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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Interesting problematic I'd like to share hear and hear opinions about. I'd like views on to what extent, if any, we should rely on this article.
Joint Publishing is a Chinese publishing house with offices in Hong Kong. Its PRC bureau in Beijing publishes a weekly 'living' magazine entitled " 三联生活周刊", from the cover of which one can tell is destined for the mainland marketplace. Very recently, it published an article in Chinese, for which there is no equivalent nor translation, which was carried by major Chinese web portals, for example Sina and official sites such as Gansu provisional government and elsewhere.
We are discussing the use of this article as a source on the controversial execution late in December 2009 or a British national Akmal Shaikh by the Chinese authorities for drug trafficking. The article has a number of interesting revelations which is making me question it, and the possible existence of selective under-reporting in London. Firstly, it states at the top that it is written by a trainee reporter. The article is quite comprehensive account of the man's life, but does not make clear how the early part is sourced, but it looks like parts of it (mostly before Poland) are directly translated from recent press articles about his story. However, there is divergence with the story in Poland. A number of details of his life in Poland, as apparently told to the magazine's reporter by one of the people he knew in Poland - a Briton named Gareth Saunders and a photographer named Luis Diaz which is considerably richer than what I have read in Western reports. For example, Diaz is mentioned nowhere in British press reports; the article includes, for instance a whole paragraph where Saunders describes attending a wedding where Akmal sang his 'rabbit' song. However, there was some very contentions material. Shaikh was quoted as saying something rather incriminating: 桑德斯說他曾在華沙市中心的一家書店裡遇見過阿克毛,阿克毛指著坐在樓上看書的一個黑人對桑德斯說他是個毒販子。(Saunders said he once met Akmal in a bookshop in the centre of Warsaw, where Akmal pointed to a black man seated upstairs reading and told him he was a drugs trafficker). There are passages where the reporter cites a court employee, without citing the name or capacity of same, and some details from the defence attorney which might be considered privileged in the west. Whilst I am not surprised that a Chinese reporter will obtain more information from official Chinese sources, it surprises me somewhat that the picture painted by this portrait is pretty much at odds with anything in the western press. The other side of this to bear in mind are the interests of Reprieve, a charity opposed to the death penalty and which lobbied for Shaikh's release and who supplied much of the background to the British press, and a British government facing election year. For further information, please refer to discussion on the article's talk page. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In order to remove material from wikipedia
[1] it has been claimed regarding
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help)that "Transaction is not an acceptable publisher as it pushes an ideological line with a direct connection to the article's purpose. This work is not acceptable as it is..." [2]. Any comments? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 15:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Both the author and the publisher satisfy Wikipedia's reliability requirements. The author is an expert in the field, and the publisher is a respectable publishing house that specializes in this kind of material. Jayjg (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This source is clearly reliable by WP's standards. All sources have a POV, and if having a POV disqualified a source, we'd have no sources. There may be a question of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE if there is consensus that its views are those of a tiny minority, but after a casual inspection I would consider that unlikely. Crum375 ( talk) 04:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Transaction Publishers is not only RS, I would point out [3] with a Keep result. [4] ". The publisher, Transaction Publishers, is likewise an established and reputable academic publishing house." [5] operating internationally with other academic publishers. Cited as RS in about a thousand WP articles. And most editors who have themselves used RS/N keep it on their watchlist. Collect ( talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Transaction is run by Irving Louis Horowitz, a notable and influential sociologist. From a 1988 New York Times feature on Horowitz and Transaction: "Today, the name Transaction identifies a leading publisher, based on the Rutgers University campus in Piscataway, of social-science books and periodicals." -- JN 466 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Transaction Publishing is used by academics who wish to push a neoconservative point of view without submitting their "reasoning" to academic scrutiny. If you believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was behind the 911 attacks then this is the publisher for you. Otherwise, it is just another publisher of fringe theories. The fact that it is located on Rutger's campus means nothing. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with a user over this edit to National Public Radio. I don't think I'm wrong in this case, though I'm not aware of anything specific in policy or guidance that I can point this editor to. Any assistance would be appreciated. older ≠ wiser 19:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Askimam.org is a website run by Mufti Ebrahim Desai. Can i use the content of his fatwas as a reliable source? See this and this for further information on him and his institution. Hamza [ talk ] 08:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get some opinions on whether this website is a reliable source. I haven't read any of his books, but he does seem to be a published author. Would that make individual articles within this website reliable? Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this source reliable for the biographical info on Ace Amerson? The prose does not look professionally written (referring to a season on a reality TV show as a "TV serial"; referring to him as a "famous actor" when he's a reality TV personality whose fame is relegated to MTV viewers; referring to his alma mater as "the Georgia Southern University."; etc.), but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream ( talk) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Are any of the areas on Blogspot reliable, even for images? Is this page reliable for the image of the 1907 post card shown, or do even images need their own separate authentication? Nightscream ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for additional opinions if the source of information is considered reliable in its given context to satisfy notiability guidelines for the creation of the article.
Here is an acticle draft, which uses the referenced source and a related talk page on a deletion review with an adminstrator. Deadalus821 ( talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this figure File:UStaxprogressivity.png appears in this article. The provided source is a similar figure at [14] which I see as a self-published op-ed. Another editor claims that the figure is produced by two authors that I can't find reference to on the page ("Economist Karen Walby, Ph.D., and Economist Laurence Kotlikoff, Ph.D."). But it is not clear to me how he comes to that conclusion. It looks to me like the linked page cites a self-published adendum to an NBER working paper by Kotlikoff and Rapson that does not appear to support the claim made by factcheck.org (specifically, the table they cite does not calculate gini coefficients.
For existing discussion, see Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#gini_as_measure_of_progresivity.
Thanks in advance for any help! 018 ( talk) 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So I guess the question is this: is a memo published by fairtax.org self published? I think that the quote from WP:RS, "this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Is fairtax.org reputable and peer-reviewed? apparently factcheck.org found them to be unreliable (hence this piece which is a response to, "Unspinning the Failrtax" [15]). But getting in a tussle with factcheck.org can't really be the end all. However, I would propose that any advocacy group, commenting on its topic of advocacy should be considered similar to a person writing on them self for BLP, that is reliable only if they don't have a dog in the particular fight or are reporting on themselves (i.e. who their CEO is, et cetera). 018 ( talk) 02:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is what we have for anyone who would like to comment:
Disagreement:
I hope I summarized our points correctly, if briefly but I'll allow Morphh to update his claim if he likes. 018 ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor on Gas chamber is trying to use the Institute for Historical Review as a credible source. I have checked the archives of this noticeboard, and it has been tangentially dismissed as an unreliable source. I'd like confirmation one way or the other. Hohum ( talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This page is used as a source in the article System of a Down. Is this in any way reliable? ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
There has been some discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard about the Transcendental Meditation article group. Some claims have been made about the purported effects of TM to affect things such as frequency of car crashes, crime rates, etc.
These strike many of us as being classic examples of File Drawer Effect, Data dredging and a failure to differentate between correlation and causation however some editors who focus almost exclusivey on TM articles have claimed that there are "peer reviewed studies" demonstrating a causal link between TM and various phenomena.
It would appear these studies originate from the Marharishi University of Management, a school founded by Maharishi Mahash Yogi, the yogi responsible for TM. My question is if anyone here has any information on the reliability of these studies. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Orme-Johnson et al research has flaws which should have been evident to the reviewers. Publication of the article indicates a failure in the review process rather than a failure in the standards by which social scientific research is evaluated. I will focus on the JCR article, but most of these criticisms also apply to the subsequent research on this theory. [Schrodt. A Methodological Critique of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 1990, 34: 745-755]
There is a long list of journals that I promised to check up and have done so now. They are mostly listed by the ISI and reputable. Disciplines are jumbled up. If we're to include such a statement I think each needs to be referenced independently. An article would normally carry the institutions that the authors are affiliated to and that would be a sufficient reference. The institute's own journal isn't listed at ISI.
This is a separate issue from claims about the effects of TM which also need to be referenced properly. Doc James' point about reviews of the topic is particularly helpful. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
hi, I'm quite new to referencing. so ehh..i have few question.
Can these sources be used? reliable?
Can you point out which can be used or which can't?-- LLTimes ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The following RfC has been raised after inconclusive discussion about whether to include citation totals or statistics (from Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge or MathSciNet) in an article in order to support notability — Talk:Steve Shnider#RfC Using citation totals in articles on academics.
