activity without personal opinions. They are in a neutral point of view of who, what, where and when. The questions of why and how are not involved.
Log Book - covers a every important aspect of ship activity
War Diary - is an abbreviated version of the log book
Action Reports - records the detail of a ship's combat operation
Cruise Reports - a chronological listing of the ship's movements
In the Battleship Texas wiki article, the aforementioned documents are needed to correct errors in secondary sources that are cited in the article. I have posted excerpts of the documents in the Commons area with the needed information to make the corrections. The needed information are times, dates, geographical location of the ship, names of objects and names of people. The action reports are the most used documents and the full documents are posted on an internet site of mine at http://users.hal-pc.org/~cfmoore/. Further information as to my extensive knowledge of the ship can be found on another webiste of mine at http://www.bb35library.usstexasbb35.com/
Use of the ship's primary source documents above does not constitute original research. This was the consensus of a discussion in the No original research notice board. Based on the that consensus, one of the two article primary editors (TomStar81) will allow me to use the documents as a source if there is a consensus that the documents are reliable.
I posted the reliability question to the article's discussion section but TomStar81 said I should post the question here. IronShip ( talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the US National Archives and Records Administration does not have an online catalogue for these records. I also scanned and placed the complete 130 page War Diary for 1944 on the BB35Library. I also the have thee complete 1945 War Diary but it has not yet been scanned. IronShip ( talk) 13:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I would like to query the removal of a link to a scanned in version of book III of Ockham's Summa Logicae ( Sum of Logic. Two editors have now deleted it on the grounds that the text is on a 'personal website'. However, given that the text is a primary source, simply a scanned-in version, why should it matter that the website is 'personal'? It is certainly verifiable, as you can look at the original 13th century text in any reference library and see that the online text matches the other. There is no other version of book III on the net, and it seems a shame to delete.
Also, if we are going to remove links because it is a 'personal website', why not remove all the other links? For example, why not also remove the links to here [43] which is books I and II of the same work?
Why not remove the link to Paul Vincent Spade's translation of the first book [44], since that is his personal website? Why not remove Ed Buckner's translation of sections of Book II, [45] given that appears also to be a personal website? If we follow the 'personal website' logic, 90% of links to medieval philosophy and logic will disappear. Peter Damian ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to comment, I have a similar situation where I have a very popular blog post that gets about 10-15 page views (from natural search) per day. It is (as far as I know) the only free site on the Internet that assembles the publicly disclosed customer churn rates of various companies across many industries, all with cited documentation. I briefly asked on the Wikipedia article talk page if it would be okay to include a link as an External link. Nobody objected, so I added it to the article. I was receiving about an additional 15 click-throughs per day from Wikipedia -- obviously Wikipedia readers were craving additional information. Then the link was deleted, because the blog and its author aren't famous enough (or other reasons). I have since found that a reliable published source has even cited my blog post in print. Still, no dice. So, I shopped the content over at Wikisource, but they too rejected it. Then I went to Wikibooks, and while they were more open to the idea, still buried it in caveats that put me to flight. Click for more details. -- Thekohser 11:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
MyWikiBiz was recently discussed on the talk page of WP:EL and found to not meet the rules for external links. Based upon the discussion there, I can't imagine how it would meet WP:RS either, for situations where that would be relevant, which it is not in this case. And, as an aside, 10-15 views a day is a far cry from being a "very popular blog post", not that alleged popularity has anything to do with meeting WP:RS or WP:EL anyway. DreamGuy ( talk) 17:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In the George Trenholm biography, an editor inserted his fringe theory that the fictitious character Rhett Butler in the novel Gone with the Wind is modeled after George Trenholm.
I tagged, challenged and removed the fringe theory almost one year ago. There are simply no reliable sources on this subject, other than the self-published book by the creator of this theory. Just recently, another editor believed the theory should be included in the biography, and inserted:
It is claimed that novelist Margaret Mitchell patterned her fictional character, Rhett Butler, on the life of Trenholm
The references given are:
This has lead to an edit war, as the references given are not solid enough to be included in an historical figure biography. The references are repeating hearsay/rumors and do not go into explanation on the matter. The 3O who is trying to assist is on the fence, but cited WP:UNDO and the claim/rumor should be dropped if no WP:RS could be cited.
