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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Issue: Steak and Oyster sauce was a common English recipe documented as early as 1815 ref The Times, 17 August 1815; Mendicity
My intoduction of the above refrerence has prompted the challenge I call bullshit on your Times reference.
I have uploaded the section : But could someone, with access to the time database confirm the validity of the refence? CyrilThePig4 ( talk) 13:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on improving the So Yesterday article and I notice there was a source confirming the July 15, 2003 airplay release date and July 29 retail date, but I'm not so sure of the reliability. It is an archive of an article from Business Wire (which I'm not sure if it's reliable or not either), but their website only has a limited archive of press releases. Could this FindArticles.com archive be used to confirm the release date? – Chase ( talk) 03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Just interested if the Yahoo! Music Chart Watch UK by James Masterton is considered a WP:RS. SunCreator ( talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Are op-eds in major newspapers considered reliable sources for supposed events that no other reliable sources publish?
Specifically, I am taking about this source. The article paints a very negative picture of the Islamic Society of Boston. But the authors of the article headed organizations that were sued by the ISB, which, IMO, renders them non-third party sources. Not surprisingly, then, the article uses rather biased and non-objective words to describe members of the ISB and others associated with it: "purveyors of the most intolerant religious teachings on the planet", "a hate-mongering preacher", "warped views".
Further, it makes statements of fact that I find hard to believe: "[ he Yusuf al-Qaradawi ] ... has urged that the Jews be murdered “to the last one.’’ "
Qaradawi is quite controversial, but the above statement is rather unbelievable. Should we accept the above source as legitimate or ask for other third party sources that report (and not editorialize) statements. VR talk 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Op eds (and even regular editorials), can be used only to source opinions held by their writers/publishers and are not a reliable source of "facts". Such opinions should be weighed for dueness and always need to be attributed in-line. Furthermore, in this particular case if the op-ed is used as a source for the writers' view of ISB, the CoI of the authors should be plainly stated just as Boston Globe itself does. Abecedare ( talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Reports of ties to radical Islam have been controversial. Boston Herald October 23, 2003
<noindex> Is [2] a reliable source? Using an online translator it seems it is in Czech. It is being used to confirm a person has acted in gay pornographic films - "Czechoslovakian competitive bodybuilder and model appearing in several gay porn films". If this is not reliable enough can those looking offer an alternative source? Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Web Gallery of Art a reliable source for information about a nineteenth century artist? -- Defender of torch ( talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The book Holy Madness, by this guy Georg Feuerstein. At issue is this book is published by this guy, controversial guru Lee Lozowick [3], who uses the Hohm press, [4] to self publish his own books as well as the books of others. The book is being used as a source to bring in contentious claims about another controversial guru, Adi Da. Concern is that book appears to directly source internet attack sites and there are concerns that there may be editorial bias, or a lack of editorial oversight, even though technically not self-published. David Starr 1 ( talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This is being used as the main source in several articles on dubious nutritional supplements. IT doesn't strike me as a reliable source. I have found blog references (themselves unreliable as sources for wikipedia) that said that the journal is funded by a guy who is himself a major sales person of "neutraceuticals" and is mainly used as a sales brochure for supplements masquerading as a scientific journal.
My own digging seems to support this and it would appear that the journal is not peer reviewed, is not affiliated with any sort of school and is - to be blunt - not an academic journal at all.
I thought it'd be best to bring this here before taking precipitious action (which will likely involve more than one stubbing and a couple of prods). Simonm223 ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this page suitable for citation as a source on Singita Game Reserve? It's a third party, possibly a Trade association (or " more than" that) but not a regulatory body. AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A Request for comment which may be of interest to the reliable sources noticeboard: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.
Various online archives keep information for longer. At WP:GOODCHARTS, the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.
Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was
This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.— Kww( talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? -- SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson ( talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.I am reluctant to use everyhit.com as a reliable source for UK Singles Charts. While there is rarely errors is any of the main chart sites, if there is some it is in everyhit.com
In my experience reliable sources for UK Singles Charts are in order of quality:
Upon further reflection I realise the situation of finding an error in a chart source is akin to looking for a spec of dust on a pinhead. The above discussion of supposedly 'impeccable reputation' like the BBC made me laugh and put into context that in fact, a BBC news source is much less reliable. Chart information isn't open to much interpretation, it is fixed information, an exact thing that is verified and checked to the OCC at the time. That means very little historical error ever occurs. So I am open to pass even everyhit.com off as a WP:RS. If one is ever in any doubt then multple referenced could be used, and even more in the most unlikely event of there being a conflict(has this ever occured in UK chart data on wikipedia?) then an email to the OCC will soon give you a solution. SunCreator ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
so basically, after all the discussions all over wiki that have taken place recently reguarding uk chart sources, other than the OCC and ChartsPlus, we're still no closer to a firm decision over what is acceptable and whats not. i guess they'll just have to carry on being treated on a case-by-case business, which sucks. Mister sparky ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is a Jerusalem Post article, reporting that Richard Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish comminity has plummeted following his UN report a reliable source, [5] or is it necessary to cite scientific polls to make claims about changes in the popular perception? For discussion, see Talk:Richard Goldstone (6, 10 and 15). -- Jonund ( talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the blog, http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/, a reliable source? What about http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx? The relevant article is Electric Retard which is currently being discussed at deletion review. Before the article is undeleted and listed at AfD, I want to know if these are reliable sources.
I am inclined to believe that the first source is unreliable; see the tone of the articles listed at http://www.readplatform.com/, the homepage. The second source is possibly reliable per Pcap's comment at the DRV. Thank you for taking a look at this. Cunard ( talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Source:
Articles:
Complaint: I had quoted some material from the above source but some people think that the articles aren't reliable.
Parties involved:
Concerned material: Encyclopedia Britannica labels RSS a "militant Hindu organization" [1] and says that "Hedgewar was heavily influenced by the writings of the Hindu nationalist ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted much of his rhetoric concerning the need for the creation of a 'Hindu nation'. Hedgewar formed the RSS as a disciplined cadre consisting mostly of upper-caste Brahmins who were dedicated to independence and the protection of Hindu political, cultural, and religious interests." [2]
Would appreciate a third party opinion.-- Evox777 ( talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
On invitation and for answering the complain of Evox777 i am hear and bellow are my counter claims and reference's which proves that the content of Britannica is not always correct and never be considered as fully neutral on few topics. Acceptance of Britannica about the mistakes on the articles of Hinduism and related org, they founded it wrong and promised to bring the necessary change which will take time http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 this is indian NGO who had asked Britannica to revive the content.This is another claim made by a 12 year old boy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article506346.ece and Britannica had to accept the claims about the mistakes made by there so called experts. This is the book written by Kister's http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aUhjQgAACAAJ&dq=0897747445.&ei=AZ5qS6bFCYOSkASAsvyuDQ&cd=1 who had beautifully compared different encyclopedias and had doubted about the neutrality of Britannica's articles.
Moreover This are journals published by University of Chicago written by George L Burr http://www.jstor.org/pss/1832843 in which he had clearly mentioned its neutrality and laughed at Britannica and its contents.
In this news link also the Britannica is doubted http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n. Irish news had alleged Britannica for providing wrong information about the history http://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html
My point hear is only that the information of Britannica can not be considered as authentic and free from biasness. Britannica is a form of corporate structure in which people are paid employee and no one can say that what mind set a person have writing the article on any person or organization. Regarding the complain of Evox777 this are his words and POV "reputation of an organization involved in mass killings, question anything remotely critical of the organization" which shows the users mind set while editing the article which is a dangerous sign while one is doing a selfless contribution to an open source, because one can't contribute neutrally if he/she had mind set for the particular person or org.