This was raised after asking for a third opinion and searching for policy. Your comments or recommendation as to which policy applies would be welcome.— Ash ( talk) 11:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
In this posting on this page, O18 and Simonm223 argue that advocacy groups can not be reliable sources and that there is a requirement for academic review. I find nothing in policy to support that claim. The fact is the much research is done by interest groups or advocacy groups of some kind on various topics. Most controversial articles in Wikipedia contain references that present a point of view from one side or another from such sources. No where in WP:RS does it even mention the word "advocacy group", "interest group", or otherwise. This claim that an advocacy group can not be a reliable source is not based on policy or even any sense of consensus. In fact, it is in opposition to wide consensus and policy. It could very well be a violation of NPOV to exclude such sources. It's like saying that you can't use AARP to source something on Medicare. They also seem to suggest that sources require academic peer-review. While certainly a goal for sourcing, I see nothing indicating this as a requirement or a definition of what satisfies that requirement. In addition, O18 makes the claim that anything published by an advocacy group is a self-published source. While some may fall into that category, it does not follow policy per what we describe that such sources are automatically considered self-published. I'm bringing this back up as it seems to be a major deviation from policy and if such is agreed upon, then policy should change to reflect the new consensus. Until a wider discussion on this issue is made, I do not want to accept this reasoning for source or content removal. Morphh (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to add here that I think Morphh and I are interested in this question broadly, not just for the discussion he linked to above. As an example, the article FairTax is largely well cited in the sense that there are journal articles, mainstream media articles, and op-eds. But there are some unrefereed papers on academic websites and papers from groups like The Tax Foundation and fairtax.org. Are these reliable sources? 018 ( talk) 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this
I think this is in line with RS and allows for inclusion of information that an advocacy group publishes, but it also makes it clear to the reader that the source should be considered in the text if the work has not been generally accepted--similar to an op-ed. 018 ( talk) 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so to summarize the views here, Ravensfire and Morphh feel that advocacy groups produce lots of material that is written by generally respectable university faculty and so they are an indispensable source. Collect, Simonm223, and FormerIP generally think existing policy is sufficient and want to see continued case by case basis judgment. Is that right?
I went through trying to figure out a particular case with Morphh, saw only one contributor comment (which neither of us found very satisfying) and see that there are lots of other pages where this applies that I could end up spending lots of time trying to pair them down to something that is more in line with what it looks like Collect, Simonm223, and FormerIP think the RS guideline is. If it were just the editing and I could point to something that put said, "advocacy groups are at best given op-ed status unless they meet the scholarly work requirements" I think I would do it. But I don't really want to get RVed and then have to discuss ad nauseum the relative merits of peer-reviewed work and secondary sources versus paid advocacy papers with every page/section's Wikipedia editors. 018 ( talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please confirm that sources do not need to be available free online? I've had this edit reverted on the basis that the Wall Street Journal article, which was available free online when I read it and updated the article based on it, is no longer available for free, so there is "no reference". [21]. Yes, I know this is standard, but on the basis of past interaction with this user, the chance of them accepting it based on my saying so is approximately zero. Thanks. Rd232 talk 10:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this site a reliable source for birthdates? Someone has used it to cite a birthdate in a BLP (a biography of a minor in fact) See Daeg Faerch and [22]. Ladyof Shalott 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What should one do if the information provided in the reliable source is potentially false. Should it be tagged with some template? Is there any relevant template? I cannot find any appropriate one in WP:TC. I am specifically referring to article Sultan Rahi. This guy surely made many movies, but whether he was included in Guinness Records is not confirmed yet. I found this source from [www.dunyanews.tv Dunya News TV] but i believe it may potentially be false as imdb shows many actors with more prolific work. But they have not defined the word prolific. I mean in terms of movies, or soaps etc. Dunya News is a full fledged proper Urdu news channel. I have no doubt about it being a reliable source. But i think their team may have made a mistake here. I cannot see the Gui. Records book either because they don't mention all the records in each edition. It may be very pain staking to go through all editions. Same is the case with their website. Let me know if there is some easier method to do so. Do these particulars justify creating a new template for such situation. I mean, a template that should say further verificaton needed. Hamza [ talk ] 04:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on this page about the following passage of text:
The dispute concerns the last sentence (which I have bolded). There is no dispute that Critical Survey constitutes a reliable source, though of course that does not mean that arguments of its contributors are therefore "true". Academics often propose POVs attacking the POVs of other academics, and this is the case here. The question is whether the opinion of the editor of the journal should be quoted as significant, or whether this, in effect, constitutes advertising for the journal, "puffing" its contents. Can the editor of the journal be considered to be a reliable commentator on the value of articles contained within it? Paul B ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone (Spanish required) please pitch in at Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation#moved_from_article? I see no evidence that the statement is supported by the sources. Rd232 talk 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor at Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient is insisting on using letters to the editor of a newspaper as a source. Is this permitted here? -- Reef Bonanza ( talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please confirm the following two sources are unreliable and should not be used for Wikipedia. The disputed point is the description about history of Shochu.
in order to remove material from wikipedia [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] it has been claimed that following scholars have never used such terms and/or "there is no proof that these terms have ever been introduced"
These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs...;
Next to be considered is the communist democide...
Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia.
Understanding communist mass killings is of vital importance not only...
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)unless I'm completely missing something with this, in case the scholars listed above have never used such terms indeed like claimed, the sources where its printed on black and white must not be reliable?-- Termer ( talk) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ask that AGF be observed where an editor has sought to use noticeboards for a specific query. The use of accusations here is not warranted, and may lead others to determine that those making the attacks are indeed the attackers. Collect ( talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a wiki page or project that holds a list of known "review farm" websites?
Every week I am contacted by about twenty different websites wanting to write reviews on software my various companies sell. All they want in return is a reciprocal link. Such reviews are never neutral as they want to get as many reviews on their websites as possible and ideally you to publish the article on your own website. eg: cmswire, cmswatch...
There are also a number of websites that allow marketing managers to publish articles themselves. eg: pcworld.com, pressdispensary.co.uk...
In terms of quickly establishing and flagging non-notable references, if such a list existed the wiki system itself could be made to highlight such references. Sendalldavies ( talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence keeps on being deleted (5 times in 1 day last week , once just now), based on the claim that Daniel Goldhagen - a fomer Harvard Associate Professor with an international bestseller in the area and a PBS series forthcoming - is not a reliable source. I've asked the deleters to come here and explainwhy they don't think he is reliable, but they won't do it.
P. 344 is not that long. Would somebody look at Goldhagen's credentials, and verify that my summary is accurate? Smallbones ( talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC
In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's intention already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their elimionist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.
I think that it is most likely a misreading to add the 50 million and the 30 million together. The dates for the two speechs study materials and the speech are not given. So, either the number shrank from 50 million to 30 million with the target becoming more focussed from peasants in general to landlords and rich peasants in particular, or vice versa.
As for using Goldhagen or not, we have to remember that we are not writing PhD dissertations here. Thus, it is not up to us to determine the source material used by the authors and then vet the authenticity of same. Rather, we are supposed to be writing undergraduate level papers wherein we present articles that survey the literature on a given topic. Thus, whether to use Goldhagen or not depends on how one intends to present his material. Does his analysis fly in the face of accepted scholarship? Then it should be presented as such, presented as an alternative, not-widely-subscribed-to view, and fully cited accordingly. While I truly respect Fifelfoo’s caution, I am not altogether certain that one need wait for reviewers to vet the book prior to our being able to use it. It’s out there. And it presents an (alternative?) viewpoint that ought to be presented to wikireaders to maintain the article’s neutral point of view by surveying the spectrum of scholarship in the subject area. Finally, Goldhagen is notable enough that he qualifies for a wikiarticle, so why would a book by him, a book that is not self-published, not be notable enough to be cited so long as it is cited with due caution? — Spike Toronto 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Source is RS by WP standards, and as long as the numbers are cited to the author, it is properly in the article. [31] repeatedly cited by the NYT as an American scholar, so the author is notable as well. It is moreover, not up to us to decide which figures we like or do not like - as long as the numbers are sourced, we have to deal with it. Collect ( talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that both Rummel and Goldhagen can be used so long as they are presented as differing views. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that the article must, on balance, be neutral. To leave out one author’s differing calculations is to choose one view over another, which is not our job as neutral wikieditors. However, it is one thing for the Party to have made estimates of between 30 and 50 million, it is quite another if the subsequent reality is an entirely different figure. I would suggest that Goldhagen’s quote be used to illustrate the Party’s pre-genocide estimates, while Rummel’s numbers be used as a measure of the ensuing genocide. However, I think that one can find many sources that would disagree with Rummel, that his number is too low. I seem to recall reading back in the dark ages when I was at university that the number in reality was much nearer Mao and the Party’s estimate than Rummel’s calculation.
Finally, I still maintain, and agree with Jayen, that the 30 million and 50 million figures are not intended to be added together, regardless of whether WP:SYN would permit it or not. To do so is to misread, to misunderstand, the source. — Spike Toronto 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Question: What should the policy/guideline be about the use of questionable, but not totally unreliable sources like Xinhua, Pravda, Granma, etc. ? 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I restate my question? I don't claim the BBC is untrustworthy, or that it should be avoided because of its relationship to the government, the same for RTE, AFP, DW, PBS, and others of similar quality/reputability. My question was just on the ones that are run by countries whose news outlets' editors have direct line from the presidential palace on their desk, so to speak. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/
FRUS is a good research tool for persons interested in foreign policy and related issues. FRUS is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions, produced by the US Dept. of State. Is this a reliable source? I would think so, but would appreciate some verification.