Discussion here: Talk:George_Trenholm
Jim ( talk) 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is an argument on the left and right-wing politics whether a book British politics today ( ISBN 9780719065095) is a reliable source for defining "left-wing" and "right-wing". Source for the definition is an appendix of the book in which the authors describe how are the terms usually used by political scientists. One of the two authors, Dennis Kavanagh, is a Professor of Politics at the University of Liverpool and the book was published by the Manchester University Press. Is this a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 13:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I do not normally edit here at reliable sources, but I missed the discussion about examiner.com and I would like to have the opportunity to contribute. The archived discussion is here:
Below are some comments that I have prepared on criticisms from the archive. However, the most pertinent point is this: the examiner.com company uses Internet technology to harness the efforts of hundreds of writers, just like Wikipedia, and has credibility issues, just like Wikipedia. I think it is a big mistake to throw out examiner.com on the basis of the criticism I have read thus far without also criticizing Wikipedia identically.
The quality and qualifications of examiner.com writers is all over the map, just like Wikipedia's. Quality contributions bubble to the top here, and so do they at examiner.com. I am not suggesting that the entire site should be accepted unquestioningly, but it seems very much an overreaction to condemn the entire site based on a few ill-conceived perceptions and a couple of bad apples. It always strikes me as unjust when such happens to Wikipedia, and I think the same justice should apply when deciding the fate of examiner.com.
My specific comments on the archive criticism:
That’s it for now. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Jarhed ( talk) 14:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Examiner.com is a blog. Per WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29:
"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.
"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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
At best, Examiner.com can only be used as a self-published source and only if the author is an established expert on the topic whose work in the same field has been published by a reliable third-party publication. On the whole, The Examiner is not a WP:RS but it's possible that there might be specific articles by specific authors that can be used as SPS. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Jarhed, arguments like examiner.com is not any worse than wikipedia (as you said in your earlier posts) or huffingtonpost.com (as you are arguing now) are not the way to establish that a source is reliable. To judge reliability we need to show that examiner.com has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for analysis of its accuracy and the only somewhat relevant link I found is
this article which gives qualified praise to its pro-am model. Do you know of any other or more detailed analysis ?
Secondly, at RSN we rarely (if ever) pronounce a source to be always or never reliable and it would be a mistake to do so in this instance; for example, examiner.com can perhaps be used as a source for its contributors' biographical articles on wikipedia, just like any SPS.
Thirdly, we should always endeavor to use the best available source and not the source that just-about-clears some imaginary "reliability bar". In general (as I said before) examiner.com will be very down on the totem pole of reliable sources (for all the reasons listed above, including in your original post) and whether it can be used at all will depend upon the wikipedia article, availability of alternate sources, author and form of the examiner.com article, and the statement that is to be cited. If you have an actual (rather than hypothetical) dispute on the use of the website in a particular wikipedia article, please feel free to bring it up here, now or later. Cheer.
Abecedare (
talk) 17:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at this in some detail now, I consider examiner.com an unreliable source in most instances, and it should be used with caution only in exceptional circumstances when a positive argument for the reliability of a particular article can be made. Note also, that its FAQ says:
Our most successful Examiners spend time marketing their content to their social and business networks using tools like Twitter, Digg, Email lists, message boards, and good old-fashioned word-of-mouth. If all of this sounds new, Examiner.com provides the resources you need to learn and use these tools to master online marketing.
and we should be wary of wikipedia being used to spam examiner.com links. Note that the website is linked from over 1000 wikipedia pages including several BLPs, and each of these mainspace link needs to be reexamined. Abecedare ( talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Given:
What's the best way of notifying the community that The Examiner is not a reliable source unless the author is an established expert per the above definition? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering that when I first brought this up as a problem just a short time ago there were only about 300 or so links to examiner.com and now there are apparently more than 1,200 there has to be spamming involved for it to have jumped by that much in that short amount of time. I submitted a request for the XLinkBot to remove the links (any admin want to go add it to the list, please?), but we could be needed a total spamblock soon. This is insane. DreamGuy ( talk) 00:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose adding it to XLinkBot Agree to adding it to XLinkBot The Examiner is a company. What is publishes has some level of editorial oversight - the company can pull the stories (has it ever?). Like all media companies, it's looking for traffic, but it also has a basic reputation to maintain. The people who work for it writing articles can be considered part-time journalists, and they do use their real names. It might be on par with a small-town newspaper - in some cases worse, in some cases better. Anyway, can't agree to blocking the domain. Editors can decide on a case-by-case basis whether articles from it make sense. Spamming from it could be a problem, but that's a problem we have with a lot of things. See updated thoughts a couple responses below.
