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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
For over six months, the Judaism article has said:
This was true
This is what I below refer to as the consensus version. Note: no sources were provided
On November 9, User: Navnløs changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion." Note: She has not provided any sources to support her postion
On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:
I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.
I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:
Since that time, user:A Sniper has accused me of violating WP:NOR [7]. Uer:Bus Stop simply rejects my sources. [8]
There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. I have tried to provide reliable sources, and Navanlos,A Sniper, or Bus Stop either disparage or ignore my sources, and refuse to provide any of their own. The page is now protected and I am hoping thoghtful discussion will suffice to resolve the matter. I see WP:RS as key to resolving this dispute and appreciate the comments on editors experienced in this kind of issue, who have time to read through the relevant section of the talk page. The discussion is here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but he is not saying all Second Temple institutions. In fact, isn't he arguing that most Second Temple institutions, practices and ideas play no role in what we today call Judaism? Also, can you tell me which of these institutions, practices, and ideas were not codified in the Mishnah and elaborated in the Gemorah? I just want to be clear i understand what you are claiming. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean to say here. Are you saying that the Judaism article should not include discussion of the pre-Talmudic period? Or are you saying that Judaism should not be defined as Talmudic? I have not argued either point, but I am curious if you wish to argue either of these. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the rabbinical definition of ethnos?" I never used the phrase, so I am not sure what you mean by it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I originally raised this matter in the OR/Noticeboard. Apparently it was the wrong forum, so I am bringing it here with slight wording changes accordingly.
This relates to Banned Books Week [BBW], particularly to references to a map. An individual created the map. That map was then promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] as its own without attribution of authorship, giving the appearance the map was the work of the ALA, as evidenced in the LA Times. When an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] questioning the ALA for its policies regarding BBW, the ALA responded in a letter to the editor. The WSJ printed other responses. One was from the individual who created the map where he specifically disclaimed any connection to the ALA. This was published after the LA Times article, else the LA Times might have known the true authorship of the map. A web site in the External Links contains a link to a subpage that happens to be that map, so the map is available to anyone who clicks on the sublink from the ALA's page.
I say the map is not a reliable source for reasons given here:
Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:
The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.
The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is not reliably sourced by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.
All guidance appreciated. Thank you. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Having now done more work, there is no allegation made by anyone, including the purported map author, that the ALA did anything wrong. They are publishing the map, and I see no comment by anyone at the ALA regarding the authorship by anyone. I suggest that this be closed up at this point, and perhaps LAEC be reminded of the purpose of Wikipedia. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.
From following is from the map's author at [16], quoting now:
In August 2009, a friend of mine named Alita Edelman - about to begin her senior year at Smith College - spent a month volunteering at theAmerican Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFFE). ABFFE is a tiny organization that operates within the long shadow of theAmerican Library Association (ALA). Her job was to organize data on banned and challenged books across America. The ALA compiles these records, and every year releases a long list of what books were reported challenged where, by whom, and why.
....
So I created a Google Map for Banned Books. I issued a strident call on my blog for contributors. My dream was that librarians everywhere - from the New York Public Library to Podunk Public - would begin placing pushpins every time a parent held a copy of Harry Potter in front of their face, demanding that this instructional manual for witchcraft and wizardry be burned like its practitioners. Of course, that didn’t happen, because I’m just some guy on the Internet, and not a media mogul with millions of eager readers with too much time on their hands. Instead, Alita and I began the arduous task of translating the hundreds of ALA records onto the map.
....
Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.
So what can we do?
We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country. Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise.
....
So today, we’re launching the Mapping Banned Books Project We’ve created a new Google Map, one which is totally open to anyone to edit from the comfort of their local library and will rely upon concerned and active individuals to provide the critical data. The idea goes something like this: when a book is challenged at your local library, you get a copy of the formal documentation, scan it, and upload it. Then you drop a pushpin on the location of your library and provide a report of the book challenge, the reasons why it was challenged, and link to the documentation for verification. As more and more people begin to use the map, we’ll see more and more data, visualize new patterns, and learn new, wonderful, and terrifying things about the world around us.
It won’t be easy. The site is still under development, and we’re all busy people with too many things to do and not enough time. We’re going to have to get word out to all the people in big cities and rural towns who might be able to contribute to the cause. Such a massive undertaking won’t be easy, but here’s the good news: it’s easier than it’s ever been before, and we owe it to ourselves to give it an honest try.
Talk about soapbox, this map is an author-admitted soapbox, not a reliable source: "We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country." If this type of thing is allowed on Wikipedia, that would be very bad. But that's why Wikipedia has policies to prevent this sort of thing.
"Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise." So, according to the author, merely complying with library challenge forms is labeled as "censorious." A reliable source would not say that.
"The site is still under development...." The author himself admits the material is still under development.
The author even admits, "I’m just some guy on the Internet." Not a problem, but that is not a reliable source under Wiki standards.
This is not a reliable source, and the author so admits. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In the process of this discussion, I have lost track of what this map is being used for. Could someone please remind me what statement in Wikipedia is being supported by citing this map? (this impacts whether it is reliable or not) Blueboar ( talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize the issue wasn't about the map itself, as a source. I think the issue is quite simple, then. The LA Times is a reliable source, but reliable sources quite often get it wrong. For the sake of accuracy in an article, editors can together choose not to use the source, or if used, the source should be attributed in line as Blueboar is suggesting. Doing so creates a verifiable and encyclopedic entry although perhaps not a truthful or accurate statement.That's Wikipedia. verifiable not truth. ( olive ( talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC))
An editor keeps adding that the section is unreliable. On the talk page I commented as below. I do not believe the page needs to be tagged. I do not know how to take action against the editor to stop these actions. The section has been on the FCPS page for a long time and only now was "discovered" to have issues. I believe there is a bias as the editor seems to cover many issues associated with Fairfax County. I am not sure anyone here can do anything but I thought I would bring the issue to your attention.
Below is how I have responded.
This issue was important enough to be covered on CNN, Fox News, etc. It was in the Washington Post and the The Guardian in Britain. It was covered around the world - Australia, India, France. The Students name receives over 4400 hits in google if you do a search for it! The importance of the issue is the fact that the rule infringed on Constitutional rights. Not to mention human rights. To tell a person they can not hug another person or even shake hands is beyond the pale. You don't agree with this? What would the founding fathers have thought of this? That is why the article is in there. The FCPS never issued a statement saying this was NOT a policy. In fact a federal suit was about to be filed but the student changed schools instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You think it is a tiny issue that kids cant give hug or high five each other? The FCPS system refused to take any action on the matter at all. The matter is accurate. CNN covered it and so did the Washington Post. The section has been there since it happened. All of a sudden it is not accurate? I smell bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Can the Arutz Sheva site: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ be considered as WP:RS? (To quote from the article: "Arutz Sheva is seen as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement", ie. Israeli settlers on the West Bank). Regards, Huldra ( talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> ok, firstly, my question about Arutz Sheva being WP:RS stems from seeing this edit to Yavne. And to call Arutz Sheva "a news source just like any other" ...well, then we alo have to call, say, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ "a news source just like any other" then, don´t we? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 07:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As far as the provided diff, the editor used a wiki WTA ("terrorists"), but the information itself - i.e. that Yavne was the most northern city hit by a terrorist attack, is certainly reliable.
p.s. I agree that the comparison is invalid. The pro-Palestinian source even uses the ridiculous derogatory IOF terminology instead of IDF.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If Arutz Sheva (including its arm "Israel National News") is a reliable source then every organization that calls itself a news source should be regarded as a reliable source, because this is about as two-bit and unreliable as it gets. Most of its articles are reruns of what appeared elsewhere with its own extremist spin added. Plenty of times I've seen things there that are simply wrong according to respectable news outlets. If information is true and significant, it will appear somewhere reputable. If information doesn't appear anywhere else, it is highly suspect. So we don't need it. There are posters here who always argue that Jewish sources are reliable and always argue that Arab sources are unreliable; we can do better than that. Zero talk 11:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Not an RS - todays Front Page has a poll "What's the best solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict? 1. Two states for two peoples 2. Transfer of Palestinians to another Arab country 3. Maintain status quo 4. Give Palestinians Jordanian citizenship". At least one of those choices (perhaps 3 of them) would cause International outrage and another option (a state for all its people) has been excluded. 86.169.183.36 ( talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is kind of interesting to read that groups which have goals which qualify as war crimes/ethnic cleansing (AFAIK) is being portrayed as "a group like any other". More specifically; I will strongly object to the comparison with FOX; although I´m no fan of FOX, it must be said that they to *not* state that they are spokespeople for a group which is based on an activity which is internationally considered as illegal. Namely settling on occupied territory. In any case; if Arutz 7 is accepted as RS, for balance; it is obvious that Hamas-associated newssources also must be accepted, IMO. (Personally; I could do without both). Regards, Huldra ( talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Las Vegas, Nevada uses [23] and [24] to reference the statement "Las Vegas has one of the highest suicide and divorce rates of the U.S.[23][24] A research study that found Las Vegas residents are 40% less likely to commit suicide if they leave Las Vegas and visitors are twice as likely to commit suicide there as elsewhere was published in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper in 2008, breaking a long-time taboo on discussion of suicide in Las Vegas.[25]". But I think that [24] should not be uses as the source since when referencing official statistics Wikipedians should not use news reports as sources as they are mere re-statements. Please substitute official statistics and academic sources for journalistic sources.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Corporal punishment in the home#New Zealand Study for a fairly recent example of when a newspaper summary was shown to be quite different from that of the actual research study. This does not, however, mean that we can't use newspapers as references in these cases. That a study or poll is referenced in a newspaper doesn't generally mean that we're not allowed use the newspaper as a citation, so long as the newspaper has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But it is always proper to look up the actual research paper itself. Gabbe ( talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
We should cite the study itself as newspapers, even the high quality ones, are usually not very good in summarizing the results of academic studies. Unfortunately this is particularly true when it comes to empirical studies and the interpretation of statistical results. So yes, cite the study and maybe cite the newspaper for the convenience of the reader if the newspaper summary is reasonably accurate. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons ( talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for me to use the following two sources as book reviews for the book in question?