Additionally, when doing research in the FRUS, some of the relevant documents may extend over several pages, and the portions relevant to the particular research subject at hand may be scattered here and there, etc., etc., over various pages, so for various reasons it is desirable to produce a series of excerpts of the FRUS, with a LINK back to the original page or pages. Is there any rule against quoting from a US government source in this fashion? The following would be an example -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/frus1948aa.htm
Continuing on in this line of inquiry, as regards what constitutes RS, we have some US government documents which are very difficult to locate online, or if located, are quite lengthy. The 1971 Starr Memorandum of the US Dept. of State is one good example. It is actually online at -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/One-China.cfm in PDF format, and is thirteen pages in length. Such a format, and length, makes it less than "convenient" for the access of many who use the internet. Nevertheless, I believe it meets the requirements of being an RS . . . . . so is that affected if a page of excerpts are presented in friendly html format? For an example, see -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm (I don't believe that a collection of a few excerpts presents any kind of copyright problem.)
Long before the days of the internet, a very important article discussing the international legal status of Taiwan was published in the Yale Law Journal. See Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title, by Lung-chu Chen and W. M. Reisman, The Yale Law Journal, March 1972. Is this a reliable source?? I would think so, being in such a prestigious law journal. However, it is very difficult to reference this article, because neither I nor my associates have ever been able to find a complete copy of the article in a publicly accessible internet site. I did manage to find a copy in a library once, and it was 73 pages long. I did photocopy some portions, and put those excerpts on a webpage, whereupon a friend was kind enough to fix it up in html format and post it on the web, see -- http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam1.htm Does presenting the information in this way violate any rules?
Is an international treaty considered an RS? When making reference to a treaty, are we required to quote various articles of the treaty to back up our statements? For example, in the Treaty of Peace with Italy (1947), there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of the Dodecanese islands to Turkey. For someone who has read the treaty, this is common sense, but others might argue that this is an "interpretation" or violates NPOV? How do we deal with such claims of other Wiki editors?
In a similar fashion, the Treaty of Paris (1898) did not cede the Philippines to New Zealand. But, if I write this on some Wiki page, and someone challenges my "assertion," and quickly deletes my statement(s) from the relevant Wiki page, how should my response be made? I am presenting the material objectively, and yet I am being challenged!!! This is very disturbing. Are there rules against "propaganda"? (I don't find any page for WP:Propaganda) My point is that there may be some people who believe that the Philippines are a long-lost island chain of New Zealand. From my point of view, that appears to be propaganda, but the people who promote that view obviously don't question it very thoroughly.
So . . . . where do verifiability and objectivity end, . . . and propaganda and political posturing begin?? I find myself often having this problem when quoting from US government sources and also from international treaties. Arguably, for someone with a lack of expertise on the content of a particular treaty, it might be necessary to read the entire treaty to comprehend one fact. What one fact? Well, an example would be if I wrote that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) did not cede the Mexican state of Tamaulipas to the United States. (Obviously, some treaties are long and somewhat complicated.) So, what is the correct course of action for me when I am challenged on something like this which (from a straightforward reading of the treaty) is an objective fact? And/or when I can offer verifiable commentary from prestigious sources (law journals, US government documents, etc.) to support my writing?
Significantly, in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco (1952) and Treaty of Taipei (1952) there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan) to China. This is quite clear from a straightforward reading of both treaties. The Starr Memorandum (mentioned above) also clarifies this point in detail. And yet when making simple references to such matters on various webpages, I often see my contributions deleted by other Wiki editors or moderators who claim that I have violated the rules for Verifiability (RS), NPOV, or OR.
I don't think that I have violated these rules. Can someone explain the rules/guidelines in more detail? Hmortar ( talk) 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I just inserted in an article in which I'm the main editor, United States Senate election in California, 1950, a tidbit from a political news article from March 1950, from the Los Angeles Daily News, about a bid for the Senate being dropped. The article consists of a number of various political tidbits, but the byline is given as "Frank Observer", something which was not unusual in Southern California newspapers of that era (possibly elsewhere too). I've put a comment in the reference stating "obviously a pseudonym". Anything else needs to be done?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen some references from Billboard Magazine dated March 9, 1959, P 52 and 53 referencing the Fleetwood's release of "Come Softly to Me." [1]
Also can see the video clip of their appearance on the Dick Clark Show on Youtube the same year 1959. [2]
But "Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods! [3] Karlamorningsun ( talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor of Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday is attempting to use the following sources to verify the scale of the event.
The first appears to be a Nazi propaganda film, which he maintains is "an official record". The second appears to be advertising blurb on a site selling a DVD of the same. Hohum ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in the film being termed "an official record". An official film record in Nazi Germany will, after all, be a Nazi propaganda film. Indeed, any official records that take a point of view are going to reflect to some extent of the regime it is an official record of. The film can certainly be used as a source - although as Slatersteven notes, as and I am sure you know anyway, it does take a biased view. The second link, as Slatersteven says, is not actually a source. It merely shows that you can acquire a film called "Hitler's birthday parade". It shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than that fact. I don't really have a problem about the film not being in English. Hibbertson ( talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not truckads.com is a RS on its own is not the question right now, it is only an example I have handy for this question, so please dont get sucked into tangents, as I know there are other issues about this site. The question is- it is claimed that this site doesnt have Nielson's permission to use its data and therefore it is a copyvio problem and therefore we cant use it, because the site we are citing is a copyvio even though we arent violating any copyrights because we are simply citing non-copyrighted information that happens to also be on the site. But is that an issue for us? Do we automatically not use legitimately accurate information because the site we link to MAY be copyviolating? I have no proof other than others say "it is claimed" that it is a copyvio site, I assume since we've had this link for quite some time now and the site still exists and hasnt been sued and removed that these are just "claims". I dont believe it is a matter for us to consider in considering whether or not this or any site is a RS. Along with the problem that we use neilson information ourselves, so do newspapers, there's nothing proprietary about the information that it cant be used on another site, so I'm not sure what the copyvio issue exactly since the articles in question do say that the description given is of Nielson geographic DMA's, it isnt claiming that they are something else, it is giving credit to Nielson. But anyways, in my opinion the only thing that should matter is in regards to being an RS or not is- is the information being cited accurate? If so, it's a RS for that piece of information; if not it is not a RS for that information. The NY Times for example if it gets a piece of information wrong it can not be cited as a RS for that information because the information is not accurate. We throw around things like "verifiable, not the truth", but ultimately it DOES come down to- is the information accurate? I am talking about information in which there is in fact a truth, eg- Nielson's DMA geographic area either does or doesnt cover certain counties; I dont want to get into an argument about "there is no truth" on this issue, I want to keep it to topic please. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I recently afd James Hyland who seems to me to be self-verified. But is moonfruit.com OK as a source? If not, should it be added to a spam list? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please tell me whether the follwoing sources reliable or not:
What piece of information are you seeking to support by reference to these sources, and why is it reasonable to conclude that those sources would be reliable for that piece of information. No source is reliable for every piece of information - without the piece of information you are looking to support, it is impossible to answer your question. Hibbertson ( talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How to deal with self published and hard to verify primary sources (i.e. catalogs, press releases not found online or in any libraries) that are provided by the subject of the article? The usual procedure would be to accept them on good faith, if the claims are uncontroversial and plausible. That was done in one article, Richard Tylman initially. As there was a conflict of interest at least two editors tried to verify some of the more accessible sources and were not able to verify the claims (see [35] and [36] in particular]). Either the individual was not even mentioned in the source, or the source did not support the claims. Note that at least User:Victoriagirl was a completely uninvolved editor, with no prior contact to the subject of the article and not editing in his topic area (i.e. Eastern Europe, apparently a quite contentious topic area).
The question now is of course what to do with the other sources which are almost impossible to verify (not in libraries, not published, let alone anywhere online). For some sources the subject of the article provides convenience links to copies on his webpage. Compounding the problem is that whenever a claim in the article is questioned, new (and for all practical purposes inaccessible) sources suddenly appear. What to do? Can we trust the sources; should we stub the article to the most basic biographic information; should we stub the article to only include what at least allegedly though unverified third party sources published and exclude everything in primary sources (i.e. press releases and the like)? Pantherskin ( talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To those not involved in the Bill Moyers article, would The Weekly Standard be regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of a BLP citation about facts on the subject? The author of the article, Stephen Hayes, is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. The article cited is used for simply describing the earnings of the subject of the BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll ( talk • contribs) 08:54, January 25, 2010
What does the article actually say, and why would it have access to the information it provides? Are there other reliable sources available for the same information?