II | (
t -
c) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, User:Jarhed, do you have a WP:COI we should know about concerning Examiner.com? DreamGuy ( talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The website of Kołobrzeg says that a Slavic settlement existed there since the 5th and 6th century. Scholary sources say that Slavic settlement in the area took place in the 7th century (Piskorski et al 1999, Harck et al 2001) and that the actual settlement near modern Kołobrzeg was built in the 9th century (Harck et al 2001, Schich et al 2007). The cited scholars are historians who are experts for both the region and the respective time period. The dates published by them are not a revolutionary new theory, but based on long known archaeological findings. In the 5th and 6th centuries, when the website claims a Slavic settlement at modern Kołobrzeg, the area was part of the Dębczyn culture, which is also long established (source eg RGA).
Schould the website be treated as a reliable source and its position be included in the article as if there were diverging views on the origin of the town, or should the website be treated as an unreliable source and thus be excluded? Skäpperöd ( talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Before any further comments on this topic are made, it should be noted that this is (at least) the FOURTH time that Skapperod has brought this to question to this board. In each of the THREE previous times, editors disagreed with Skapperod, and the general gist was that town websites can be treated as reliable, though self-published, sources, as long as this is properly attributed (as in "the town's website states that...") - please see here [55], here [56], and here [57].
I think it's not going to be taken as a violation of AGF here if I ask Skapperod to read policy on forum shopping. In particular: This also includes bringing up the same issue on a number of forums in succession (e.g. the village pump, RFC, admin board, deletion discussions, etc.) because the debate on the first forum did not yield the result you wanted, bringing up the same issue at the same forum multiple times
Forum shopping falls under the category of "Inappropriate canvassing" and according to "Responding to disruptive canvassing"; The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices, and to block the user(s) only if they continue, to prevent them from posting further notices.. I think since this is the FOURTH time that this is being done makes that last part applicable. Hence, Skapperod, will you please stop trying to restart the same debate again and again until you get the "right" answer? radek ( talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is enough to put an end to the allegations that Kołobrzeg's city website contradicts academic literature. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would have expected that inside covers of books ought to tell the truth at least, but in the case of Roland Perry, the inside covers of his books and his publisher says that he won the UK Cricket Society book of the year in 2006. I presume that it was a typo and meant The Cricket Society, but a look at the website shows that someone else won the award and a google search shows that Perry's book was not in the shortlist. Do inside covers of books tell upfront lies about the CV of the author?? YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I should probably have posted this here before. RfC on the reliability of sources such as ESCToday, oikiotimes is open at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 09:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The second RfC on sourcing for Eurovision articles has now being running for several weeks. In order to help gauge the spread of opinion and draw conclusions from this discussion a straw poll has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision#Straw poll. Rationales are still encouraged in the main discussion area above the poll, and participants can add appropriate new sources or options to the poll as they wish. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
An interesting issue came up in the MLM article. Several of the papers I found that are scholarly and/or peer reviewed use self published websites to back up their claims. Here are two just as samples.
Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".
Sandbek, Terry "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology
Four issues come to mind.
If a self published website is used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source as reference in support of statements and/or conclusions is it a reliable source in its own right that can be used directly?
If the reference source has been put on the author's own website can it be used directly since it was referenced in a scholarly or peer reviewed source? Must it be in its original form if this allowable?
If an author is used in many scholarly or peer reviewed source and at least one uses his self published website in addition to what scholarly or peer reviewed material he has produced is the site now a reliable source?