"The New English Review reviewed the book ... writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America." [25] Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book"." [26]
Also, is it acceptable to use as a RS this article by Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, a former national reporter for The New York Sun, in Politico? -- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Then it looks like they are all RSs in this case. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Can this, at best a primary source, an apparent funeral leaflet (there is no evidence that it was ever published in a newspaper) created by persons unknown from material allegedly compiled by the deceased's son, and published on a personal website be considered a RS? -- Martin ( talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a PDF about Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights co-authored by Ray Murray, senior lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, with publications in scholarly journals on the subject of conflict resolution and "Contemporary Challenges to the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law". It's published by a rather obscure NGO based in the Israeli-occupied Golan. Does that count as a reliable source because it's "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" per WP:SPS? Or should it be considered unreliable since it's not actually self-published and may be influenced by the publisher's bias? Currently it's mostly used for the list of village names in the appendix, and for the fate of one village not included in that list. Huon ( talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [ [28]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [29] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [30] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This source is being discussed as a RS regarding the article Pre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights. See the talk there for opinions of involved editors, and the recent comments at an Afd debate on this article. Shlomke ( talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Are court documents and sworn written testimony acceptable as long as it is mentioned as such? For example, writing in WP "However, according to court transcripts, defendant Paulo Santos testified that he was not at the murder scene and produced a store receipt from a shop that was 2000 km away" This is not original research if no conclusions were made, just summarizing the source documents. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Court documents do not demonstrate the notability of whatever you are gleaning from the document. If whatever information is in the document had any relevence to the article at all, another, obviously reliable source would have noted the court document. While the source is reliable, it is primary, and should not sole-source any questionable fact. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suspect that testimony would count as the equivalent of a WP:SPS, and should be subject to the restrictions of WP:SELFPUB. It would also not be considered to have much 'prominence' per WP:DUE. WP:SECONDARY sources are always preferred. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Court transcripts and judgments should almost never be used as sources on wikipedia except to supplement what is already sourced to independent secondary sources, eg, if we are describing OJ Simpson's testimony based on what LA Times says, it would be okay to also add a supplementary link to the transcripts (if available); similarly Supreme Court judgments can be linked in articles that discuss them based on secondary sources. Except for such narrow common-sense exceptions, such sources should not be used, especially in BLPs. This is the case not only because of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR concerns, but because legal documents can be difficult for non-experts to interpret, and transcripts are easy to misinterpret and quote without context. Anyway, is there a specific article and source that you have concerns about ? We may be able to provide a more specific answer if we know the context. Abecedare ( talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly as Hrafn and Abecedare have said; court transcripts should almost never be used as sources on Wikipedia, for the many valid policy reasons raised above. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Basically, the situation is that an editor has added a very explosive passage that was taken from a film review titled "Ridley Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer's latest is racist crap" that was posted ( http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/down_the_tubes-38345929.html?rating=&rating=) on the Philadelphia Weekly website. This passage from the Philadelphia Weekly film review also contains personal insults, racial epithets and all sorts of charges of racism vis-a-vis the movie Black Hawk Down over which there is a disagreement on content. Here it is for reference:
"As these interchangeable models of Aryan handsomeness valiantly blast away at hordes of shrieking monsters, Black Hawk Down begins to resemble Starship Troopers, only without all the klutzy satirical aspirations--and with black people instead of alien bugs.
That's where we run into the real trouble. I have no idea if Ridley Scott is a racist (though judging from Cuba Gooding Jr.'s scenes in Pearl Harbor I'm certain Jerry Bruckheimer is), but Black Hawk Down often plays like Birth of a Nation: The Next Generation. Scott has reduced the complexities of a notorious foreign policy blunder to what happens when a bunch of clean-cut white boys venture into the wrong side of town and get roughed up by some giant, scary niggers.
Then, later on in the movie, we get to watch the good guys blast all those dirty black bastards straight into oblivion--much to the audible, hollering delight of the capacity crowd at the screening I attended.
Pearl Harbor may have turned tragedy into a porn film, but Black Hawk Down is strictly snuff. Racist snuff, at that. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Although I believe the editor who added that passage above to the Wikipedia article ultimately meant well and was simply trying to expose what he felt was racism in the film, I think the passage is problematic because the Philadelphia Weekly describes itself ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Philadelphia+Weekly+is+your+local+guide+to+Philly%27s+alternative+news%2C+reviews%2C+opinion&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) as "your local guide to Philly's alternative news, reviews, opinion, ..." According to Wikipedia's WP:QS policy on questionable sources, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." WP:PROFANITY also states that "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".
Since the Philadelphia Weekly article contains offensive terms and admits that it is an authority on "alternative opinion" on Philadelphia, and since this film review heavily relies on personal opinions (including the passage at hand), I believe this article is indeed a questionable source and therefore ought to be avoided as it is making contentious claims about a third party. I would like to know whether this is indeed the case, and if not, whether a simple sentence to the effect that the author of that article takes exception to what he feels are racist moments in the movie wouldn't perhaps work better? This is what I've tried to add in the past as a compromise, but other editors have insisted on including the full passage -- personal insults, racial epithet and all. This is also despite the fact that much more authoritative film reviews by critics with the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly are also cited in the article as taking exception to what their respective authors believe is the racist treatment of the film's plot, yet these more reliable sources aren't quoted from extensively let alone in the form of personal insults and racial slurs. 74.12.221.125 ( talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Is Harold W. Clark a RS for extensive information on George McCready Price? The former was a protege, co-religionist/fellow YEC and successor at Pacific Union College of the latter.
Ronald L. Numbers does cite Clark (as well as Price himself and numerous other Adventist sources -- Numbers tends to cite multiple sources per footnote, dozens per page & hundreds per chapter) for a small amount of material on Price in The Creationists, but this appears to be mainly for uncontroversial information: parentage & early childhood, bibliography, and similar. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi editors, A few weeks back I had raised the validity question on a source called Career360 that has been used blatantly throughout the article on IIPM by a single purpose account editor. The problem is that the source has given points of view that are neither widely held, and in many cases, go totally against the widely held information in top newspapers. Therefore, I wish to raise a question on the validity of the source of Career360 being used in IIPM. Please note, I have raised this question earlier and backed off on the argument series at that time as I did not find wide responses but only from one handful of people (although some past views were helpful). Here, I am reproducing a discussion on validity of the source. I take as an example just one paragraph in the whole article to show how blatantly the source of Career360 is being used by a single purpose account editor. Please go through and comment here. Thanks.
The ACADEMICS section Students who complete the IIPM certificate courses become eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium, which describes itself as an independent, privately held organization.[14][15]. According to NVAO, the accreditation agency for Netherlands and Belgium, IMI is not recognized as a higher education institution in Belgium, and the degrees it awards are not recognized as being credible.[16]
The line conjectures that NVAO, an agency, says IMI is not recognised. However, the reference that is given (namely, reference number 16, of Career360) is one that has been put up by me earlier to be a source that can not be verifiable -- 1. Because, it has been set up this year by the owner of a big media group (Outlook) which has in the past has had huge past conflicts of interest with IIPM (IIPM accused Outlook of giving wrong lower rankings; Outlook, in turn, accused IIPM of fudging data and took it out of rankings). 2. More importantly, the source in their report claims they've received an email from NVAO. But neither is the email identifiable (the source has given XXXX wherever they mention names or their sources), and this source is not widely verifiable. That is, NVAO should have said this to various sources for this reference to be allowed out here. This is perchance the only (or max two or three) of the web sites that purport to claim an NVAO point of view. 3. The source mentions Flanders as Belgium. Flanders is only the French speaking part of Belgium; in other terms, the Norther part of Belgium with parts of the capital city. The English speaking and bi-lingual part of Belgium is deliberately excluded. And the Flander region in specific details refers to the community of Flemings only. Therefore clearly a wrong line. 4. The editor in question has written that NVAO purportedly says IMI's degrees are not credible. A clear conjecture even if you were to depend upon the line inside the unreferenced article, which simply says that IMI cannot offer recognised degrees.
I bring another paragraph within the ACADEMICS section
According to IIPM, only 70 percent of its students opt for the placement process, and it claims that almost all of these 70 percent students get jobs through it.[14] However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman, which is IIPM's own sister organization[19]. As per the website, more than 600 companies have visited IIPM campuses across the country, and some students have gotten foreign offers too. However, several companies such as Standard Chartered, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, which are mentioned in IIPM advertisements, told the magazine Careers360 that they have never participated in IIPM's campus recruitment process. [16]
The single purpose account editor says that 'However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman.' The reference he/she gives clearly doesn't mention that at all, and simply says that across India, many institutions like 'Indian Institute of Planning and Management invites companies to the campus, but also offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.'. I clearly notice how words have been engineered radically to give a negative twist by one singular editor. Instead of the single purpose account editor giving top newspaper references more easily available that mention IIPM has had 100% placements, he/she again refers to the reference of Career360 or IIPM's website (that anyway should be used less for such things as placements). Clearly, the soruce of Career360 should be cut down because a single source purporting statements that are not widely referenced (max by 2 or 3 self referencing tabloids, and not at all by respected newspapers). But beyond this, I also mention other points . The source of Career 360 is used like a garnishing throughout the article. And even through the paragraph of ACADEMICS in question. Clearly, the single purpose account editor in question has used the source with a very biased point of view and without the support of other sources. There are no other sources used, although a random search on Google news search shows to me some top newspapers quoting that IIPM placements are very very good. Or that GOTA is brilliantly being done. Of course, the argument can be that why don't we put sources that say these things. We should. Provided single purpose accounts are brought into a discussion mode on whether they'll have a problem if such widely referenced sources are put (as it seems they have deleted valid references, merged valid sections like Gota, and worked widely towards giving a biased point of view to the article, at the same time rejected the idea of tagging the article for questioning the article's point of view, validity of sources etc). I refer to another line on placements added by the single purpose account editor in the paragraph called ACADEMICS.
It has also been reported that IIPM now has seven international placement offices.[17][20][21] However, according to an investigation by Careers360, jobs that IIPM students get abroad in places like the gulf countries come with severe restrictions and moderate pay.[16]
My argument cannot be clearer out here. While valid references are quoted, again the Career360 source is quoted without any other newspaper source confirming that. Therefore, out here, my request is that editors should a. Divide the paragraph ACADEMICS into more paragraphs with more headings (if I am allowed to go ahead, I will do that). b. Add more widely sourced valid references rather than a single source purporing a not widely held point of view (again, if I am allowed, I will do that). c. Encourage the single purpose account to maintain a neutral point of view rather than starting with a point of view that simply is disruptive. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One ( talk 04:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
(deindent)
The
Career360 article is one of the most recent and most in-depth independent source we have on the subject (can anyone point to any other such source ?). As such it is not surprising that one of the best sources would be used multiple times in an article. Also the Career360 findings are certainly not a "minority view" but well in line with claims discussed in
IIPM Advertising Controversy and
finding by the
University Grants Commission; therefore there are no
WP:REDFLAG concerns. Finally, as Wifione notes, the Career360 article is cited only 6-7 times, out of a total of 60-70 citations, so there are no
undue weight either.
Wifione, if you still have concerns about how the source is used in the article, I would suggest that you start an
WP:RFC and invite outside opinion on the article talk page, since this noticeboard is not the right venue for such detailed analysis, once a source has been determined to be reliable.
Abecedare (
talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Abecedare. Let me go through the points. Cheers
Wireless Fidelity Class One (
talk 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1. it has a reputable publisher, Maheshwar Peri, 2. reputable editor, B Ramesh Sarma, who also happens to have penned the article being cited, and 3. it is marketed and distributed by Outlook Group, which not only published Outlook (magazine) but has also distributed Newsweek, Marie Claire etc in India. 4. Finally the claims made by the magazine article are similar in nature to the ones made by other media and governmental agencies (as summarized in IIPM article and in IIPM Advertising Controversy), so there are no WP:REDFLAG issues either.
As long as we paraphrase the magazine claims accurately and neutrally, and attribute them to the source, I don't see any problem with reliability. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that I am giving a link to the article only to provide some context. I know Sanghvi's blog does not qualify as RS so should not and will not be used as a source. Just providing context. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source? User:Ryulong thinks it's not a reliable source because "The Kentucky Kernel is the University of Kentucky student newspaper", but I think it's a reliable source as it's a award wining newspaper with readership of more than 30,000. The source in question is this news article from The Kentucky Kernel being used as a source for info that Mighty Morphin Power Rangers will be remastered for its 2010 rebroadcast, this is the second news article that Ryulong says is not reliable source for that info, the first was this news article from TVShowsOnDVD.com. Powergate92 Talk 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The TVShowsOnDVD.com article does not explicitly say that the show is to be remastered, he merely got the information from a third party who said it is "remastered". And The Kentucky Kernel article is an opinion column written by a freshman student at UKentucky. There is no way that these two pieces, which trivially mention what is only a rumor in the Power Rangers online communities (where they likely got the information) should not be taken as a reliable source. Neither article focuses on the remastering. The TVShowsOnDVD.com article discusses the DVD release of the current show, and mentions "remastered" in one sentence but the content of the Promo DVD being described is the toys. The Kentucky Kernel article has about as much coverage, and then goes into the rest of the opinion piece. There is still nothing out there (to anyone's standards) that states that this TV show will be remastered at all.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
http://blockland.kalphiter.com/stats/world.php
Is this a good thing to put in the "external links"?