Although not relevant to the question as to whether The Weekly Standard is a reliable source for the information you wish it to support, I do wonder why a subject's earnings (presumably for a particular period of time) are relevant or notable enough for inclusion in the article. Hibbertson ( talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
First, the excerpt seems quite old - presumably you can date it. If he took that amount over the past decade, but nothing since 1994. It suggests it is information from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If WS is usually considered reliable, I'd say this info appears to be reliably sourced - but be careful about the year. Even if the 200k figure is correct for the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, it is not clear where this info came from (could it have come from the Foundation itself?), nor is it clear what year it refers to. Did he receive 200k once for one or more years, and which years? The article seems as though it ought to be treated as reliable for the info from the CFB, but be careful over what you actually distil from it given its apparent age. In the absence of some idea as to where the info on the Foundation would come from, I wouldn't want to use the 200k figure. Hibbertson ( talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I also note this [37], which offers greater clarity on dates. I do not comment on its reliability though it does appear to have been written after an interview with him. Hibbertson ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the founder and editor in chief of the WS is neocon Bill Kristol, a well known GOP apparatchik who has had his errors and slanted reporting revealed numerous times (look it up, but for example Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column), I find it hard to believe editors here are okaying his partisan periodical as RS for the BLP of one of his hated enemies. A RS is defined as known for fact checking and accuracy, and there are numerous examples where this has not happened in the Weekly Standard. ► RATEL ◄ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A request for clarification: the article is about some people hacking into an academic server and the resulting investigation of both the crime and the reaction to the content of the released email. There have been two self published books about this incident - they are obviously not reliable sources, but the fact that they were published seems to be notable to the reactions section. What constitutes a reliable source to make such a claim? Simply the fact that the books exist would be trivially cited. On the other hand, there have been no news stories about the publications in a reliable source. But that is the case for most books. What is the correct way to go about this? Ignignot ( talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but the policy is absolutely clear and no 'clarification' is necessary. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a general confusion surrounding OR which is exemplified by Hipocrite's comment: "Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like wikipedia 101. It's the same as if I made a blog". This was the subject of a long discussion ( Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Deletion_of_examples_of_primary_sources_from_PSTS). Consensus is not that these things cannot be mentioned (there was no consensus). Whether or not they are allowed to be mentioned is up to the judgment of the editors involved. Personally I would wait until they're reviewed or discussed by another source. II | ( t - c) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
All of these have been published in written form:
^ The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948
^ The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947
^ American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously Incorporated since 1909)
^ National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously incorporated since 1952)
^ Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954)
^ Naturopathy, A Definition by Dr. Benedict Lust, MD, ND, DC, DO, March 1936, American Naturopathic Association, Washington DC. ^ Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951
^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. (December 1968)
^ _ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)
^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979
^ Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981
^ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)
^ Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)
^ Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)
^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)
^ Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)
^ School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)
^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979
^ State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.
^ Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.
^ (NPLEX)Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)...
^ NEPLEX Board Roster (1991)
^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36135910197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title54/T54CH51SECT54-5106.htm
-- Ndma1 ( talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, The "fringe" sources were only used in the naturopathy article for the purpose of relating how naturopaths view themselves and defined their profession. The governmental sources were used generally for historical background related to the profession or to document the legal status of an organization or group (for example the corporate status and history of an organization) I thought I was using these correctly but kept butting heads with somebody does not like what the sources say and so dismisses them as unreliable. Just wanted to make sure I was operating according to policy. -- Ndma1 ( talk) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) or{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Some of these sources are primary, which could be good for descriptive basic information. Per WP:NPOV, naturopathic sources should be cited for views in their own articles and on particular topics they are close to. II | ( t - c) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been inserting information into the article on the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, based on Africa News. Leaving aside the fact he's using a two month old source saying he's been alive for three months to say something about now, I don't think Africa News is a reliable source, based on this [40]. The linked article [41] does say "The editorial team of Africanews.com supervises the content in the news section." but I still don't think this is an RS. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The web site http://politics.gaeatimes.com/2009/12/21/russias-communists-urge-nation-dont-criticize-stalin-on-his-130th-birthday-9548/ looks like a blog. Can it be used as a RS in the article about Stalin?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
About 144 links or references to Freebase (database) - a user generated database that also scrapes content from Wikipedia leading to many a circular ref. FYI and for folks willing to clean up. N.B. Freebase itself may be using reliable sources - in those cases, those sources should be referenced directly. – xeno talk 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing content dispute as to whether the article on the Egyptian god Horus should include a comparison to Jesus. The sources that have been added detailing the comparison have been called out as unreliable by User:Farsight001. The question involves this edit: [43] from three separate editors, which was then reverted here: [44] due to "rampant use of unacceptable sources." These are the sources being used:
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Are these sources demonstrably unreliable? Or can they be rightfully used as references for a section of the Horus article detailing the comparisons made between Horus and Jesus? ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Can [47] be used to source this statement: However, Stanford has stated "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." -- NeilN talk to me 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying the source fulfills the guideline. Again (since you haven't seemed to address it): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- NeilN talk to me 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
WS, thanks for the links. Do pl note.
The argument whether or not the MBA piece is an editorial, while interesting, is moot. Schwertfeger's credentials establish her as a reliable source. Her piece refers to the Stanford document meaning we can now refer to it. Additionally, we are making no interpretive claims using the primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY carefully. It does not say primary sources can never be used on their own. -- NeilN talk to me 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
WS, I would suggest listing the issue separately because it could go a long way in redefining how Wikipedia looks at self published reliable sources. That's an issue where others could be motivated to answer. If you think it's logical, I can raise the issue on the reliable sources guideline as a general issue (of whether reliable sps can be considered equivalent to reliable sources). Your call (and yes, I'm sorry for replying late). Best. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a law journal, edited by students to "Law Review standards" ( http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/123/37/). Can material published there be used on WP? Tzu Zha Men ( talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.
The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any. Cross-posted here Semitransgenic ( talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As an option to attempt to solve a situation about whether appropriate for use as external links, the website http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt was insterted within the article as a reference. It seems even more clear to me that the use of the website as a source within the article is even more troublesome. MM 207.69.139.142 ( talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey. On the Westboro article, someone recently added the following text and used http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 as a source:
Some targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting.
Some groups against whom the protests are directed have used it as a fundraiser, getting their community to donate money to combat intolerance.(ref) One method used is to get donors to pledge money for length of time a given protest lasts.
The reference is a blog belonging to the Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce. Aside from the issues of weasel words in the quotes above, I'm pretty sure that the given reference doesn't back up the text in the article. And it's a blog, so it's not really a reliable source as it's self-published. Or am I mistaken? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have cited as a source in the article Iowa class battleship ussiowa.org, but its reliability has been questioned. I would like some input as to whether this meets reliable sourcing standards or not. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is desperately lacking citations given that this industry is still somewhat tied to obesity epidemic hype. Real, statistical data outside of national dress size averages are especially difficult: i.e. The quantity and location of international agencies servicing this industry are not listed in published media, however the information is germane to the discussion of global growth and spread of work. Can this page: [60] serve as a source for such information? This site styles itself as an archive to the industry, spanning work from 1999 -2010, is non-profit and without conflict of interest to article. Author is a model but does not self promote (outside of explaining her credentials on profile page); searching on her name in the site does not yield results. The research for the list appears to be sound, without prejudice and is free of agenda. The previously longest-established source for this information: [61], has not been updated for some time (3 years?) and was Nth American-centric to begin with.
The article is heading towards warring as other editors have been adding OR specifically to create ref links to their blogs. One site oft-linked [62] openly declares its censorship of discussion at the top of every forum page, has only a small community, and has been cited on other websites for repeated censorship of comments. Advice, please. AntiVanity ( talk) 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see what the issue here is. Both of the mentioned sites are self-published and have no editorial oversight. Both are disqualified as reliable sources. 216.95.109.143 ( talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
See WP:SPS for when it is appropriate to cite to a weblog. Self-published, by itself, isn't necessarily disqualifying, especially if the weblog is cited for the opinions of its independently notable author. THF ( talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seeking clarification on when these sources can be used in an article.
I believe the following usage is acceptable:
In 2009, UN Watch had more than 3,700 fans on Facebook [1], almost 1,800 subscribers on YouTube [2] and over 350 followers on Twitter. [3]
Essentially these sources could be used as primary sources if:
Is this correct? Would the material need to be mentioned in a secondary source as well?-- 71.156.85.18 ( talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Again in reference to:
In 2009, UN Watch had more than 3,700 fans on Facebook [4], almost 1,800 subscribers on YouTube [5] and over 350 followers on Twitter. [6]
I had been thinking that the material was borderline acceptable on the grounds that it came from the organization's official channels. My reading of the discussion is that one user has pointed out that the information is unverifiable, another user has expressed concern that the sources should never be used at all, and another user pointed out that the information is being used to just desrcribe the organization's fan base (i.e. it could be seen as "unduly self-serving")
I am thinking this means that the information in this form is unacceptable. Are there any specific guidelines about when this type of material is acceptable?-- 71.156.85.18 ( talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
[63] is written by Christopher Monckton. Is it a reliable source to confirm his Graves disease? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts how can the reliability assessment can be done on Middle East Review of International Affairs? Specifically, Richard Landes publishes his analyses of the Goldstone report in the latest MERIA volume. -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
How reliable should we treat slocartoon.net for sourcing? For example I used it to support a claim that Yuka Aimoto is a voice actress. Two other articles also use it for sourcing, but only in combination with another source: Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, and Lapitch the Little Shoemaker.
slocartoon.net is written in Slovenian; here is a translation of their FAQ for "Slocartoon community" which appears to describe what a registered user can do, and that administrators review user input. I would not like to judge but guess that it is marginally more reliable than IMDB (which allows registered users to enter details - that from my experience are not checked if obscure). - 84user ( talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
Interesting problematic I'd like to share hear and hear opinions about. I'd like views on to what extent, if any, we should rely on this article.
Joint Publishing is a Chinese publishing house with offices in Hong Kong. Its PRC bureau in Beijing publishes a weekly 'living' magazine entitled " 三联生活周刊", from the cover of which one can tell is destined for the mainland marketplace. Very recently, it published an article in Chinese, for which there is no equivalent nor translation, which was carried by major Chinese web portals, for example Sina and official sites such as Gansu provisional government and elsewhere.