One more thing i will like to bring in the notice that the user had tried to fill the article with the references of Britannica only in different sections. My question is that how much advisable it is to use the same reference's again and again and filling the whole article. I can bring more reference's if asked by my contributer friend. regards -- Sandeep ( talk) 10:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This article will clearly show the biased nature of Britannica Hinduism and its beliefs http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
This is the article published by university of Chicago written by Amy Barverman http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml She had clearly mentioned that the so call religious scholars use to mis concept Hinduism and RSS is the social and cultural organization working in india for the prevention of Indus religions.-- Sandeep ( talk) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with our friend G.Ruban and that's what i was saying since long. I just want to ask that can a whole article be edited with a single source and that to in so much controversies. The same references is getting used in every section of the article just to make it POV. There must be some standard to edit certain things on the basis of discussion and considering the view points of every user with proper neutral references. If one references say that one is a murder and another says that he/she is a holy person then i think that we must avoid discussing about that issue and concentrate on other parts... what my friends says ????????-- Sandeep ( talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys.-- Evox777 ( talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As said by my friend Sean.hoyland that facts must be selected and not the oponions and this militant tag is the oponion of the Brittinica so how can we consider it as a fact. I also consider Brittinica a reliable source but it is little biased to some topics and that to about RSS it is confirmed by my refrences of Hindu Jan Jagruti's mail conversation http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 . So hear i will request all my friends that in this case we can't consider Brittinica as reliable source. -- Sandeep ( talk) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Britannica has an article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) itself. But RSS is not referenced to as 'most militant Hindu organization' in it. Rather, in an article on an unrelated topic Hanuman, the author of article opines that RSS is most militant Hindu organization. So, there is clear inconsistency with respect to whether Britannica considers RSS as 'most militant organization'. Considering this, dear admins, will it be a good idea to mention in wiki that Britannica says "RSS is most militant Hindu organization"? Further, this stray remark about RSS in Hanuman article is not substantiated with anything related to it before or after it in the article. One more thing to note here is the quality of article Hanuman on Britannica. This article by controversial writer Wendy Doniger translates 'Ramayana' from Sanskrit into English as "Romance of Rama" which is completely incorrect. Admins, please suggest if you think it is good for an Wiki article to quote from Britannica's Hanuman article. -- Deshabhakta ( talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As per the articles of Titchener which is included in the trusted archive of Indian University press the secondry articles of Brittinica are not adapted for intelligent readershttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1413113
I will also request admins to stop the user Evox777 using the references of Brittinica as this is still in discussion and yet come out with some conclusion.-- Sandeep ( talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
As per the Analaysis of Hinduism Studies of America AAR people who are famous for there biased nature on south east religions. AAR people not only holds Key positions in Brittinica but use veto incase of artilces related to south-eastern religion http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/71/52/
The fallowing article is clearly showing that due to few scholors like Dongear and Brittinica the Hinduism and its org is badly shown in west countries http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030314.htm-- Sandeep ( talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Conclusions were: Not an RS for the song as recorded/released. Paysite should not be linked to. Cite only with attribution, mentioning that info is per sheet music published by the named publisher. -- JN 466 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am currently doing a GA review, and the nominated article cites musicnotes.com (sheet music published by Alfred Music Publishing; the specific link is [7]). The source is cited for song details such as the number of instruments used, that it's in E minor, and that its tempo is 130 beats per minute.
I am not happy with the fact that the link invites me to download software, "including 5 free songs", and I reckon the link has to go. The publisher is clearly reputable though, and theoretically the sheet music could be cited like treeware, without a link.
However, using sheet music in this way raises a reliability question. Does anyone know how faithful such sheet music is to the recorded version of the song, and whether it can be used as a reliable source for describing details of the song as released? I am concerned that the arrangement reproduced in the sheet music may be simplified, leaving out a lot of details (overdubs etc.). As far as I am aware, such sheet music is designed to enable amateurs to play a song at home. It is not designed to be a faithful representation of the song as recorded. -- JN 466 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Musicnotes provides a digital copy of the published sheet music. It does require some freeware to view the digital copy, but I don't have any reason to believe the freeware is dangerous (I have it installed on multiple machines). In the cases that I have both a physical copy and a digital copy of the same song, the reproduction is faithful.
There are limits to using sheet music as a source. Some sheet music is specifically a transcription of a particular recording, and others are adaptations to make it playable for a given skill level or instrumentation. Generally, if the key has been changed, there's a note like "capo up to fret x to match recording" or something similar, but that isn't an absolute rule. I'm skeptical of using any sheet music that isn't specifically labeled as a transcription.— Kww( talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for weighing in. So, deriving a tentative conclusion from the above input, if we cite musicnotes.com –
I believe the Madonna FA should then be updated accordingly, as it will otherwise encourage further inappropriate use of this source.