It's a map of the world showing every Blockland server, their location, and title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalphiter ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the proposer, (and closer) of this 'enquiry', ( User talk:99.135.170.179) has been the subject of a sock-puppet investigation, with a result that he has been rangeblocked for three months; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. The basis on which this discussion took place ( WP:AGF) is therefore seriously undermined and the decision should be revisited. RashersTierney ( talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Slp1 ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This is really getting silly. Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan for example are the authors of a book published by Aubane. Aubane is not and never has been cited. Now as to the book by Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.
He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?
Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.
As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.
So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Were is this consensus? I'll ask a simple question and all I ask is for a simple answer. If the author is considered to be a WP:RS it makes no difference who the publisher is? Yes or No will do. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice one Blueboar thanks for that! Could you explain one thing for me though? Take Fr Brian P Murphy osb for example, if he has one of his books say John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995) and one published by Aubane like A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1 are you saying only the one published by Aubane is considered self-published? -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Slp1 how do we know Irish Academic Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Aubane have published and restored some origional source material from both the National Archives at Kew in England and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin, Ireland. They include for example The Administration of Ireland 1920 by Major C. J. C. Street (Athol, 2001), Ireland by Lionel Curtis (Athol, 2002) and The Men I Killed by F. P. Crozier (Athol, 200) in addition to Sean Moylan in His Own Words by Sean Moylan (Aubane, 2004) which was the first of the Witness Statements from the years 1916-1921 to ever to published. So again the question remains how can these be considered self published? -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You really should provide some supporting evidence for your comments. Which "historians" have criticized Aubane as a publisher? Your conclusions have already been rejected here and in the previous discussion in relation to the Authors. Now I asked a reasonable question and would like a reasonable answer. Are the books re-published by Aubane which were located in the National Archives at Kew and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks considered a WP:RS? For example, would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Fifelfoo you were asked and you answered. Having read the archives your conclusions did not really get any support, and there are still some questions still outstanding. Questions like why would we need WP:OR to verify that the books published by Aubane are identical to the originals. Anyone interested in Irish History would know why the books I cited above would be needed. For example, Frank Percy Crozier really should have an article, while Cecil Street, Lionel Curtis and Sean Moylan do have articles they need to be expanded. Now apart from the reproductions were else could editors source them? Now would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? Valid questions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided multiple reviews of Aubane works and its lack of editorial quality and control. You have offered an opinion by an author, that's it. Now as to Clarendon Press it has published some books by noted authors, some of which lack of editorial quality and control. Now I've raised a number of questions above and they have not been addressed, but I have not called it disruptive. Now you have given your opinion, and I'd welcome others. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at an article for a song and noticed this website used as a reference. I did a search and see that there's no article on the site itself, but it is used on quite a bit of album and song articles.
After looking around the site, it does not seem like it should be used as a wp:rs. It compiles lists of critic rankings, etc., but there's no fact-checking. One thing that I was particularly curious about is if it links directly to a verifiable source (ex. rollingstone.com). Nope. Take this page for example. It links a Q Magazine's list to an indirect source that reprints the list. There's a real question of verifiability here.
It's a good site, but it certainly doesn't look like it should be a wp:rs. Seems like there should be an effort to remove all references to this site.
Thank You -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Is ThaiIndian News a reliable news source for this article? Nightscream ( talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this site reliable for biographical information on celebrities, like dates of birth? Nightscream ( talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a quote from the Huffington Post that's being disputed by an editor.
In the "Banned from the UK" section, there's a quote from the Huffington Post that suggests the Savage was a hypocrite for expecting his First Amendment right to be upheld while not respecting the same rights for others. The section, as it is before expected reverts, is here and the section in the talk page is here. Zsero, the editor, does not agree with the conclusions cited in the published articles and feels that we should not include them. Here's a sample from his/her objection:
I believe the Huffington Post qualifies as a reliable source, and the article quoted is very specific to a public incident where Savage was thrown off of an NPR talk show for shouting down a caller. Comments please. Mattnad ( talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be undeniably and indisputably RS. Is there some argument being put forth that it is not, distinct from BLP issues? What is that argument? Dlabtot ( talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Nick Cooper insists that it is appropriate to use primary sourcing (ie, simply identifying the magazine issues themselves) to document claims that various mostly notable models appeared in a British softcore porn magazine. The issues are mostly decades old, and not available online in any form, and the basis for the claims isn't at all clear, and may be OR (in a related discussion, NC claims that one reason an at best unreliably sourced claim that a notable actress was also a teenage nude model is OK to include because he's looked at the pictures and is sure of the identity.) I believe that for primary sources to be acceptable under WP:RS/WP:V, at a minimum they must be reasonably accessible, online or otherwise, and that 1980s/1990s softcore porn magazines fall so far beyond that standard as to require no substantial discussion. Note that pretty much the same central issue was just discussed and resolved at Talk:List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex, where secondary sourcing was required, and the films themselves were not acceptable (primary) sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently dealing with an editor who wants to use an opinion piece penned by a Cato Institute member for the National Review to make an unattributed statement of fact in an article, using words that don't even appear in the cited op-ed. This seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:V (and thereby WP:RS), but I would appreciate some outside views on how the issue should be tackled. Please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit#National Review. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am engaged in a discussion at Talk:Kirtland Safety Society about the use of BYU Studies as a source. My claim is that it should be noted inline when a source makes a claim that supports Joseph Smith and the source is published by the church. I am asking for help here regarding whether:
My claim is that BYU Studies is a WP:SPS for the following reasons:
A thought experiment I propose is to imagine if we would be willing to use a source that made the same statements regarding its partiality, but with the opposite polarity. If a university journal had the explicit purpose of attacking or debunking Mormonism, while claiming to also be scholarly, would we not be very cautious about using it as a source?
The counterpoints to this offered on Talk:Kirtland Safety Society include that the journal is a university journal that is peer reviewed and that at least one of the authors who wrote the one of articles in question is a credible history scholar. (The others may be as well, they have not been discussed)
I claim that the existence of pockets deep enough to support universities and their attendant journals should not exempt any organization from WP:SPS, especially when the journals admit being POV on certain issues.
Thoughts? WhyDoIKeepForgetting ( talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The question has been brought back up again, regarding whether CRNJapan can be considered a reliable source. The previous discussion which did not receive sufficient opinions to say it is or is not, can be found here.
It is the opinion of this editor that it may fall dangerously close to falling under WP:SPS. However it also appears that the information maybe from experts regarding its subject matter, and maybe a useful source for someone who is interested in the subject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I want to modify an already existing article called: Shell Account, and add a table to it that compares various free shell providers. The table looks something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vivek.m1234/Shell_Account
Now according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
It says: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."
It says accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonably educated... so, if I go to a shell providers web-site and they say 20MB disk space.. can I then take that value and tabulate it?? Or do I HAVE to find a secondary source who says.. "Widget ISP provides 20 MB disk space"?????? The way I see it, anybody (in that field: someone who uses UNIX, and is reasonably educated about UNIX), who goes to a shell provider, can easily verify if he's getting 20MB or not.
There are similar tabulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions and they have taken data from the Distro web-site.
When I did the article Hawaii overprint note, I had two sources that couldn't agree on where the returned banknotes were first burnt (just what type of facility it was), so I added a note in hopes of if someone were to question the passage, at least I covered my butt over the matter in one aspect. User:W Nowicki comes in later, and reverts my passage to link directly to Oahu Cemetery and eliminates my note mark. I cried foul, seeing that he eliminated the Honolulu Advertiser reference mark for that passage alone, and not elsewhere in the article, which still exists as an inline citation elsewhere.
After some "discussion" here and there, I took the matter to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics board to get advice on how to handle the situation. I also noticed in his Oahu Cemetery article he not only used the Honolulu Advertiser link, but a book reference that specifically states Nu'uanu Cemetery, not Oahu Cemetery in relation to a passage on the notes. Now there are four sources (Two from his (not counting the Honolulu Advertiser linkage), and two from mine) that say two different locations. To further add to the confusion, someone chimed in about the close proximity of several business with similar names as mentioned in the newspaper and book passages. And the Wikiproject hasn't been helpful.
I'm loathe to just default to Oahu Cemetery given the two sources that say otherwise. That would in effect, smack of original research. Can I get an opinion on how to handle four sources that seem to be cut in half on locations? -- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure these aren't two names for the same place? -- NE2 13:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To defend my reputation, I did not do a "revert" as claimed above, but added a wikilink to Oahu Cemetery, an article that describes with several verifiable sources that both names are used for the same place. My thinking was that someone who cared out more details could follow that wikilink. At the time is was established it was the only civic cemetery on Oahu (see the journal article cited there), but now there are several. It was 239.x who reverted what I thought was an improvement. Note the Oahu Cemetery article passed review of the DYK editors. I also proposed a compromise that stated the possibility that there were two descriptions of the same place. Peace. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit confusing because several cemeteries run into each other along Nuuanu Ave: Oahu Cemetery at 2162 Nuuanu Avenue (on the left side of Nuuanu Ave, facing uphill), Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary at 2233 Nuuanu Ave (one block mauka on the other side of Nuuanu Ave), Honolulu Memorial Park at 22 Craigside Place (across Nuuanu Ave from Oahu Cemetery), and the Royal Mausoleum State Monument at 2261 Nuuanu Ave (at the mauka end of Nuuanu Memorial Park). Oahu Cemetery had the first crematorium on Oahu, designed by Oliver G. Traphagen in 1906. (other information related to Wikicommon's picture uploads unrelated to discussion redacted) Joel ( talk) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To clear something up, I never meant to cast any aspersions on 293's character. It is totally reasonable that somone interested primarily in a Numismatic event would not delve into the geographical details. I did not realize there were multiple names for the same location either until looking up the famous people buried there, and searching on maps and the GNIS. For example, many books about Alexander Cartwright say "Oahu Cemetery" some call it "Nuuanu Cemetery" and some use both names. There is no evidence all those authors are in a vast conspiracy, or that all these people were chopped in two. According to several sources, the "Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary" opened in 1949, a modern addition to the 1844 cemetery according to verifiable sources, so I thought it misleading to imply it could somehow be involved in an event that took place in 1942. A phone book from 1941 confirms that Oahu Cemetery cremtory was the only one listed in the area known as Nuuanu and on Nuuanu avenue at the time. Also note the article cited for the source for this "conflict" never mentions any other crematory by name. It just says the money was taken to a "Nuuanu mortuary" first (good way to discourage theft?) and burned at the crematory "there". The article does not say "Nuuanu Memorial Park" (the 1949 addition). It seemed that a future reader who did know the area (not me) might think that the author was trying to push a point of view that there is a "conflict" here when the sources do not indicate any conflict. The official place names datbase of USGS lists: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Oʻahu Cemetery at 21.32N 157.85W, and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Nuʻuanu as a locale centered at 21.33N and 157.85W (these are the old USGS coordinates, you can look up the addresses on Acme mapper to get ones that match google maps). Since the Oahu cemetery is within the "locle" officially known as "Nuuanu" there is no conflict indicated by any source.
What all the sources indicate is several string names describing the same place. For example, if one person says something happened at "Chicago Airport" and another at "O'hare field" would it make sense to put in a Wikilink to O'Hare International Airport or would that be considered "Original"? Certainly someone not familiar with the midwest U.S. might notice different text strings, but that is why one adds wikilinks, to give more in-depth discussions if readers care, right?