We are discussing the use of this article as a source on the controversial execution late in December 2009 or a British national Akmal Shaikh by the Chinese authorities for drug trafficking. The article has a number of interesting revelations which is making me question it, and the possible existence of selective under-reporting in London. Firstly, it states at the top that it is written by a trainee reporter. The article is quite comprehensive account of the man's life, but does not make clear how the early part is sourced, but it looks like parts of it (mostly before Poland) are directly translated from recent press articles about his story. However, there is divergence with the story in Poland. A number of details of his life in Poland, as apparently told to the magazine's reporter by one of the people he knew in Poland - a Briton named Gareth Saunders and a photographer named Luis Diaz which is considerably richer than what I have read in Western reports. For example, Diaz is mentioned nowhere in British press reports; the article includes, for instance a whole paragraph where Saunders describes attending a wedding where Akmal sang his 'rabbit' song. However, there was some very contentions material. Shaikh was quoted as saying something rather incriminating: 桑德斯說他曾在華沙市中心的一家書店裡遇見過阿克毛,阿克毛指著坐在樓上看書的一個黑人對桑德斯說他是個毒販子。(Saunders said he once met Akmal in a bookshop in the centre of Warsaw, where Akmal pointed to a black man seated upstairs reading and told him he was a drugs trafficker). There are passages where the reporter cites a court employee, without citing the name or capacity of same, and some details from the defence attorney which might be considered privileged in the west. Whilst I am not surprised that a Chinese reporter will obtain more information from official Chinese sources, it surprises me somewhat that the picture painted by this portrait is pretty much at odds with anything in the western press. The other side of this to bear in mind are the interests of Reprieve, a charity opposed to the death penalty and which lobbied for Shaikh's release and who supplied much of the background to the British press, and a British government facing election year. For further information, please refer to discussion on the article's talk page. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
In order to remove material from wikipedia
[1] it has been claimed regarding
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |nopp=
ignored (|no-pp=
suggested) (
help)that "Transaction is not an acceptable publisher as it pushes an ideological line with a direct connection to the article's purpose. This work is not acceptable as it is..." [2]. Any comments? Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 15:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Both the author and the publisher satisfy Wikipedia's reliability requirements. The author is an expert in the field, and the publisher is a respectable publishing house that specializes in this kind of material. Jayjg (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
This source is clearly reliable by WP's standards. All sources have a POV, and if having a POV disqualified a source, we'd have no sources. There may be a question of WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE if there is consensus that its views are those of a tiny minority, but after a casual inspection I would consider that unlikely. Crum375 ( talk) 04:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Transaction Publishers is not only RS, I would point out [3] with a Keep result. [4] ". The publisher, Transaction Publishers, is likewise an established and reputable academic publishing house." [5] operating internationally with other academic publishers. Cited as RS in about a thousand WP articles. And most editors who have themselves used RS/N keep it on their watchlist. Collect ( talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Transaction is run by Irving Louis Horowitz, a notable and influential sociologist. From a 1988 New York Times feature on Horowitz and Transaction: "Today, the name Transaction identifies a leading publisher, based on the Rutgers University campus in Piscataway, of social-science books and periodicals." -- JN 466 22:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Transaction Publishing is used by academics who wish to push a neoconservative point of view without submitting their "reasoning" to academic scrutiny. If you believe that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was behind the 911 attacks then this is the publisher for you. Otherwise, it is just another publisher of fringe theories. The fact that it is located on Rutger's campus means nothing. The Four Deuces ( talk) 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with a user over this edit to National Public Radio. I don't think I'm wrong in this case, though I'm not aware of anything specific in policy or guidance that I can point this editor to. Any assistance would be appreciated. older ≠ wiser 19:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Askimam.org is a website run by Mufti Ebrahim Desai. Can i use the content of his fatwas as a reliable source? See this and this for further information on him and his institution. Hamza [ talk ] 08:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if I could get some opinions on whether this website is a reliable source. I haven't read any of his books, but he does seem to be a published author. Would that make individual articles within this website reliable? Cheers, Ranger Steve ( talk) 11:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this source reliable for the biographical info on Ace Amerson? The prose does not look professionally written (referring to a season on a reality TV show as a "TV serial"; referring to him as a "famous actor" when he's a reality TV personality whose fame is relegated to MTV viewers; referring to his alma mater as "the Georgia Southern University."; etc.), but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream ( talk) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Are any of the areas on Blogspot reliable, even for images? Is this page reliable for the image of the 1907 post card shown, or do even images need their own separate authentication? Nightscream ( talk) 19:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for additional opinions if the source of information is considered reliable in its given context to satisfy notiability guidelines for the creation of the article.
Here is an acticle draft, which uses the referenced source and a related talk page on a deletion review with an adminstrator. Deadalus821 ( talk) 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this figure File:UStaxprogressivity.png appears in this article. The provided source is a similar figure at [14] which I see as a self-published op-ed. Another editor claims that the figure is produced by two authors that I can't find reference to on the page ("Economist Karen Walby, Ph.D., and Economist Laurence Kotlikoff, Ph.D."). But it is not clear to me how he comes to that conclusion. It looks to me like the linked page cites a self-published adendum to an NBER working paper by Kotlikoff and Rapson that does not appear to support the claim made by factcheck.org (specifically, the table they cite does not calculate gini coefficients.
For existing discussion, see Talk:Taxation_in_the_United_States#gini_as_measure_of_progresivity.
Thanks in advance for any help! 018 ( talk) 01:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So I guess the question is this: is a memo published by fairtax.org self published? I think that the quote from WP:RS, "this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Is fairtax.org reputable and peer-reviewed? apparently factcheck.org found them to be unreliable (hence this piece which is a response to, "Unspinning the Failrtax" [15]). But getting in a tussle with factcheck.org can't really be the end all. However, I would propose that any advocacy group, commenting on its topic of advocacy should be considered similar to a person writing on them self for BLP, that is reliable only if they don't have a dog in the particular fight or are reporting on themselves (i.e. who their CEO is, et cetera). 018 ( talk) 02:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is what we have for anyone who would like to comment:
Disagreement:
I hope I summarized our points correctly, if briefly but I'll allow Morphh to update his claim if he likes. 018 ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor on Gas chamber is trying to use the Institute for Historical Review as a credible source. I have checked the archives of this noticeboard, and it has been tangentially dismissed as an unreliable source. I'd like confirmation one way or the other. Hohum ( talk) 15:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This page is used as a source in the article System of a Down. Is this in any way reliable? ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
There has been some discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard about the Transcendental Meditation article group. Some claims have been made about the purported effects of TM to affect things such as frequency of car crashes, crime rates, etc.
These strike many of us as being classic examples of File Drawer Effect, Data dredging and a failure to differentate between correlation and causation however some editors who focus almost exclusivey on TM articles have claimed that there are "peer reviewed studies" demonstrating a causal link between TM and various phenomena.
It would appear these studies originate from the Marharishi University of Management, a school founded by Maharishi Mahash Yogi, the yogi responsible for TM. My question is if anyone here has any information on the reliability of these studies. Simonm223 ( talk) 16:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The Orme-Johnson et al research has flaws which should have been evident to the reviewers. Publication of the article indicates a failure in the review process rather than a failure in the standards by which social scientific research is evaluated. I will focus on the JCR article, but most of these criticisms also apply to the subsequent research on this theory. [Schrodt. A Methodological Critique of the Effects of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 1990, 34: 745-755]
There is a long list of journals that I promised to check up and have done so now. They are mostly listed by the ISI and reputable. Disciplines are jumbled up. If we're to include such a statement I think each needs to be referenced independently. An article would normally carry the institutions that the authors are affiliated to and that would be a sufficient reference. The institute's own journal isn't listed at ISI.
This is a separate issue from claims about the effects of TM which also need to be referenced properly. Doc James' point about reviews of the topic is particularly helpful. Itsmejudith ( talk) 15:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
hi, I'm quite new to referencing. so ehh..i have few question.
Can these sources be used? reliable?
Can you point out which can be used or which can't?-- LLTimes ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The following RfC has been raised after inconclusive discussion about whether to include citation totals or statistics (from Google Scholar, Web of Knowledge or MathSciNet) in an article in order to support notability — Talk:Steve Shnider#RfC Using citation totals in articles on academics.