Finally, on URLs in general if a scholarly or peer reviewed source use a url of a page that has updated since the paper wed published is the reference used a reliable source? Or do we have to use internet archive and hope that the version the scholarly or peer reviewed paper source used is there?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Our article on him indicates that he is primarily an economist, affiliated with Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Although the article is a stub, it does not show the relevance of Iranistics to him either. And indeed, Clawson's publications deal mainly with policy and security, this is probably why his notions in the Greater Iran in particular look explicitly biased and out of his scope. A good example is: Iran today is just a rump of what it once was. At its height, Iranian rulers controlled Iraq, Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, much of Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Many Iranians today consider these areas part of a greater Iranian sphere of influence. Quite an overbold statement for economist and Near East politics expert. Actually Clawson is cited six times in the Greater Iran, including one-sided and highly disputable excerpt, which further exposes his stance and one-sided approach to historical issues: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Azerbaijan, Armenia, much of Georgia, and Afghanistan were Iranian, but by the end of the century, all this territory had been lost as a result of European military action. This sounds odd even for a history hobbyist and I believe the further usage of Clawson in historical issues will corrupt the neutrality and proper weight. Brand t 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm breaking this, and several more RS/N posts to come, out of a more generic discussion elsewhere on RS/N [60]. Two editors are wishing to use www.pyramidshemealert.org as a source on the Multi-level marketing article. At present, this specifically includes the article Why the FTC Lets MLM Run Wild in America". as a source for "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The argument against allowing it as a source is three fold -
The arguement for allowing it is that
More details on that discussion can be found here. 3rd party input appreciated. -- Insider201283 ( talk) 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Similar to the above, two editors are wishing to use the website mlm-thetruth.com as a source for the Multi-level_marketing article. Specifically -
The first reference is being used to support the assertion "many pyramid schemes try to present themselves as legitimate MLM businesses". The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above as well as the poor scholarly quality of the article itself.
The second source is being used to support the claim "There are even claims that the success rate for breaking even or even making money are far worse than other types of businesses" and "Based on available data from the companies themselves, the loss rate for recruiting MLM’s is approximately 99.9%; i.e., 99.9% of participants lose money after subtracting all expenses, including purchases from the company."
The brief arguments for and against it's inclusion are much the same as for pyramid scheme alert, above. In addition arguments against are the poor scholarly quality of the article itself, many of which have been addressed by others [61] [62].-- Insider201283 ( talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
There is a long discussion about this here. The problem boils down to this: how does wikipedia handle discrepancies between a claimed original source and that actual original source? For example, the New York Times claimed that someone said something at a certain time, but the official record apparently does not show this. Specifically, Craig Smith, in his article, quotes Li Hongzhi as saying, in his 1999 lecture to Australian practitioners of Falun Gong, that "The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven." A search of the database (search.freefind.com/find.html?id=46344703&ics=1&pid=a) of Falun Gong teachings does not turn up this quote. Nor does a search of the lecture in question. Two other remarks attributed to Li by Smith are also not present in the database of Li's teachings.
The article currently includes the paragraph from the first page of Smith's article quoted in full. After this quotation, I sought to add a sentence which said "The words "spawn," "intervention" and the quote attributed to Li do not appear in the online database of Falun Gong teachings, however." [1] [2] [3] This was removed by another editor as "not-notable." Prior to this I had sought to paraphrase the parts of the quote that were apparently inaccurate, but the other editor was unsatisfied with this, and preferred or insisted that the paragraph be quoted fully.
What is the precedent for treating cases where there is a discrepancy between what a secondary source claims a primary source said and what that primary source appears to have actually said? I would have thought to simply say "NYT says X. Falun Gong website says Y," and leave it at that, but this approach is being disputed. What is the precedent?
The diffs start here, and we joust for a while before settling on the current version, which is when I come to seek clarification. Thanks.
PS: To Simonm223: if you find the above characterisation of the issue lacking, please supplement it below, rather than dismissing it again. Since you did not explain what was wrong with it, I've just gone ahead using the same characterisation. I'm not sure what else to do. I expect you'll be proactive in supplementing anything I have left out this time.-- Asdfg 12345 16:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Not looking too closely, but maybe he said it somewhere other than in that speech? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 17:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
References
This article cites no reliable sources about anything! Needs eyes, and citations. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to gather some opinions regarding Xinhua News. It's a well known Chinese news agency which is used in many articles in Wikipedia. However, I've read recently that it has been described by RSF as the world's biggest propaganda agency. The way I see it, it means it shouldn't be used at all on WP since any facts coming from it is most likely distorted in favor of the PRC (and against China's main enemies). I'd be interested to know what you think about it - do you think the source can be used at all? or should it be systematically removed from articles? Laurent ( talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Apart from propagating the PRC point of view it is completely unreliable for political, international politics, social issues etc. It will never be allowed at FAC, for example. YellowMonkey ( cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)