Also as for the DYK, evidently the DYK editors wanted a more interesting sounding hook, so they added the "$20 million" figure to the hook I proposed. By the time I found out, it had already appeared in the middle of the night. Presumably they thought too that someone interested in the details would click through and find out that Oahu cemetery actually had a minor role in buring the money, it has an interesting (in my opinion) history. Two other additions are on the NRHP for example. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please clarify if the content of this is in fact the same as this. Thanks! :) Unomi ( talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm challening the use of Fair Wiki as an RS for edits at View of the Hebrews [44] (for some reason the editor then removed the reference) and at Angel Moroni [45]. The editor adding it says, on my talk page, that I've been "very judgemental" and that:
However, I'm not convinced. See the FAIR wiki page for the Angel Moroni edit [49]. I'm not allowed to see who has edited it, some of the references are to articles on Wikipedia, and if it was here we'd call it original research. The other cite, now removed, is [50] - a bit better, but is it a RS? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia references used on that article are used to demonstrate sources of the criticism, as shown in the respective wikipedia articles by the citated critical theories which they contain. Wikipedia is not used to establish the apologist theories that the Wiki publishes. Routerone ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
To sum this up:
Routerone ( talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This question centers around the Saint James School of Medicine article. On their website they indicate they are accredited by the Ministry of Health of Israel. They have a link to a letter that seems to authentically be from the Israeli MoH indicating that the school is accredited and students eligible for a license in Israel. In addition, this Indian website seems to indicate that the school is accredited by the Israeli MoH. I am coming here to inquire if this is enough to be considered a WP:RS and thus included in the accreditation section of the article. The relevant link on the article talk page is here. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(moved from WT:Reliable sources by Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm preparing to do a GA review for an article which has a number of citations from TV.com. As far as I know, TV.com is a reliable source of (very) general information about tv shows, episodes, actors and so forth, and is used as a reference for a number of articles on tv show subjects and related. Just now as I was making some reference checks I realized that TV.com is something of a wiki itself; that is, there is an "edit" button (requires sign up) which allows users to add their own material. Now according to their submission guidelines, all content is moderated. The guidelines, however, make it seem as though fact checking is only a minimal part of the moderation process, and that only obviously incorrect/nonsense submissions will be automatically caught.
I don't know if that has been discussed before. (If it has, could someone please point me in that direction?) Would a source such as TV.com, or IMDB.com (which has the same edit-with-moderation set-up) fall under WP:SPS?
Thanks in advance. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some complaints that RealClimate.org is not a reliable source. Two objections have been raised.
1) The first objection is that it is a blog. However, it is not just any blog. It's run by Gavin A. Schmidt, an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. Schmidt currently works for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He's been published by over 60 peer-reviewed academic journals, including the highly prestigious Nature journal. A list of publications can be found on his NASA bibliography here. His biography can be found here. The blog itself has been named one of the best science and technology web sites by Scientific American [55]. Time Magazine has also praised the site [56]. The Telegraph has also named RealClimate.org one of the "new 100 most useful sites". [57]
2) The second objection is that it is an involved party in the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It's involvement is actually pretty limited. Someone tried to upload a zip file to the site. We are using the blog's response to the incident as a source. It's been cited in two places. In both cases, we are using in-text and in-line attribution:
According to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server."
The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows: The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction....
The article in question is Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The article is constantly changing, but this edit here appears to summarize its role nicely.
Discussions on the talk page can be found here, here and here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
An article up for deletion relies heavily on obituaries as sources. I believe that obituaries should be treated as opinion pieces as they are not reports of events at the time they happened but personal recollections about someone's life and not necessarily researched in the same way as newspaper reports of events. Is there a current consensus about reliance on obituaries and how many are too many as sources in an article?— Ash ( talk) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the consensus seems to be obits are reliable sources if from the normal authoritative newspapers. For the other part of my question; is there any consensus on limiting the number of obituaries in a biography article?— Ash ( talk) 10:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Some users are trying to use http://www.yeshivaworldnews.com as a reliable source. This site is not a RS in any way shape or form. For 99% of their entries, they borrow from other sources and the other 1% that is their own postings, they do not post any sources for their entries. The site is anonymous, there is no reliability or accountability. Yossiea (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi: Yeshiva World News (YWN) is in Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism where it belongs. It is a privately run blog that culls news stories from other sources. It has a few of its unknown contributors, but it relies on news stories it posts from the general media that the YWN blog-owner thinks will be of interest to his audience of Haredi Jews. From time to time, the YWN blog publishes some press releases from organizations like the Agudath Israel of America that do NOT have their own web sites or blogs because they oppose them, so they may quietly hand off announcements to blogs like YWN acting as a VERY unofficial proxy. There is also the similar Vosizneias (VIN) blog, somewhat more pro- Hasidic, but VIN is not favored by the Agudath Israel crowd that favors YWN instead if they have to. IZAK ( talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The New Zealand Gisborne Herald offers a news and interview article with a music personality. The Swedish English language paper The Local offers a news report of an event.Both small circulation publications with editorial staffs. They look like their articles are, per WP:V, based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But an editor claims one is not "notable" and therefore not usable but the other is. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What statements are these articles being used to support, and in which articles? --
Metropolitan90
(talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>To answer the question above: Do the Herald and the Local portray Atzmon's views in a way that differs significantly from how they are portrayed in more prominent reliable sources? The answer, No. The Scotsman and The Guardian both have similar interviews which mention accusations against him. And an Observer news story mentions another specific incident of an accusation. Note that it early was established that we should not use quotes from the article out of context of what the author said, though that also is being violated by a POV editor. Finally one of sources mentioned was used in past but after an OTRs an admin deleted it an a lot of other material as being too much of an attack article; and recently people felt that the whole section was too long so not every single attack/criticism explored. Those other two sources are new. So to me the issue is just if those two article are of equal merit as WP:RS. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think at this point it might be sensible to move the discussion away from "here's a source, can we use it" back to the quality of the article, its structure and balance. The basic structure is in place, with the music first, followed by writing, and then views. That's good. It might be possible to merge the writing section with the views section, but there are also reasons not to. There is still some work to be done on the music section, with far too many red links. This is quite typical of music biogs, when you take material from sources that want to give credit to every musician involved. It's not necessary to do that in WP. We just need to know about major collaborations that the Atzmon's been involved with. Those will usually be with notable musicians - when they're not, consider whether the musician becomes notable simply by the fact of collaboration with Atzmon. The writing section is OK for now, I think. Views is the problematic bit. Ideally you would set out Atzmon's viewpoints as quoted in RS, weaving in criticism as it was expressed of those particular points. That's not so easy as with some BLPs. For example of a politician you get the format Day 1 major speech-Day 2 favourable comments in some of the press, denunciations in other bits of the press. That's not happening in this case, probably because Atzmon is less prominent as a political figure, therefore his views are not widely reported, and those who wish to take issue with them only do so at the moment of an invitation or if they carry out investigative journalism to track down statements in minor sources. That leaves this BLP with a problem for weaving between the statements and criticism. As it stands I don't think it sets out Atzmon's views clearly. It does include some major criticism. What it must definitely not do - and go to BLPN for more advice on this if needed, is to draw its exposition of the subject's views from the critical sources. Keep referring back to GA and FA on controversial people to see how they handle the difficulties. Best of luck, all. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Since ItsMeJudith opened up other issues in the politics section, I decided to ppost here a diff to the revised version of this section correcting what I believe are WP:RS violations, among others. See this diff which I explained with this edit summary: More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section; use quotes in context of what Secondary Sources say, not editor's WP:OR; per various talk page and noticeboard comments. It is based on comments I have gotten in various places that deals with the WP:OR issue ( cherry picked use of Atzmon quotes out of context of what the secondary source said about those comments). Specifically new paragraph two and new paragraph four. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Related to Hawaii hotspot. Is this considered reliable? It's an online university. Edyg said that she'll "leave this one to the community" to decide so I'm taking it here. Res Mar 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS ( talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Which fans were responsible for the formation of the Supreme Council of Time Lords in 1983?
Who was the editor of Time Loop, the Australian Doctor Who fanzine?
What was Paul Kennedy's involvement in the Australian Doctor Who fan movement?
Chewy6202 ( talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a veteran of the US Army and US Navy.
My time in the Fleet was served aboard the USS Ranger (CV-61). During my time as ships company, as opposed to being part of any of its airwings, I did one WESTPAC. This cruise was the Ranger's 30th Anniversary cruise (Pearl) and began on 14 July 1987 with us casting off sometime between 0900 and 1000, I cannot remember that detail and looking it up is not an easy task. From that cruise, during which we relieved the USS Miday and her battle group, and airwing, we became the second US Carrier to take up station in support of Operation Ernest Will. I have my copy of our ships cruise book, which documents many things from the Captain's words at the front about what we had been through, ports of call. The information also includes which airwings were deployed aboard Ranger and their Commanders and XOs, and all personnel.
There is no copy of it online that I have found, yet. Ancestry.com is working to place as many cruise books on its site that it can, and so far as quite a few, but they do not have any from the USS Ranger (CV-61) at this time.
I want to know if a ships cruise book is considered, currently as a valid and reliable source. And if not, a clear explanation as to why not.
Thanks,
FosterBDAV ( talk) 16:00, 1 December 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 45 | ← | Archive 48 | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | → | Archive 55 |
For over six months, the Judaism article has said:
This was true
This is what I below refer to as the consensus version. Note: no sources were provided
On November 9, User: Navnløs changed "set of beliefs and practices" to "religion." Note: She has not provided any sources to support her postion
On the Talk page, she provided this explanation:
I do not think this is a good enough reason to change consensus. I also do not think that discussion over the course of one day is enough to change consensus. Finally, I think a change in consensus should invluve the use of reliable sources.
I provide as complete an explanation of my pattern of consistent reverts as possible on the talk page here. The simplest reasons are:
Since that time, user:A Sniper has accused me of violating WP:NOR [7]. Uer:Bus Stop simply rejects my sources. [8]
There is a long history of reverts. I would rather not continue this revert war. I would rather have a discussion informed by sources. I have tried to provide reliable sources, and Navanlos,A Sniper, or Bus Stop either disparage or ignore my sources, and refuse to provide any of their own. The page is now protected and I am hoping thoghtful discussion will suffice to resolve the matter. I see WP:RS as key to resolving this dispute and appreciate the comments on editors experienced in this kind of issue, who have time to read through the relevant section of the talk page. The discussion is here Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but he is not saying all Second Temple institutions. In fact, isn't he arguing that most Second Temple institutions, practices and ideas play no role in what we today call Judaism? Also, can you tell me which of these institutions, practices, and ideas were not codified in the Mishnah and elaborated in the Gemorah? I just want to be clear i understand what you are claiming. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean to say here. Are you saying that the Judaism article should not include discussion of the pre-Talmudic period? Or are you saying that Judaism should not be defined as Talmudic? I have not argued either point, but I am curious if you wish to argue either of these. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "the rabbinical definition of ethnos?" I never used the phrase, so I am not sure what you mean by it here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I originally raised this matter in the OR/Noticeboard. Apparently it was the wrong forum, so I am bringing it here with slight wording changes accordingly.
This relates to Banned Books Week [BBW], particularly to references to a map. An individual created the map. That map was then promoted by the American Library Association [ALA] as its own without attribution of authorship, giving the appearance the map was the work of the ALA, as evidenced in the LA Times. When an opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] questioning the ALA for its policies regarding BBW, the ALA responded in a letter to the editor. The WSJ printed other responses. One was from the individual who created the map where he specifically disclaimed any connection to the ALA. This was published after the LA Times article, else the LA Times might have known the true authorship of the map. A web site in the External Links contains a link to a subpage that happens to be that map, so the map is available to anyone who clicks on the sublink from the ALA's page.
I say the map is not a reliable source for reasons given here:
Another editor says it should be included anyway because the ALA is promoting it as its own and media have reporting the ALA has done this:
The other editor, User:Atama, and I have been working cooperatively and professionally on the article so this is purely an issue of the application of Wiki policy.