This was raised after asking for a third opinion and searching for policy. Your comments or recommendation as to which policy applies would be welcome.— Ash ( talk) 11:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
In this posting on this page, O18 and Simonm223 argue that advocacy groups can not be reliable sources and that there is a requirement for academic review. I find nothing in policy to support that claim. The fact is the much research is done by interest groups or advocacy groups of some kind on various topics. Most controversial articles in Wikipedia contain references that present a point of view from one side or another from such sources. No where in WP:RS does it even mention the word "advocacy group", "interest group", or otherwise. This claim that an advocacy group can not be a reliable source is not based on policy or even any sense of consensus. In fact, it is in opposition to wide consensus and policy. It could very well be a violation of NPOV to exclude such sources. It's like saying that you can't use AARP to source something on Medicare. They also seem to suggest that sources require academic peer-review. While certainly a goal for sourcing, I see nothing indicating this as a requirement or a definition of what satisfies that requirement. In addition, O18 makes the claim that anything published by an advocacy group is a self-published source. While some may fall into that category, it does not follow policy per what we describe that such sources are automatically considered self-published. I'm bringing this back up as it seems to be a major deviation from policy and if such is agreed upon, then policy should change to reflect the new consensus. Until a wider discussion on this issue is made, I do not want to accept this reasoning for source or content removal. Morphh (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to add here that I think Morphh and I are interested in this question broadly, not just for the discussion he linked to above. As an example, the article FairTax is largely well cited in the sense that there are journal articles, mainstream media articles, and op-eds. But there are some unrefereed papers on academic websites and papers from groups like The Tax Foundation and fairtax.org. Are these reliable sources? 018 ( talk) 17:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this
I think this is in line with RS and allows for inclusion of information that an advocacy group publishes, but it also makes it clear to the reader that the source should be considered in the text if the work has not been generally accepted--similar to an op-ed. 018 ( talk) 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so to summarize the views here, Ravensfire and Morphh feel that advocacy groups produce lots of material that is written by generally respectable university faculty and so they are an indispensable source. Collect, Simonm223, and FormerIP generally think existing policy is sufficient and want to see continued case by case basis judgment. Is that right?
I went through trying to figure out a particular case with Morphh, saw only one contributor comment (which neither of us found very satisfying) and see that there are lots of other pages where this applies that I could end up spending lots of time trying to pair them down to something that is more in line with what it looks like Collect, Simonm223, and FormerIP think the RS guideline is. If it were just the editing and I could point to something that put said, "advocacy groups are at best given op-ed status unless they meet the scholarly work requirements" I think I would do it. But I don't really want to get RVed and then have to discuss ad nauseum the relative merits of peer-reviewed work and secondary sources versus paid advocacy papers with every page/section's Wikipedia editors. 018 ( talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please confirm that sources do not need to be available free online? I've had this edit reverted on the basis that the Wall Street Journal article, which was available free online when I read it and updated the article based on it, is no longer available for free, so there is "no reference". [21]. Yes, I know this is standard, but on the basis of past interaction with this user, the chance of them accepting it based on my saying so is approximately zero. Thanks. Rd232 talk 10:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Is this site a reliable source for birthdates? Someone has used it to cite a birthdate in a BLP (a biography of a minor in fact) See Daeg Faerch and [22]. Ladyof Shalott 03:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
What should one do if the information provided in the reliable source is potentially false. Should it be tagged with some template? Is there any relevant template? I cannot find any appropriate one in WP:TC. I am specifically referring to article Sultan Rahi. This guy surely made many movies, but whether he was included in Guinness Records is not confirmed yet. I found this source from [www.dunyanews.tv Dunya News TV] but i believe it may potentially be false as imdb shows many actors with more prolific work. But they have not defined the word prolific. I mean in terms of movies, or soaps etc. Dunya News is a full fledged proper Urdu news channel. I have no doubt about it being a reliable source. But i think their team may have made a mistake here. I cannot see the Gui. Records book either because they don't mention all the records in each edition. It may be very pain staking to go through all editions. Same is the case with their website. Let me know if there is some easier method to do so. Do these particulars justify creating a new template for such situation. I mean, a template that should say further verificaton needed. Hamza [ talk ] 04:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on this page about the following passage of text:
The dispute concerns the last sentence (which I have bolded). There is no dispute that Critical Survey constitutes a reliable source, though of course that does not mean that arguments of its contributors are therefore "true". Academics often propose POVs attacking the POVs of other academics, and this is the case here. The question is whether the opinion of the editor of the journal should be quoted as significant, or whether this, in effect, constitutes advertising for the journal, "puffing" its contents. Can the editor of the journal be considered to be a reliable commentator on the value of articles contained within it? Paul B ( talk) 03:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone (Spanish required) please pitch in at Talk:Human_Rights_Foundation#moved_from_article? I see no evidence that the statement is supported by the sources. Rd232 talk 18:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor at Liverpool Care Pathway for the dying patient is insisting on using letters to the editor of a newspaper as a source. Is this permitted here? -- Reef Bonanza ( talk) 15:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Please confirm the following two sources are unreliable and should not be used for Wikipedia. The disputed point is the description about history of Shochu.
in order to remove material from wikipedia [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] it has been claimed that following scholars have never used such terms and/or "there is no proof that these terms have ever been introduced"
These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs...;
Next to be considered is the communist democide...
Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia.
Understanding communist mass killings is of vital importance not only...
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)unless I'm completely missing something with this, in case the scholars listed above have never used such terms indeed like claimed, the sources where its printed on black and white must not be reliable?-- Termer ( talk) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ask that AGF be observed where an editor has sought to use noticeboards for a specific query. The use of accusations here is not warranted, and may lead others to determine that those making the attacks are indeed the attackers. Collect ( talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there a wiki page or project that holds a list of known "review farm" websites?
Every week I am contacted by about twenty different websites wanting to write reviews on software my various companies sell. All they want in return is a reciprocal link. Such reviews are never neutral as they want to get as many reviews on their websites as possible and ideally you to publish the article on your own website. eg: cmswire, cmswatch...
There are also a number of websites that allow marketing managers to publish articles themselves. eg: pcworld.com, pressdispensary.co.uk...
In terms of quickly establishing and flagging non-notable references, if such a list existed the wiki system itself could be made to highlight such references. Sendalldavies ( talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The following sentence keeps on being deleted (5 times in 1 day last week , once just now), based on the claim that Daniel Goldhagen - a fomer Harvard Associate Professor with an international bestseller in the area and a PBS series forthcoming - is not a reliable source. I've asked the deleters to come here and explainwhy they don't think he is reliable, but they won't do it.
P. 344 is not that long. Would somebody look at Goldhagen's credentials, and verify that my summary is accurate? Smallbones ( talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC
In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's intention already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their elimionist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.
I think that it is most likely a misreading to add the 50 million and the 30 million together. The dates for the two speechs study materials and the speech are not given. So, either the number shrank from 50 million to 30 million with the target becoming more focussed from peasants in general to landlords and rich peasants in particular, or vice versa.
As for using Goldhagen or not, we have to remember that we are not writing PhD dissertations here. Thus, it is not up to us to determine the source material used by the authors and then vet the authenticity of same. Rather, we are supposed to be writing undergraduate level papers wherein we present articles that survey the literature on a given topic. Thus, whether to use Goldhagen or not depends on how one intends to present his material. Does his analysis fly in the face of accepted scholarship? Then it should be presented as such, presented as an alternative, not-widely-subscribed-to view, and fully cited accordingly. While I truly respect Fifelfoo’s caution, I am not altogether certain that one need wait for reviewers to vet the book prior to our being able to use it. It’s out there. And it presents an (alternative?) viewpoint that ought to be presented to wikireaders to maintain the article’s neutral point of view by surveying the spectrum of scholarship in the subject area. Finally, Goldhagen is notable enough that he qualifies for a wikiarticle, so why would a book by him, a book that is not self-published, not be notable enough to be cited so long as it is cited with due caution? — Spike Toronto 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Source is RS by WP standards, and as long as the numbers are cited to the author, it is properly in the article. [31] repeatedly cited by the NYT as an American scholar, so the author is notable as well. It is moreover, not up to us to decide which figures we like or do not like - as long as the numbers are sourced, we have to deal with it. Collect ( talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that both Rummel and Goldhagen can be used so long as they are presented as differing views. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that the article must, on balance, be neutral. To leave out one author’s differing calculations is to choose one view over another, which is not our job as neutral wikieditors. However, it is one thing for the Party to have made estimates of between 30 and 50 million, it is quite another if the subsequent reality is an entirely different figure. I would suggest that Goldhagen’s quote be used to illustrate the Party’s pre-genocide estimates, while Rummel’s numbers be used as a measure of the ensuing genocide. However, I think that one can find many sources that would disagree with Rummel, that his number is too low. I seem to recall reading back in the dark ages when I was at university that the number in reality was much nearer Mao and the Party’s estimate than Rummel’s calculation.
Finally, I still maintain, and agree with Jayen, that the 30 million and 50 million figures are not intended to be added together, regardless of whether WP:SYN would permit it or not. To do so is to misread, to misunderstand, the source. — Spike Toronto 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Question: What should the policy/guideline be about the use of questionable, but not totally unreliable sources like Xinhua, Pravda, Granma, etc. ? 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Can I restate my question? I don't claim the BBC is untrustworthy, or that it should be avoided because of its relationship to the government, the same for RTE, AFP, DW, PBS, and others of similar quality/reputability. My question was just on the ones that are run by countries whose news outlets' editors have direct line from the presidential palace on their desk, so to speak. 76.117.247.55 ( talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/
FRUS is a good research tool for persons interested in foreign policy and related issues. FRUS is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions, produced by the US Dept. of State. Is this a reliable source? I would think so, but would appreciate some verification.
Additionally, when doing research in the FRUS, some of the relevant documents may extend over several pages, and the portions relevant to the particular research subject at hand may be scattered here and there, etc., etc., over various pages, so for various reasons it is desirable to produce a series of excerpts of the FRUS, with a LINK back to the original page or pages. Is there any rule against quoting from a US government source in this fashion? The following would be an example -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/frus1948aa.htm
Continuing on in this line of inquiry, as regards what constitutes RS, we have some US government documents which are very difficult to locate online, or if located, are quite lengthy. The 1971 Starr Memorandum of the US Dept. of State is one good example. It is actually online at -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/One-China.cfm in PDF format, and is thirteen pages in length. Such a format, and length, makes it less than "convenient" for the access of many who use the internet. Nevertheless, I believe it meets the requirements of being an RS . . . . . so is that affected if a page of excerpts are presented in friendly html format? For an example, see -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm (I don't believe that a collection of a few excerpts presents any kind of copyright problem.)
Long before the days of the internet, a very important article discussing the international legal status of Taiwan was published in the Yale Law Journal. See Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title, by Lung-chu Chen and W. M. Reisman, The Yale Law Journal, March 1972. Is this a reliable source?? I would think so, being in such a prestigious law journal. However, it is very difficult to reference this article, because neither I nor my associates have ever been able to find a complete copy of the article in a publicly accessible internet site. I did manage to find a copy in a library once, and it was 73 pages long. I did photocopy some portions, and put those excerpts on a webpage, whereupon a friend was kind enough to fix it up in html format and post it on the web, see -- http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam1.htm Does presenting the information in this way violate any rules?
Is an international treaty considered an RS? When making reference to a treaty, are we required to quote various articles of the treaty to back up our statements? For example, in the Treaty of Peace with Italy (1947), there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of the Dodecanese islands to Turkey. For someone who has read the treaty, this is common sense, but others might argue that this is an "interpretation" or violates NPOV? How do we deal with such claims of other Wiki editors?
In a similar fashion, the Treaty of Paris (1898) did not cede the Philippines to New Zealand. But, if I write this on some Wiki page, and someone challenges my "assertion," and quickly deletes my statement(s) from the relevant Wiki page, how should my response be made? I am presenting the material objectively, and yet I am being challenged!!! This is very disturbing. Are there rules against "propaganda"? (I don't find any page for WP:Propaganda) My point is that there may be some people who believe that the Philippines are a long-lost island chain of New Zealand. From my point of view, that appears to be propaganda, but the people who promote that view obviously don't question it very thoroughly.
So . . . . where do verifiability and objectivity end, . . . and propaganda and political posturing begin?? I find myself often having this problem when quoting from US government sources and also from international treaties. Arguably, for someone with a lack of expertise on the content of a particular treaty, it might be necessary to read the entire treaty to comprehend one fact. What one fact? Well, an example would be if I wrote that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) did not cede the Mexican state of Tamaulipas to the United States. (Obviously, some treaties are long and somewhat complicated.) So, what is the correct course of action for me when I am challenged on something like this which (from a straightforward reading of the treaty) is an objective fact? And/or when I can offer verifiable commentary from prestigious sources (law journals, US government documents, etc.) to support my writing?
Significantly, in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco (1952) and Treaty of Taipei (1952) there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan) to China. This is quite clear from a straightforward reading of both treaties. The Starr Memorandum (mentioned above) also clarifies this point in detail. And yet when making simple references to such matters on various webpages, I often see my contributions deleted by other Wiki editors or moderators who claim that I have violated the rules for Verifiability (RS), NPOV, or OR.
I don't think that I have violated these rules. Can someone explain the rules/guidelines in more detail? Hmortar ( talk) 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I just inserted in an article in which I'm the main editor, United States Senate election in California, 1950, a tidbit from a political news article from March 1950, from the Los Angeles Daily News, about a bid for the Senate being dropped. The article consists of a number of various political tidbits, but the byline is given as "Frank Observer", something which was not unusual in Southern California newspapers of that era (possibly elsewhere too). I've put a comment in the reference stating "obviously a pseudonym". Anything else needs to be done?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen some references from Billboard Magazine dated March 9, 1959, P 52 and 53 referencing the Fleetwood's release of "Come Softly to Me." [1]
Also can see the video clip of their appearance on the Dick Clark Show on Youtube the same year 1959. [2]
But "Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods! [3] Karlamorningsun ( talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor of Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday is attempting to use the following sources to verify the scale of the event.
The first appears to be a Nazi propaganda film, which he maintains is "an official record". The second appears to be advertising blurb on a site selling a DVD of the same. Hohum ( talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in the film being termed "an official record". An official film record in Nazi Germany will, after all, be a Nazi propaganda film. Indeed, any official records that take a point of view are going to reflect to some extent of the regime it is an official record of. The film can certainly be used as a source - although as Slatersteven notes, as and I am sure you know anyway, it does take a biased view. The second link, as Slatersteven says, is not actually a source. It merely shows that you can acquire a film called "Hitler's birthday parade". It shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than that fact. I don't really have a problem about the film not being in English. Hibbertson ( talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not truckads.com is a RS on its own is not the question right now, it is only an example I have handy for this question, so please dont get sucked into tangents, as I know there are other issues about this site. The question is- it is claimed that this site doesnt have Nielson's permission to use its data and therefore it is a copyvio problem and therefore we cant use it, because the site we are citing is a copyvio even though we arent violating any copyrights because we are simply citing non-copyrighted information that happens to also be on the site. But is that an issue for us? Do we automatically not use legitimately accurate information because the site we link to MAY be copyviolating? I have no proof other than others say "it is claimed" that it is a copyvio site, I assume since we've had this link for quite some time now and the site still exists and hasnt been sued and removed that these are just "claims". I dont believe it is a matter for us to consider in considering whether or not this or any site is a RS. Along with the problem that we use neilson information ourselves, so do newspapers, there's nothing proprietary about the information that it cant be used on another site, so I'm not sure what the copyvio issue exactly since the articles in question do say that the description given is of Nielson geographic DMA's, it isnt claiming that they are something else, it is giving credit to Nielson. But anyways, in my opinion the only thing that should matter is in regards to being an RS or not is- is the information being cited accurate? If so, it's a RS for that piece of information; if not it is not a RS for that information. The NY Times for example if it gets a piece of information wrong it can not be cited as a RS for that information because the information is not accurate. We throw around things like "verifiable, not the truth", but ultimately it DOES come down to- is the information accurate? I am talking about information in which there is in fact a truth, eg- Nielson's DMA geographic area either does or doesnt cover certain counties; I dont want to get into an argument about "there is no truth" on this issue, I want to keep it to topic please. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I recently afd James Hyland who seems to me to be self-verified. But is moonfruit.com OK as a source? If not, should it be added to a spam list? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please tell me whether the follwoing sources reliable or not:
What piece of information are you seeking to support by reference to these sources, and why is it reasonable to conclude that those sources would be reliable for that piece of information. No source is reliable for every piece of information - without the piece of information you are looking to support, it is impossible to answer your question. Hibbertson ( talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
How to deal with self published and hard to verify primary sources (i.e. catalogs, press releases not found online or in any libraries) that are provided by the subject of the article? The usual procedure would be to accept them on good faith, if the claims are uncontroversial and plausible. That was done in one article, Richard Tylman initially. As there was a conflict of interest at least two editors tried to verify some of the more accessible sources and were not able to verify the claims (see [35] and [36] in particular]). Either the individual was not even mentioned in the source, or the source did not support the claims. Note that at least User:Victoriagirl was a completely uninvolved editor, with no prior contact to the subject of the article and not editing in his topic area (i.e. Eastern Europe, apparently a quite contentious topic area).
The question now is of course what to do with the other sources which are almost impossible to verify (not in libraries, not published, let alone anywhere online). For some sources the subject of the article provides convenience links to copies on his webpage. Compounding the problem is that whenever a claim in the article is questioned, new (and for all practical purposes inaccessible) sources suddenly appear. What to do? Can we trust the sources; should we stub the article to the most basic biographic information; should we stub the article to only include what at least allegedly though unverified third party sources published and exclude everything in primary sources (i.e. press releases and the like)? Pantherskin ( talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
To those not involved in the Bill Moyers article, would The Weekly Standard be regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of a BLP citation about facts on the subject? The author of the article, Stephen Hayes, is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. The article cited is used for simply describing the earnings of the subject of the BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll ( talk • contribs) 08:54, January 25, 2010
What does the article actually say, and why would it have access to the information it provides? Are there other reliable sources available for the same information?