The issue of whether the ALA has plagiarized the map may go toward other Wiki policies, but I do not believe it to be relevant to the question of whether the map itself is not reliably sourced by a person about which we only know, maybe, his name, his place of residence, and his not being affiliated with the ALA.
All guidance appreciated. Thank you. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Having now done more work, there is no allegation made by anyone, including the purported map author, that the ALA did anything wrong. They are publishing the map, and I see no comment by anyone at the ALA regarding the authorship by anyone. I suggest that this be closed up at this point, and perhaps LAEC be reminded of the purpose of Wikipedia. Hipocrite ( talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.
From following is from the map's author at [16], quoting now:
In August 2009, a friend of mine named Alita Edelman - about to begin her senior year at Smith College - spent a month volunteering at theAmerican Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFFE). ABFFE is a tiny organization that operates within the long shadow of theAmerican Library Association (ALA). Her job was to organize data on banned and challenged books across America. The ALA compiles these records, and every year releases a long list of what books were reported challenged where, by whom, and why.
....
So I created a Google Map for Banned Books. I issued a strident call on my blog for contributors. My dream was that librarians everywhere - from the New York Public Library to Podunk Public - would begin placing pushpins every time a parent held a copy of Harry Potter in front of their face, demanding that this instructional manual for witchcraft and wizardry be burned like its practitioners. Of course, that didn’t happen, because I’m just some guy on the Internet, and not a media mogul with millions of eager readers with too much time on their hands. Instead, Alita and I began the arduous task of translating the hundreds of ALA records onto the map.
....
Is this map perfect? Not even close. I don’t actually like it very much. The model is all wrong. These data, which tell us so much about who we are as a people, and to what extent we believe in deliberative democracy, are too precious and fragile to pass through so many filters and failure points. I’m willing to bet that for every challenge reported to the ALA, a dozen more go unrecorded. There are holes in our mosaic. It’s a Magic Eye: the patterns are there, but distorted, visible only if you squint, and then only if you’re lucky.
So what can we do?
We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country. Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise.
....
So today, we’re launching the Mapping Banned Books Project We’ve created a new Google Map, one which is totally open to anyone to edit from the comfort of their local library and will rely upon concerned and active individuals to provide the critical data. The idea goes something like this: when a book is challenged at your local library, you get a copy of the formal documentation, scan it, and upload it. Then you drop a pushpin on the location of your library and provide a report of the book challenge, the reasons why it was challenged, and link to the documentation for verification. As more and more people begin to use the map, we’ll see more and more data, visualize new patterns, and learn new, wonderful, and terrifying things about the world around us.
It won’t be easy. The site is still under development, and we’re all busy people with too many things to do and not enough time. We’re going to have to get word out to all the people in big cities and rural towns who might be able to contribute to the cause. Such a massive undertaking won’t be easy, but here’s the good news: it’s easier than it’s ever been before, and we owe it to ourselves to give it an honest try.
Talk about soapbox, this map is an author-admitted soapbox, not a reliable source: "We can start by spreading the word to librarians and civil libertarians across the country." If this type of thing is allowed on Wikipedia, that would be very bad. But that's why Wikipedia has policies to prevent this sort of thing.
"Before the ink is dry on an official challenge form, bibliophiles should be dropping pushpins onto a massive map, so that we can detect patterns in censorial sentiments as they arise." So, according to the author, merely complying with library challenge forms is labeled as "censorious." A reliable source would not say that.
"The site is still under development...." The author himself admits the material is still under development.
The author even admits, "I’m just some guy on the Internet." Not a problem, but that is not a reliable source under Wiki standards.
This is not a reliable source, and the author so admits. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In the process of this discussion, I have lost track of what this map is being used for. Could someone please remind me what statement in Wikipedia is being supported by citing this map? (this impacts whether it is reliable or not) Blueboar ( talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't realize the issue wasn't about the map itself, as a source. I think the issue is quite simple, then. The LA Times is a reliable source, but reliable sources quite often get it wrong. For the sake of accuracy in an article, editors can together choose not to use the source, or if used, the source should be attributed in line as Blueboar is suggesting. Doing so creates a verifiable and encyclopedic entry although perhaps not a truthful or accurate statement.That's Wikipedia. verifiable not truth. ( olive ( talk) 20:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC))
An editor keeps adding that the section is unreliable. On the talk page I commented as below. I do not believe the page needs to be tagged. I do not know how to take action against the editor to stop these actions. The section has been on the FCPS page for a long time and only now was "discovered" to have issues. I believe there is a bias as the editor seems to cover many issues associated with Fairfax County. I am not sure anyone here can do anything but I thought I would bring the issue to your attention.
Below is how I have responded.
This issue was important enough to be covered on CNN, Fox News, etc. It was in the Washington Post and the The Guardian in Britain. It was covered around the world - Australia, India, France. The Students name receives over 4400 hits in google if you do a search for it! The importance of the issue is the fact that the rule infringed on Constitutional rights. Not to mention human rights. To tell a person they can not hug another person or even shake hands is beyond the pale. You don't agree with this? What would the founding fathers have thought of this? That is why the article is in there. The FCPS never issued a statement saying this was NOT a policy. In fact a federal suit was about to be filed but the student changed schools instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
You think it is a tiny issue that kids cant give hug or high five each other? The FCPS system refused to take any action on the matter at all. The matter is accurate. CNN covered it and so did the Washington Post. The section has been there since it happened. All of a sudden it is not accurate? I smell bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.67.94 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Can the Arutz Sheva site: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ be considered as WP:RS? (To quote from the article: "Arutz Sheva is seen as the voice of the Israeli settlement movement", ie. Israeli settlers on the West Bank). Regards, Huldra ( talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> ok, firstly, my question about Arutz Sheva being WP:RS stems from seeing this edit to Yavne. And to call Arutz Sheva "a news source just like any other" ...well, then we alo have to call, say, http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/ "a news source just like any other" then, don´t we? Cheers, Huldra ( talk) 07:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: As far as the provided diff, the editor used a wiki WTA ("terrorists"), but the information itself - i.e. that Yavne was the most northern city hit by a terrorist attack, is certainly reliable.
p.s. I agree that the comparison is invalid. The pro-Palestinian source even uses the ridiculous derogatory IOF terminology instead of IDF.
Jaakobou
Chalk Talk 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment: If Arutz Sheva (including its arm "Israel National News") is a reliable source then every organization that calls itself a news source should be regarded as a reliable source, because this is about as two-bit and unreliable as it gets. Most of its articles are reruns of what appeared elsewhere with its own extremist spin added. Plenty of times I've seen things there that are simply wrong according to respectable news outlets. If information is true and significant, it will appear somewhere reputable. If information doesn't appear anywhere else, it is highly suspect. So we don't need it. There are posters here who always argue that Jewish sources are reliable and always argue that Arab sources are unreliable; we can do better than that. Zero talk 11:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Not an RS - todays Front Page has a poll "What's the best solution for the Arab-Israeli conflict? 1. Two states for two peoples 2. Transfer of Palestinians to another Arab country 3. Maintain status quo 4. Give Palestinians Jordanian citizenship". At least one of those choices (perhaps 3 of them) would cause International outrage and another option (a state for all its people) has been excluded. 86.169.183.36 ( talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is kind of interesting to read that groups which have goals which qualify as war crimes/ethnic cleansing (AFAIK) is being portrayed as "a group like any other". More specifically; I will strongly object to the comparison with FOX; although I´m no fan of FOX, it must be said that they to *not* state that they are spokespeople for a group which is based on an activity which is internationally considered as illegal. Namely settling on occupied territory. In any case; if Arutz 7 is accepted as RS, for balance; it is obvious that Hamas-associated newssources also must be accepted, IMO. (Personally; I could do without both). Regards, Huldra ( talk) 21:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Las Vegas, Nevada uses [23] and [24] to reference the statement "Las Vegas has one of the highest suicide and divorce rates of the U.S.[23][24] A research study that found Las Vegas residents are 40% less likely to commit suicide if they leave Las Vegas and visitors are twice as likely to commit suicide there as elsewhere was published in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper in 2008, breaking a long-time taboo on discussion of suicide in Las Vegas.[25]". But I think that [24] should not be uses as the source since when referencing official statistics Wikipedians should not use news reports as sources as they are mere re-statements. Please substitute official statistics and academic sources for journalistic sources.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 17:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
See Talk:Corporal punishment in the home#New Zealand Study for a fairly recent example of when a newspaper summary was shown to be quite different from that of the actual research study. This does not, however, mean that we can't use newspapers as references in these cases. That a study or poll is referenced in a newspaper doesn't generally mean that we're not allowed use the newspaper as a citation, so long as the newspaper has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". But it is always proper to look up the actual research paper itself. Gabbe ( talk) 09:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
We should cite the study itself as newspapers, even the high quality ones, are usually not very good in summarizing the results of academic studies. Unfortunately this is particularly true when it comes to empirical studies and the interpretation of statistical results. So yes, cite the study and maybe cite the newspaper for the convenience of the reader if the newspaper summary is reasonably accurate. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons ( talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for me to use the following two sources as book reviews for the book in question?
"The New English Review reviewed the book ... writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America." [25] Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book"." [26]
Also, is it acceptable to use as a RS this article by Politico reporter Josh Gerstein, a former national reporter for The New York Sun, in Politico? -- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Then it looks like they are all RSs in this case. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Can this, at best a primary source, an apparent funeral leaflet (there is no evidence that it was ever published in a newspaper) created by persons unknown from material allegedly compiled by the deceased's son, and published on a personal website be considered a RS? -- Martin ( talk) 19:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a PDF about Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights co-authored by Ray Murray, senior lecturer in law at the National University of Ireland, Galway, with publications in scholarly journals on the subject of conflict resolution and "Contemporary Challenges to the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law". It's published by a rather obscure NGO based in the Israeli-occupied Golan. Does that count as a reliable source because it's "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" per WP:SPS? Or should it be considered unreliable since it's not actually self-published and may be influenced by the publisher's bias? Currently it's mostly used for the list of village names in the appendix, and for the fate of one village not included in that list. Huon ( talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [ [28]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [29] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [30] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: This source is being discussed as a RS regarding the article Pre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights. See the talk there for opinions of involved editors, and the recent comments at an Afd debate on this article. Shlomke ( talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Are court documents and sworn written testimony acceptable as long as it is mentioned as such? For example, writing in WP "However, according to court transcripts, defendant Paulo Santos testified that he was not at the murder scene and produced a store receipt from a shop that was 2000 km away" This is not original research if no conclusions were made, just summarizing the source documents. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 21:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Court documents do not demonstrate the notability of whatever you are gleaning from the document. If whatever information is in the document had any relevence to the article at all, another, obviously reliable source would have noted the court document. While the source is reliable, it is primary, and should not sole-source any questionable fact. Hipocrite ( talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I would suspect that testimony would count as the equivalent of a WP:SPS, and should be subject to the restrictions of WP:SELFPUB. It would also not be considered to have much 'prominence' per WP:DUE. WP:SECONDARY sources are always preferred. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 04:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Court transcripts and judgments should almost never be used as sources on wikipedia except to supplement what is already sourced to independent secondary sources, eg, if we are describing OJ Simpson's testimony based on what LA Times says, it would be okay to also add a supplementary link to the transcripts (if available); similarly Supreme Court judgments can be linked in articles that discuss them based on secondary sources. Except for such narrow common-sense exceptions, such sources should not be used, especially in BLPs. This is the case not only because of WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS, WP:UNDUE and WP:OR concerns, but because legal documents can be difficult for non-experts to interpret, and transcripts are easy to misinterpret and quote without context. Anyway, is there a specific article and source that you have concerns about ? We may be able to provide a more specific answer if we know the context. Abecedare ( talk) 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly as Hrafn and Abecedare have said; court transcripts should almost never be used as sources on Wikipedia, for the many valid policy reasons raised above. Jayjg (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Basically, the situation is that an editor has added a very explosive passage that was taken from a film review titled "Ridley Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer's latest is racist crap" that was posted ( http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/down_the_tubes-38345929.html?rating=&rating=) on the Philadelphia Weekly website. This passage from the Philadelphia Weekly film review also contains personal insults, racial epithets and all sorts of charges of racism vis-a-vis the movie Black Hawk Down over which there is a disagreement on content. Here it is for reference:
"As these interchangeable models of Aryan handsomeness valiantly blast away at hordes of shrieking monsters, Black Hawk Down begins to resemble Starship Troopers, only without all the klutzy satirical aspirations--and with black people instead of alien bugs.
That's where we run into the real trouble. I have no idea if Ridley Scott is a racist (though judging from Cuba Gooding Jr.'s scenes in Pearl Harbor I'm certain Jerry Bruckheimer is), but Black Hawk Down often plays like Birth of a Nation: The Next Generation. Scott has reduced the complexities of a notorious foreign policy blunder to what happens when a bunch of clean-cut white boys venture into the wrong side of town and get roughed up by some giant, scary niggers.
Then, later on in the movie, we get to watch the good guys blast all those dirty black bastards straight into oblivion--much to the audible, hollering delight of the capacity crowd at the screening I attended.
Pearl Harbor may have turned tragedy into a porn film, but Black Hawk Down is strictly snuff. Racist snuff, at that. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Although I believe the editor who added that passage above to the Wikipedia article ultimately meant well and was simply trying to expose what he felt was racism in the film, I think the passage is problematic because the Philadelphia Weekly describes itself ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Philadelphia+Weekly+is+your+local+guide+to+Philly%27s+alternative+news%2C+reviews%2C+opinion&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=) as "your local guide to Philly's alternative news, reviews, opinion, ..." According to Wikipedia's WP:QS policy on questionable sources, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." WP:PROFANITY also states that "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".
Since the Philadelphia Weekly article contains offensive terms and admits that it is an authority on "alternative opinion" on Philadelphia, and since this film review heavily relies on personal opinions (including the passage at hand), I believe this article is indeed a questionable source and therefore ought to be avoided as it is making contentious claims about a third party. I would like to know whether this is indeed the case, and if not, whether a simple sentence to the effect that the author of that article takes exception to what he feels are racist moments in the movie wouldn't perhaps work better? This is what I've tried to add in the past as a compromise, but other editors have insisted on including the full passage -- personal insults, racial epithet and all. This is also despite the fact that much more authoritative film reviews by critics with the New York Times and Entertainment Weekly are also cited in the article as taking exception to what their respective authors believe is the racist treatment of the film's plot, yet these more reliable sources aren't quoted from extensively let alone in the form of personal insults and racial slurs. 74.12.221.125 ( talk) 19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Is Harold W. Clark a RS for extensive information on George McCready Price? The former was a protege, co-religionist/fellow YEC and successor at Pacific Union College of the latter.
Ronald L. Numbers does cite Clark (as well as Price himself and numerous other Adventist sources -- Numbers tends to cite multiple sources per footnote, dozens per page & hundreds per chapter) for a small amount of material on Price in The Creationists, but this appears to be mainly for uncontroversial information: parentage & early childhood, bibliography, and similar. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi editors, A few weeks back I had raised the validity question on a source called Career360 that has been used blatantly throughout the article on IIPM by a single purpose account editor. The problem is that the source has given points of view that are neither widely held, and in many cases, go totally against the widely held information in top newspapers. Therefore, I wish to raise a question on the validity of the source of Career360 being used in IIPM. Please note, I have raised this question earlier and backed off on the argument series at that time as I did not find wide responses but only from one handful of people (although some past views were helpful). Here, I am reproducing a discussion on validity of the source. I take as an example just one paragraph in the whole article to show how blatantly the source of Career360 is being used by a single purpose account editor. Please go through and comment here. Thanks.
The ACADEMICS section Students who complete the IIPM certificate courses become eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium, which describes itself as an independent, privately held organization.[14][15]. According to NVAO, the accreditation agency for Netherlands and Belgium, IMI is not recognized as a higher education institution in Belgium, and the degrees it awards are not recognized as being credible.[16]
The line conjectures that NVAO, an agency, says IMI is not recognised. However, the reference that is given (namely, reference number 16, of Career360) is one that has been put up by me earlier to be a source that can not be verifiable -- 1. Because, it has been set up this year by the owner of a big media group (Outlook) which has in the past has had huge past conflicts of interest with IIPM (IIPM accused Outlook of giving wrong lower rankings; Outlook, in turn, accused IIPM of fudging data and took it out of rankings). 2. More importantly, the source in their report claims they've received an email from NVAO. But neither is the email identifiable (the source has given XXXX wherever they mention names or their sources), and this source is not widely verifiable. That is, NVAO should have said this to various sources for this reference to be allowed out here. This is perchance the only (or max two or three) of the web sites that purport to claim an NVAO point of view. 3. The source mentions Flanders as Belgium. Flanders is only the French speaking part of Belgium; in other terms, the Norther part of Belgium with parts of the capital city. The English speaking and bi-lingual part of Belgium is deliberately excluded. And the Flander region in specific details refers to the community of Flemings only. Therefore clearly a wrong line. 4. The editor in question has written that NVAO purportedly says IMI's degrees are not credible. A clear conjecture even if you were to depend upon the line inside the unreferenced article, which simply says that IMI cannot offer recognised degrees.
I bring another paragraph within the ACADEMICS section
According to IIPM, only 70 percent of its students opt for the placement process, and it claims that almost all of these 70 percent students get jobs through it.[14] However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman, which is IIPM's own sister organization[19]. As per the website, more than 600 companies have visited IIPM campuses across the country, and some students have gotten foreign offers too. However, several companies such as Standard Chartered, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, which are mentioned in IIPM advertisements, told the magazine Careers360 that they have never participated in IIPM's campus recruitment process. [16]
The single purpose account editor says that 'However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman.' The reference he/she gives clearly doesn't mention that at all, and simply says that across India, many institutions like 'Indian Institute of Planning and Management invites companies to the campus, but also offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.'. I clearly notice how words have been engineered radically to give a negative twist by one singular editor. Instead of the single purpose account editor giving top newspaper references more easily available that mention IIPM has had 100% placements, he/she again refers to the reference of Career360 or IIPM's website (that anyway should be used less for such things as placements). Clearly, the soruce of Career360 should be cut down because a single source purporting statements that are not widely referenced (max by 2 or 3 self referencing tabloids, and not at all by respected newspapers). But beyond this, I also mention other points . The source of Career 360 is used like a garnishing throughout the article. And even through the paragraph of ACADEMICS in question. Clearly, the single purpose account editor in question has used the source with a very biased point of view and without the support of other sources. There are no other sources used, although a random search on Google news search shows to me some top newspapers quoting that IIPM placements are very very good. Or that GOTA is brilliantly being done. Of course, the argument can be that why don't we put sources that say these things. We should. Provided single purpose accounts are brought into a discussion mode on whether they'll have a problem if such widely referenced sources are put (as it seems they have deleted valid references, merged valid sections like Gota, and worked widely towards giving a biased point of view to the article, at the same time rejected the idea of tagging the article for questioning the article's point of view, validity of sources etc). I refer to another line on placements added by the single purpose account editor in the paragraph called ACADEMICS.
It has also been reported that IIPM now has seven international placement offices.[17][20][21] However, according to an investigation by Careers360, jobs that IIPM students get abroad in places like the gulf countries come with severe restrictions and moderate pay.[16]
My argument cannot be clearer out here. While valid references are quoted, again the Career360 source is quoted without any other newspaper source confirming that. Therefore, out here, my request is that editors should a. Divide the paragraph ACADEMICS into more paragraphs with more headings (if I am allowed to go ahead, I will do that). b. Add more widely sourced valid references rather than a single source purporing a not widely held point of view (again, if I am allowed, I will do that). c. Encourage the single purpose account to maintain a neutral point of view rather than starting with a point of view that simply is disruptive. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One ( talk 04:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
(deindent)
The
Career360 article is one of the most recent and most in-depth independent source we have on the subject (can anyone point to any other such source ?). As such it is not surprising that one of the best sources would be used multiple times in an article. Also the Career360 findings are certainly not a "minority view" but well in line with claims discussed in
IIPM Advertising Controversy and
finding by the
University Grants Commission; therefore there are no
WP:REDFLAG concerns. Finally, as Wifione notes, the Career360 article is cited only 6-7 times, out of a total of 60-70 citations, so there are no
undue weight either.
Wifione, if you still have concerns about how the source is used in the article, I would suggest that you start an
WP:RFC and invite outside opinion on the article talk page, since this noticeboard is not the right venue for such detailed analysis, once a source has been determined to be reliable.
Abecedare (
talk) 05:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Abecedare. Let me go through the points. Cheers
Wireless Fidelity Class One (
talk 05:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
1. it has a reputable publisher, Maheshwar Peri, 2. reputable editor, B Ramesh Sarma, who also happens to have penned the article being cited, and 3. it is marketed and distributed by Outlook Group, which not only published Outlook (magazine) but has also distributed Newsweek, Marie Claire etc in India. 4. Finally the claims made by the magazine article are similar in nature to the ones made by other media and governmental agencies (as summarized in IIPM article and in IIPM Advertising Controversy), so there are no WP:REDFLAG issues either.
As long as we paraphrase the magazine claims accurately and neutrally, and attribute them to the source, I don't see any problem with reliability. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Note that I am giving a link to the article only to provide some context. I know Sanghvi's blog does not qualify as RS so should not and will not be used as a source. Just providing context. Makrandjoshi ( talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Is The Kentucky Kernel a reliable source? User:Ryulong thinks it's not a reliable source because "The Kentucky Kernel is the University of Kentucky student newspaper", but I think it's a reliable source as it's a award wining newspaper with readership of more than 30,000. The source in question is this news article from The Kentucky Kernel being used as a source for info that Mighty Morphin Power Rangers will be remastered for its 2010 rebroadcast, this is the second news article that Ryulong says is not reliable source for that info, the first was this news article from TVShowsOnDVD.com. Powergate92 Talk 23:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The TVShowsOnDVD.com article does not explicitly say that the show is to be remastered, he merely got the information from a third party who said it is "remastered". And The Kentucky Kernel article is an opinion column written by a freshman student at UKentucky. There is no way that these two pieces, which trivially mention what is only a rumor in the Power Rangers online communities (where they likely got the information) should not be taken as a reliable source. Neither article focuses on the remastering. The TVShowsOnDVD.com article discusses the DVD release of the current show, and mentions "remastered" in one sentence but the content of the Promo DVD being described is the toys. The Kentucky Kernel article has about as much coverage, and then goes into the rest of the opinion piece. There is still nothing out there (to anyone's standards) that states that this TV show will be remastered at all.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
http://blockland.kalphiter.com/stats/world.php
Is this a good thing to put in the "external links"?
It's a map of the world showing every Blockland server, their location, and title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalphiter ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It should be noted that the proposer, (and closer) of this 'enquiry', ( User talk:99.135.170.179) has been the subject of a sock-puppet investigation, with a result that he has been rangeblocked for three months; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. The basis on which this discussion took place ( WP:AGF) is therefore seriously undermined and the decision should be revisited. RashersTierney ( talk) 21:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Slp1 ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This is really getting silly. Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan for example are the authors of a book published by Aubane. Aubane is not and never has been cited. Now as to the book by Brian P Murphy and Niall Meehan, Troubled History: A 10th anniversary critique of Peter Hart's The IRA and its Enemies, Aubane Historical Society (2008), ISBN 978 1 903497 46 3. First off, Brian P Murphy is not a member of Aubane, however some of his books are published by them books such as Michael Collins, (Aubane 2004) ISBN: 1 903497 19 1, A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1, The Catholic Bulletin and Republican Ireland, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 0 85034 108 6, and The Origins & Organisation of British Propaganda in Ireland, 1920, (Aubane 2006), ISBN: 1 903497 24 8 in addition to Troubled History.