Although not relevant to the question as to whether The Weekly Standard is a reliable source for the information you wish it to support, I do wonder why a subject's earnings (presumably for a particular period of time) are relevant or notable enough for inclusion in the article. Hibbertson ( talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
First, the excerpt seems quite old - presumably you can date it. If he took that amount over the past decade, but nothing since 1994. It suggests it is information from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If WS is usually considered reliable, I'd say this info appears to be reliably sourced - but be careful about the year. Even if the 200k figure is correct for the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, it is not clear where this info came from (could it have come from the Foundation itself?), nor is it clear what year it refers to. Did he receive 200k once for one or more years, and which years? The article seems as though it ought to be treated as reliable for the info from the CFB, but be careful over what you actually distil from it given its apparent age. In the absence of some idea as to where the info on the Foundation would come from, I wouldn't want to use the 200k figure. Hibbertson ( talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I also note this [37], which offers greater clarity on dates. I do not comment on its reliability though it does appear to have been written after an interview with him. Hibbertson ( talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Since the founder and editor in chief of the WS is neocon Bill Kristol, a well known GOP apparatchik who has had his errors and slanted reporting revealed numerous times (look it up, but for example Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column), I find it hard to believe editors here are okaying his partisan periodical as RS for the BLP of one of his hated enemies. A RS is defined as known for fact checking and accuracy, and there are numerous examples where this has not happened in the Weekly Standard. ► RATEL ◄ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A request for clarification: the article is about some people hacking into an academic server and the resulting investigation of both the crime and the reaction to the content of the released email. There have been two self published books about this incident - they are obviously not reliable sources, but the fact that they were published seems to be notable to the reactions section. What constitutes a reliable source to make such a claim? Simply the fact that the books exist would be trivially cited. On the other hand, there have been no news stories about the publications in a reliable source. But that is the case for most books. What is the correct way to go about this? Ignignot ( talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but the policy is absolutely clear and no 'clarification' is necessary. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There's a general confusion surrounding OR which is exemplified by Hipocrite's comment: "Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like wikipedia 101. It's the same as if I made a blog". This was the subject of a long discussion ( Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Deletion_of_examples_of_primary_sources_from_PSTS). Consensus is not that these things cannot be mentioned (there was no consensus). Whether or not they are allowed to be mentioned is up to the judgment of the editors involved. Personally I would wait until they're reviewed or discussed by another source. II | ( t - c) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
All of these have been published in written form:
^ The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948
^ The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947
^ American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously Incorporated since 1909)
^ National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously incorporated since 1952)
^ Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954)
^ Naturopathy, A Definition by Dr. Benedict Lust, MD, ND, DC, DO, March 1936, American Naturopathic Association, Washington DC. ^ Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951
^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. (December 1968)
^ _ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)
^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979
^ Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981
^ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)
^ Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)
^ Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)
^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)
^ Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)
^ School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)
^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979
^ State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.
^ Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.
^ (NPLEX)Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)...
^ NEPLEX Board Roster (1991)
^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36135910197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title54/T54CH51SECT54-5106.htm
-- Ndma1 ( talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, The "fringe" sources were only used in the naturopathy article for the purpose of relating how naturopaths view themselves and defined their profession. The governmental sources were used generally for historical background related to the profession or to document the legal status of an organization or group (for example the corporate status and history of an organization) I thought I was using these correctly but kept butting heads with somebody does not like what the sources say and so dismisses them as unreliable. Just wanted to make sure I was operating according to policy. -- Ndma1 ( talk) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help) or{{
cite journal}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)Some of these sources are primary, which could be good for descriptive basic information. Per WP:NPOV, naturopathic sources should be cited for views in their own articles and on particular topics they are close to. II | ( t - c) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been inserting information into the article on the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, based on Africa News. Leaving aside the fact he's using a two month old source saying he's been alive for three months to say something about now, I don't think Africa News is a reliable source, based on this [40]. The linked article [41] does say "The editorial team of Africanews.com supervises the content in the news section." but I still don't think this is an RS. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The web site http://politics.gaeatimes.com/2009/12/21/russias-communists-urge-nation-dont-criticize-stalin-on-his-130th-birthday-9548/ looks like a blog. Can it be used as a RS in the article about Stalin?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
About 144 links or references to Freebase (database) - a user generated database that also scrapes content from Wikipedia leading to many a circular ref. FYI and for folks willing to clean up. N.B. Freebase itself may be using reliable sources - in those cases, those sources should be referenced directly. – xeno talk 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
There is an ongoing content dispute as to whether the article on the Egyptian god Horus should include a comparison to Jesus. The sources that have been added detailing the comparison have been called out as unreliable by User:Farsight001. The question involves this edit: [43] from three separate editors, which was then reverted here: [44] due to "rampant use of unacceptable sources." These are the sources being used:
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)Are these sources demonstrably unreliable? Or can they be rightfully used as references for a section of the Horus article detailing the comparisons made between Horus and Jesus? ColorOfSuffering ( talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Can [47] be used to source this statement: However, Stanford has stated "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." -- NeilN talk to me 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying the source fulfills the guideline. Again (since you haven't seemed to address it): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" -- NeilN talk to me 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
WS, thanks for the links. Do pl note.
The argument whether or not the MBA piece is an editorial, while interesting, is moot. Schwertfeger's credentials establish her as a reliable source. Her piece refers to the Stanford document meaning we can now refer to it. Additionally, we are making no interpretive claims using the primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY carefully. It does not say primary sources can never be used on their own. -- NeilN talk to me 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
WS, I would suggest listing the issue separately because it could go a long way in redefining how Wikipedia looks at self published reliable sources. That's an issue where others could be motivated to answer. If you think it's logical, I can raise the issue on the reliable sources guideline as a general issue (of whether reliable sps can be considered equivalent to reliable sources). Your call (and yes, I'm sorry for replying late). Best. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This is a law journal, edited by students to "Law Review standards" ( http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/123/37/). Can material published there be used on WP? Tzu Zha Men ( talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.
The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any. Cross-posted here Semitransgenic ( talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
As an option to attempt to solve a situation about whether appropriate for use as external links, the website http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt was insterted within the article as a reference. It seems even more clear to me that the use of the website as a source within the article is even more troublesome. MM 207.69.139.142 ( talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey. On the Westboro article, someone recently added the following text and used http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 as a source:
Some targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting.
Some groups against whom the protests are directed have used it as a fundraiser, getting their community to donate money to combat intolerance.(ref) One method used is to get donors to pledge money for length of time a given protest lasts.
The reference is a blog belonging to the Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce. Aside from the issues of weasel words in the quotes above, I'm pretty sure that the given reference doesn't back up the text in the article. And it's a blog, so it's not really a reliable source as it's self-published. Or am I mistaken? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have cited as a source in the article Iowa class battleship ussiowa.org, but its reliability has been questioned. I would like some input as to whether this meets reliable sourcing standards or not. TomStar81 ( Talk) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is desperately lacking citations given that this industry is still somewhat tied to obesity epidemic hype. Real, statistical data outside of national dress size averages are especially difficult: i.e. The quantity and location of international agencies servicing this industry are not listed in published media, however the information is germane to the discussion of global growth and spread of work. Can this page: [60] serve as a source for such information? This site styles itself as an archive to the industry, spanning work from 1999 -2010, is non-profit and without conflict of interest to article. Author is a model but does not self promote (outside of explaining her credentials on profile page); searching on her name in the site does not yield results. The research for the list appears to be sound, without prejudice and is free of agenda. The previously longest-established source for this information: [61], has not been updated for some time (3 years?) and was Nth American-centric to begin with.
The article is heading towards warring as other editors have been adding OR specifically to create ref links to their blogs. One site oft-linked [62] openly declares its censorship of discussion at the top of every forum page, has only a small community, and has been cited on other websites for repeated censorship of comments. Advice, please. AntiVanity ( talk) 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see what the issue here is. Both of the mentioned sites are self-published and have no editorial oversight. Both are disqualified as reliable sources. 216.95.109.143 ( talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
See WP:SPS for when it is appropriate to cite to a weblog. Self-published, by itself, isn't necessarily disqualifying, especially if the weblog is cited for the opinions of its independently notable author. THF ( talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just seeking clarification on when these sources can be used in an article.
I believe the following usage is acceptable:
In 2009, UN Watch had more than 3,700 fans on Facebook [1], almost 1,800 subscribers on YouTube [2] and over 350 followers on Twitter. [3]
Essentially these sources could be used as primary sources if:
Is this correct? Would the material need to be mentioned in a secondary source as well?-- 71.156.85.18 ( talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Again in reference to:
In 2009, UN Watch had more than 3,700 fans on Facebook [4], almost 1,800 subscribers on YouTube [5] and over 350 followers on Twitter. [6]
I had been thinking that the material was borderline acceptable on the grounds that it came from the organization's official channels. My reading of the discussion is that one user has pointed out that the information is unverifiable, another user has expressed concern that the sources should never be used at all, and another user pointed out that the information is being used to just desrcribe the organization's fan base (i.e. it could be seen as "unduly self-serving")
I am thinking this means that the information in this form is unacceptable. Are there any specific guidelines about when this type of material is acceptable?-- 71.156.85.18 ( talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
[63] is written by Christopher Monckton. Is it a reliable source to confirm his Graves disease? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts how can the reliability assessment can be done on Middle East Review of International Affairs? Specifically, Richard Landes publishes his analyses of the Goldstone report in the latest MERIA volume. -- Sceptic from Ashdod ( talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
How reliable should we treat slocartoon.net for sourcing? For example I used it to support a claim that Yuka Aimoto is a voice actress. Two other articles also use it for sourcing, but only in combination with another source: Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, and Lapitch the Little Shoemaker.
slocartoon.net is written in Slovenian; here is a translation of their FAQ for "Slocartoon community" which appears to describe what a registered user can do, and that administrators review user input. I would not like to judge but guess that it is marginally more reliable than IMDB (which allows registered users to enter details - that from my experience are not checked if obscure). - 84user ( talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)