He also has books such as Patrick Pearse and the lost republican ideal, ISBN 9780907606772 which is published by James Duffy, (1991), and John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995). Is it the suggestion that only his book that are published by Aubane are not considered WP:RS. What about books were Brian P Murphy is cited by authors, but the books cited are published by Aubane?
Some examples of this would include Enemies of empire: new perspectives on imperialism, literature and historiography, ISBN 9781846820021 by Eóin Flannery and Angus Mitchell and published by Four Courts Press, (2007), Religion and rebellion: papers read before the 22nd Irish Conference of Historians, held at University College Dublin, 18-22 May 1995, ISBN 9781900621038, by Judith Devlin and Ronan Fanning published by University College Dublin Press, (1997), and Harry Boland's Irish Revolution, ISBN 9781859183861, by David Fitzpatrick which is published by Cork University Press, (2004).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Brian P Murphy a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can be only be used depending on which publisher he uses? No, I don't think so.
As another example, what about Media Ryan, who is as far as I'm aware a member of the Aubane Historical Society, but her books are not published by them. Books such as The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN-13: 9781853710414, published by Dufour Editions (1990), Biddy Early,(2000), ISBN-13: 9781856353168, and Michael Collins and the Women who spied for Ireland (2006) ISBN 13: 9781856355131, Real Chief : The Story of Liam Lynch, ISBN-13: 9780853427643, (2005), Tom Barry: Ira Freedom Fighter, ISBN-13: 9781856354257, (2003) all published by Mercier Pr Ltd, Michael Collins and the Women in His Life, ISBN-13: 9781856351669, published by Irish Books & Media (1998), The Day Michael Collins Was Shot, ISBN: 1853710415, published by Poolbeg, (1989).
Are editors honestly suggesting that while Media Ryan a noted author and historian a source that is both WP:RS and WP:V can not be used because she is a member of the Aubane Historical Society? No, I don't think so.
So to make it as simple as possible for everyone, the Aubane Historical Society is not the source being cited, its the author. We don't cite publishers. All publishers are subject to the same laws. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Were is this consensus? I'll ask a simple question and all I ask is for a simple answer. If the author is considered to be a WP:RS it makes no difference who the publisher is? Yes or No will do. -- Domer48 'fenian' 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nice one Blueboar thanks for that! Could you explain one thing for me though? Take Fr Brian P Murphy osb for example, if he has one of his books say John Chartres: mystery man of the treaty, ISBN 9780716525431 published by Irish Academic Press, (1995) and one published by Aubane like A Defence Of Cork Political Culture, (Aubane 2005) ISBN: 1 903497 22 1 are you saying only the one published by Aubane is considered self-published? -- Domer48 'fenian' 15:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Slp1 how do we know Irish Academic Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? -- Domer48 'fenian' 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Aubane have published and restored some origional source material from both the National Archives at Kew in England and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks in Dublin, Ireland. They include for example The Administration of Ireland 1920 by Major C. J. C. Street (Athol, 2001), Ireland by Lionel Curtis (Athol, 2002) and The Men I Killed by F. P. Crozier (Athol, 200) in addition to Sean Moylan in His Own Words by Sean Moylan (Aubane, 2004) which was the first of the Witness Statements from the years 1916-1921 to ever to published. So again the question remains how can these be considered self published? -- Domer48 'fenian' 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You really should provide some supporting evidence for your comments. Which "historians" have criticized Aubane as a publisher? Your conclusions have already been rejected here and in the previous discussion in relation to the Authors. Now I asked a reasonable question and would like a reasonable answer. Are the books re-published by Aubane which were located in the National Archives at Kew and the Military Archives, Cathal Brugha Barracks considered a WP:RS? For example, would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Fifelfoo you were asked and you answered. Having read the archives your conclusions did not really get any support, and there are still some questions still outstanding. Questions like why would we need WP:OR to verify that the books published by Aubane are identical to the originals. Anyone interested in Irish History would know why the books I cited above would be needed. For example, Frank Percy Crozier really should have an article, while Cecil Street, Lionel Curtis and Sean Moylan do have articles they need to be expanded. Now apart from the reproductions were else could editors source them? Now would Clarendon Press exert adequate editorial control for our purposes? Valid questions. -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You have not provided multiple reviews of Aubane works and its lack of editorial quality and control. You have offered an opinion by an author, that's it. Now as to Clarendon Press it has published some books by noted authors, some of which lack of editorial quality and control. Now I've raised a number of questions above and they have not been addressed, but I have not called it disruptive. Now you have given your opinion, and I'd welcome others. -- Domer48 'fenian' 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at an article for a song and noticed this website used as a reference. I did a search and see that there's no article on the site itself, but it is used on quite a bit of album and song articles.
After looking around the site, it does not seem like it should be used as a wp:rs. It compiles lists of critic rankings, etc., but there's no fact-checking. One thing that I was particularly curious about is if it links directly to a verifiable source (ex. rollingstone.com). Nope. Take this page for example. It links a Q Magazine's list to an indirect source that reprints the list. There's a real question of verifiability here.
It's a good site, but it certainly doesn't look like it should be a wp:rs. Seems like there should be an effort to remove all references to this site.
Thank You -- Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 14:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Is ThaiIndian News a reliable news source for this article? Nightscream ( talk) 19:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is this site reliable for biographical information on celebrities, like dates of birth? Nightscream ( talk) 01:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a quote from the Huffington Post that's being disputed by an editor.
In the "Banned from the UK" section, there's a quote from the Huffington Post that suggests the Savage was a hypocrite for expecting his First Amendment right to be upheld while not respecting the same rights for others. The section, as it is before expected reverts, is here and the section in the talk page is here. Zsero, the editor, does not agree with the conclusions cited in the published articles and feels that we should not include them. Here's a sample from his/her objection:
I believe the Huffington Post qualifies as a reliable source, and the article quoted is very specific to a public incident where Savage was thrown off of an NPR talk show for shouting down a caller. Comments please. Mattnad ( talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be undeniably and indisputably RS. Is there some argument being put forth that it is not, distinct from BLP issues? What is that argument? Dlabtot ( talk) 18:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
User:Nick Cooper insists that it is appropriate to use primary sourcing (ie, simply identifying the magazine issues themselves) to document claims that various mostly notable models appeared in a British softcore porn magazine. The issues are mostly decades old, and not available online in any form, and the basis for the claims isn't at all clear, and may be OR (in a related discussion, NC claims that one reason an at best unreliably sourced claim that a notable actress was also a teenage nude model is OK to include because he's looked at the pictures and is sure of the identity.) I believe that for primary sources to be acceptable under WP:RS/WP:V, at a minimum they must be reasonably accessible, online or otherwise, and that 1980s/1990s softcore porn magazines fall so far beyond that standard as to require no substantial discussion. Note that pretty much the same central issue was just discussed and resolved at Talk:List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex, where secondary sourcing was required, and the films themselves were not acceptable (primary) sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm currently dealing with an editor who wants to use an opinion piece penned by a Cato Institute member for the National Review to make an unattributed statement of fact in an article, using words that don't even appear in the cited op-ed. This seems to be a pretty clear violation of WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:V (and thereby WP:RS), but I would appreciate some outside views on how the issue should be tackled. Please see Talk:Climatic Research Unit#National Review. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am engaged in a discussion at Talk:Kirtland Safety Society about the use of BYU Studies as a source. My claim is that it should be noted inline when a source makes a claim that supports Joseph Smith and the source is published by the church. I am asking for help here regarding whether:
My claim is that BYU Studies is a WP:SPS for the following reasons:
A thought experiment I propose is to imagine if we would be willing to use a source that made the same statements regarding its partiality, but with the opposite polarity. If a university journal had the explicit purpose of attacking or debunking Mormonism, while claiming to also be scholarly, would we not be very cautious about using it as a source?
The counterpoints to this offered on Talk:Kirtland Safety Society include that the journal is a university journal that is peer reviewed and that at least one of the authors who wrote the one of articles in question is a credible history scholar. (The others may be as well, they have not been discussed)
I claim that the existence of pockets deep enough to support universities and their attendant journals should not exempt any organization from WP:SPS, especially when the journals admit being POV on certain issues.
Thoughts? WhyDoIKeepForgetting ( talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The question has been brought back up again, regarding whether CRNJapan can be considered a reliable source. The previous discussion which did not receive sufficient opinions to say it is or is not, can be found here.
It is the opinion of this editor that it may fall dangerously close to falling under WP:SPS. However it also appears that the information maybe from experts regarding its subject matter, and maybe a useful source for someone who is interested in the subject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I want to modify an already existing article called: Shell Account, and add a table to it that compares various free shell providers. The table looks something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vivek.m1234/Shell_Account
Now according to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
It says: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source."
It says accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonably educated... so, if I go to a shell providers web-site and they say 20MB disk space.. can I then take that value and tabulate it?? Or do I HAVE to find a secondary source who says.. "Widget ISP provides 20 MB disk space"?????? The way I see it, anybody (in that field: someone who uses UNIX, and is reasonably educated about UNIX), who goes to a shell provider, can easily verify if he's getting 20MB or not.
There are similar tabulations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions and they have taken data from the Distro web-site.
When I did the article Hawaii overprint note, I had two sources that couldn't agree on where the returned banknotes were first burnt (just what type of facility it was), so I added a note in hopes of if someone were to question the passage, at least I covered my butt over the matter in one aspect. User:W Nowicki comes in later, and reverts my passage to link directly to Oahu Cemetery and eliminates my note mark. I cried foul, seeing that he eliminated the Honolulu Advertiser reference mark for that passage alone, and not elsewhere in the article, which still exists as an inline citation elsewhere.
After some "discussion" here and there, I took the matter to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics board to get advice on how to handle the situation. I also noticed in his Oahu Cemetery article he not only used the Honolulu Advertiser link, but a book reference that specifically states Nu'uanu Cemetery, not Oahu Cemetery in relation to a passage on the notes. Now there are four sources (Two from his (not counting the Honolulu Advertiser linkage), and two from mine) that say two different locations. To further add to the confusion, someone chimed in about the close proximity of several business with similar names as mentioned in the newspaper and book passages. And the Wikiproject hasn't been helpful.
I'm loathe to just default to Oahu Cemetery given the two sources that say otherwise. That would in effect, smack of original research. Can I get an opinion on how to handle four sources that seem to be cut in half on locations? -- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 07:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure these aren't two names for the same place? -- NE2 13:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To defend my reputation, I did not do a "revert" as claimed above, but added a wikilink to Oahu Cemetery, an article that describes with several verifiable sources that both names are used for the same place. My thinking was that someone who cared out more details could follow that wikilink. At the time is was established it was the only civic cemetery on Oahu (see the journal article cited there), but now there are several. It was 239.x who reverted what I thought was an improvement. Note the Oahu Cemetery article passed review of the DYK editors. I also proposed a compromise that stated the possibility that there were two descriptions of the same place. Peace. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit confusing because several cemeteries run into each other along Nuuanu Ave: Oahu Cemetery at 2162 Nuuanu Avenue (on the left side of Nuuanu Ave, facing uphill), Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary at 2233 Nuuanu Ave (one block mauka on the other side of Nuuanu Ave), Honolulu Memorial Park at 22 Craigside Place (across Nuuanu Ave from Oahu Cemetery), and the Royal Mausoleum State Monument at 2261 Nuuanu Ave (at the mauka end of Nuuanu Memorial Park). Oahu Cemetery had the first crematorium on Oahu, designed by Oliver G. Traphagen in 1906. (other information related to Wikicommon's picture uploads unrelated to discussion redacted) Joel ( talk) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
To clear something up, I never meant to cast any aspersions on 293's character. It is totally reasonable that somone interested primarily in a Numismatic event would not delve into the geographical details. I did not realize there were multiple names for the same location either until looking up the famous people buried there, and searching on maps and the GNIS. For example, many books about Alexander Cartwright say "Oahu Cemetery" some call it "Nuuanu Cemetery" and some use both names. There is no evidence all those authors are in a vast conspiracy, or that all these people were chopped in two. According to several sources, the "Nuuanu Memorial Park & Mortuary" opened in 1949, a modern addition to the 1844 cemetery according to verifiable sources, so I thought it misleading to imply it could somehow be involved in an event that took place in 1942. A phone book from 1941 confirms that Oahu Cemetery cremtory was the only one listed in the area known as Nuuanu and on Nuuanu avenue at the time. Also note the article cited for the source for this "conflict" never mentions any other crematory by name. It just says the money was taken to a "Nuuanu mortuary" first (good way to discourage theft?) and burned at the crematory "there". The article does not say "Nuuanu Memorial Park" (the 1949 addition). It seemed that a future reader who did know the area (not me) might think that the author was trying to push a point of view that there is a "conflict" here when the sources do not indicate any conflict. The official place names datbase of USGS lists: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Oʻahu Cemetery at 21.32N 157.85W, and U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Nuʻuanu as a locale centered at 21.33N and 157.85W (these are the old USGS coordinates, you can look up the addresses on Acme mapper to get ones that match google maps). Since the Oahu cemetery is within the "locle" officially known as "Nuuanu" there is no conflict indicated by any source.
What all the sources indicate is several string names describing the same place. For example, if one person says something happened at "Chicago Airport" and another at "O'hare field" would it make sense to put in a Wikilink to O'Hare International Airport or would that be considered "Original"? Certainly someone not familiar with the midwest U.S. might notice different text strings, but that is why one adds wikilinks, to give more in-depth discussions if readers care, right?
Also as for the DYK, evidently the DYK editors wanted a more interesting sounding hook, so they added the "$20 million" figure to the hook I proposed. By the time I found out, it had already appeared in the middle of the night. Presumably they thought too that someone interested in the details would click through and find out that Oahu cemetery actually had a minor role in buring the money, it has an interesting (in my opinion) history. Two other additions are on the NRHP for example. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please clarify if the content of this is in fact the same as this. Thanks! :) Unomi ( talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm challening the use of Fair Wiki as an RS for edits at View of the Hebrews [44] (for some reason the editor then removed the reference) and at Angel Moroni [45]. The editor adding it says, on my talk page, that I've been "very judgemental" and that:
However, I'm not convinced. See the FAIR wiki page for the Angel Moroni edit [49]. I'm not allowed to see who has edited it, some of the references are to articles on Wikipedia, and if it was here we'd call it original research. The other cite, now removed, is [50] - a bit better, but is it a RS? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The wikipedia references used on that article are used to demonstrate sources of the criticism, as shown in the respective wikipedia articles by the citated critical theories which they contain. Wikipedia is not used to establish the apologist theories that the Wiki publishes. Routerone ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
To sum this up:
Routerone ( talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This question centers around the Saint James School of Medicine article. On their website they indicate they are accredited by the Ministry of Health of Israel. They have a link to a letter that seems to authentically be from the Israeli MoH indicating that the school is accredited and students eligible for a license in Israel. In addition, this Indian website seems to indicate that the school is accredited by the Israeli MoH. I am coming here to inquire if this is enough to be considered a WP:RS and thus included in the accreditation section of the article. The relevant link on the article talk page is here. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
(moved from WT:Reliable sources by Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC))
I'm preparing to do a GA review for an article which has a number of citations from TV.com. As far as I know, TV.com is a reliable source of (very) general information about tv shows, episodes, actors and so forth, and is used as a reference for a number of articles on tv show subjects and related. Just now as I was making some reference checks I realized that TV.com is something of a wiki itself; that is, there is an "edit" button (requires sign up) which allows users to add their own material. Now according to their submission guidelines, all content is moderated. The guidelines, however, make it seem as though fact checking is only a minimal part of the moderation process, and that only obviously incorrect/nonsense submissions will be automatically caught.
I don't know if that has been discussed before. (If it has, could someone please point me in that direction?) Would a source such as TV.com, or IMDB.com (which has the same edit-with-moderation set-up) fall under WP:SPS?
Thanks in advance. -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
There are some complaints that RealClimate.org is not a reliable source. Two objections have been raised.
1) The first objection is that it is a blog. However, it is not just any blog. It's run by Gavin A. Schmidt, an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. Schmidt currently works for NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He's been published by over 60 peer-reviewed academic journals, including the highly prestigious Nature journal. A list of publications can be found on his NASA bibliography here. His biography can be found here. The blog itself has been named one of the best science and technology web sites by Scientific American [55]. Time Magazine has also praised the site [56]. The Telegraph has also named RealClimate.org one of the "new 100 most useful sites". [57]
2) The second objection is that it is an involved party in the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It's involvement is actually pretty limited. Someone tried to upload a zip file to the site. We are using the blog's response to the incident as a source. It's been cited in two places. In both cases, we are using in-text and in-line attribution:
According to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server."
The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, characterizes the excerpt as follows: The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction....
The article in question is Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. The article is constantly changing, but this edit here appears to summarize its role nicely.
Discussions on the talk page can be found here, here and here. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
An article up for deletion relies heavily on obituaries as sources. I believe that obituaries should be treated as opinion pieces as they are not reports of events at the time they happened but personal recollections about someone's life and not necessarily researched in the same way as newspaper reports of events. Is there a current consensus about reliance on obituaries and how many are too many as sources in an article?— Ash ( talk) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, the consensus seems to be obits are reliable sources if from the normal authoritative newspapers. For the other part of my question; is there any consensus on limiting the number of obituaries in a biography article?— Ash ( talk) 10:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Some users are trying to use http://www.yeshivaworldnews.com as a reliable source. This site is not a RS in any way shape or form. For 99% of their entries, they borrow from other sources and the other 1% that is their own postings, they do not post any sources for their entries. The site is anonymous, there is no reliability or accountability. Yossiea (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi: Yeshiva World News (YWN) is in Category:Blogs about Jews and Judaism where it belongs. It is a privately run blog that culls news stories from other sources. It has a few of its unknown contributors, but it relies on news stories it posts from the general media that the YWN blog-owner thinks will be of interest to his audience of Haredi Jews. From time to time, the YWN blog publishes some press releases from organizations like the Agudath Israel of America that do NOT have their own web sites or blogs because they oppose them, so they may quietly hand off announcements to blogs like YWN acting as a VERY unofficial proxy. There is also the similar Vosizneias (VIN) blog, somewhat more pro- Hasidic, but VIN is not favored by the Agudath Israel crowd that favors YWN instead if they have to. IZAK ( talk) 09:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The New Zealand Gisborne Herald offers a news and interview article with a music personality. The Swedish English language paper The Local offers a news report of an event.Both small circulation publications with editorial staffs. They look like their articles are, per WP:V, based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But an editor claims one is not "notable" and therefore not usable but the other is. Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What statements are these articles being used to support, and in which articles? --
Metropolitan90
(talk) 17:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
<backdent>To answer the question above: Do the Herald and the Local portray Atzmon's views in a way that differs significantly from how they are portrayed in more prominent reliable sources? The answer, No. The Scotsman and The Guardian both have similar interviews which mention accusations against him. And an Observer news story mentions another specific incident of an accusation. Note that it early was established that we should not use quotes from the article out of context of what the author said, though that also is being violated by a POV editor. Finally one of sources mentioned was used in past but after an OTRs an admin deleted it an a lot of other material as being too much of an attack article; and recently people felt that the whole section was too long so not every single attack/criticism explored. Those other two sources are new. So to me the issue is just if those two article are of equal merit as WP:RS. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I think at this point it might be sensible to move the discussion away from "here's a source, can we use it" back to the quality of the article, its structure and balance. The basic structure is in place, with the music first, followed by writing, and then views. That's good. It might be possible to merge the writing section with the views section, but there are also reasons not to. There is still some work to be done on the music section, with far too many red links. This is quite typical of music biogs, when you take material from sources that want to give credit to every musician involved. It's not necessary to do that in WP. We just need to know about major collaborations that the Atzmon's been involved with. Those will usually be with notable musicians - when they're not, consider whether the musician becomes notable simply by the fact of collaboration with Atzmon. The writing section is OK for now, I think. Views is the problematic bit. Ideally you would set out Atzmon's viewpoints as quoted in RS, weaving in criticism as it was expressed of those particular points. That's not so easy as with some BLPs. For example of a politician you get the format Day 1 major speech-Day 2 favourable comments in some of the press, denunciations in other bits of the press. That's not happening in this case, probably because Atzmon is less prominent as a political figure, therefore his views are not widely reported, and those who wish to take issue with them only do so at the moment of an invitation or if they carry out investigative journalism to track down statements in minor sources. That leaves this BLP with a problem for weaving between the statements and criticism. As it stands I don't think it sets out Atzmon's views clearly. It does include some major criticism. What it must definitely not do - and go to BLPN for more advice on this if needed, is to draw its exposition of the subject's views from the critical sources. Keep referring back to GA and FA on controversial people to see how they handle the difficulties. Best of luck, all. Itsmejudith ( talk) 12:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Since ItsMeJudith opened up other issues in the politics section, I decided to ppost here a diff to the revised version of this section correcting what I believe are WP:RS violations, among others. See this diff which I explained with this edit summary: More NPOV, non-WP:OR version of politics section; use quotes in context of what Secondary Sources say, not editor's WP:OR; per various talk page and noticeboard comments. It is based on comments I have gotten in various places that deals with the WP:OR issue ( cherry picked use of Atzmon quotes out of context of what the secondary source said about those comments). Specifically new paragraph two and new paragraph four. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 16:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Related to Hawaii hotspot. Is this considered reliable? It's an online university. Edyg said that she'll "leave this one to the community" to decide so I'm taking it here. Res Mar 02:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is a an RFC at Template talk:Refimprove. It would be helpful to include a link to a commercial search engine in the template. But this means that there will be external links outside the "External links" section in hundreds of articles. Do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? See Template talk:Refimprove#RFC: Should a link to a commercial search engine be included in the template Refimprove? -- PBS ( talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Which fans were responsible for the formation of the Supreme Council of Time Lords in 1983?
Who was the editor of Time Loop, the Australian Doctor Who fanzine?
What was Paul Kennedy's involvement in the Australian Doctor Who fan movement?
Chewy6202 ( talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I am a veteran of the US Army and US Navy.
My time in the Fleet was served aboard the USS Ranger (CV-61). During my time as ships company, as opposed to being part of any of its airwings, I did one WESTPAC. This cruise was the Ranger's 30th Anniversary cruise (Pearl) and began on 14 July 1987 with us casting off sometime between 0900 and 1000, I cannot remember that detail and looking it up is not an easy task. From that cruise, during which we relieved the USS Miday and her battle group, and airwing, we became the second US Carrier to take up station in support of Operation Ernest Will. I have my copy of our ships cruise book, which documents many things from the Captain's words at the front about what we had been through, ports of call. The information also includes which airwings were deployed aboard Ranger and their Commanders and XOs, and all personnel.
There is no copy of it online that I have found, yet. Ancestry.com is working to place as many cruise books on its site that it can, and so far as quite a few, but they do not have any from the USS Ranger (CV-61) at this time.
I want to know if a ships cruise book is considered, currently as a valid and reliable source. And if not, a clear explanation as to why not.
Thanks,
FosterBDAV ( talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)