Unless someone wishes to argue that this summary is incorrect, I propose we can close this thread with the above conclusions. (I'll wait for a day or two before closing the thread to allow for further input.) -- JN 466 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
SUPPORT the summary bullet points, if it is 'corrected' to reflect the subsequent discussion of checking which EXACT publisher/company is their source.— Iknow23 ( talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Somebody marked the issue resolved, but I still have concerns. My concerns are these: 1) The references for the legal charge do not seem to be reliable for an accusation such as this. I have seen that numerous people try to push gossip sources as reliable, and I would like to see this one properly sourced. Since there is no disagreement that the charge was a real one, I am not sure why this request is unreasonable. 2) The editors that have been making these edits have been attempting to shut down the discussion on this issue by making charges of bad faith and refusing to engage in any discussion whatsoever. This concerns me because it seems to be the way that some people make bad faith BLP edits. I am not saying this is the case, it just seems to be. In any case, I would like to see more input about the use of these sources on this BLP before this issue is closed.-- Jarhed ( talk) 09:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal for the reasons you cite.-- Jarhed ( talk) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have honestly never read such utter nonsense. Firstly, to be "bound over" is a sentence that necessitates either a guilty plea or a guilty verdict for a criminal offence. People cannot be bound over if they are found innocent. Being bound over means that you have to sign a written agreement stating that you will be of good behaviour for a certain period of time after commiting an offence, otherwise you will have to pay a penality. You can also be fined and bound over for a further sum of money simultaneously - the two are not mutually exclusive measures (see this Metropolitan Police Authority document but Google a few court cases yourself if you like). The source you quoted says that Stedman Pearson "admited public indecency" at his hearing at Kingston Court. Admiting to a charge in court is pleading guilty. Honestly - what do you think pleading guilty means? And at no point did his article page mention the word "conviction", nor is that a necessary factor for the inclusion of these details. The article merely stated what he was arrested for, that the matter went to court, and the sentence the court gave him. One source says he was fined, another says he was bound over for £100. It would most likely be both, but regardless, this incident still happened and there were four valid sources to prove it. I think the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here. Roguana ( talk) 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sure this has come up before. Another contributor feels it is essential to add "a liberal weblog" after Huffington Post, in the article for a journalist and historian who is also a regular contributor at the HP, the first time HP is mentioned.
The HP is like a print newspaper, in that the authors are generally chosen for being authoritative or otherwise notable commentators. Is it really necessary, or even a good idea to append "a liberal weblog" to "Huffington Post"? Would we do this for a print newspaper?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Can other sites be considered "Reliable Sources"? I am currently in a discussion on the Symphonic rock and Progressive Rock talk threads over changing the name of the genre "Symphonic rock" to either "Symphonic Progressive" or "Symphonic Prog". I have used Progressive Rock sites such as the [ Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock], [ Prog Archives] and even on-line stores such as [ Amazon] as "Reliable Sources". The first two as sources specific to Progressive Rock and the latter as a "General Usage" reference.
Is this content here Azax World magazine a reliable source it is reporting some content from this source, http://www.prnewswire.co.uk I couldn't see the authors name and it looked like you only need to register to upload content? Off2riorob ( talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this Slashdot article, which was submitted by a Wikipedia editor, sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:Notability purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM#Pending Slashdot Story/Review. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Slashdot.org is a reasonable source, and generally meets WP:RS, although with a certain degree of caution. Articles posted there are subject to editorial discretion (although comments following articles are not). The degree of editorial vetting that happens on Slashdot is definitely far less than in, e.g., a peer-reviewed source, but it is not a self-published source like a blog or personal website.
The above comment about the rapid publication schedule Slashdot is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding. The New York Times or CNN, for example, are eminently reliable sources, both of which often publish within minutes of the events they describe. The fact a source has an editorial review of hours (as opposed to days or weeks) merely describes the type of events and process it uses, but does not speak to its reliability (or the notability of topics addressed).
The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it does add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the notability of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts about the topic. LotLE× talk 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for AfD re JWASM, where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- spin control 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not WP:AGF of other editors. Moreover, his position is absurd. It seems to be that if a WP article discusses a topic--not only as an editor of a WP article, but also a commenter on its talk page or an AfD about it--that editor is barred from writing about the same topic for other moderated publications concerning the same topic. Not for the New York Times, not for the Journal of Programming Languages, nowhere that might externally indicate relevance or notability of a topic. The fact is that Slashdot is really not the most carefully edited publication in the world. But it is an edited publication. The large majority of submissions for Slashdot articles are rejected (my understanding is that their acceptance rate is along the lines of 1/20th), and those articles that are accepted are edited by paid staff editors before publication (yes, often sloppily modified, but it's only the paid staff who can actually publish on the website--in articles, not in comments). The submission and subsequent publication of a review of JWASM--by a recognized expert in its field--by Slashdot indeed is relevant to the notability of its topic (although indeed should not be a sole indication of notability). The fact that the recognized expert happens to be a WP article is irrelevant... FWIW, I have also had an interest piqued by reading WP articles, and subsequently published moderated articles in various WP:RSs as followups to that acquired or renewed interest. And I very much hope that experts in other fields have done and continue to do likewise. LotLE× talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is here. It's that simple. -- spin control 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Spook said:
A look at the history confirms this [10]. Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you wrote an article, even if it's in a reliable secondary source do not add it yourself. Mention it in the talk page and let others decide whether it has any merit in the article. Being an editor here and at Slashdot is not mutually exclusive, but editing articles to promote content you edited in Slashdot is. Remember that even if you have good intentions one of the inherent problems is that when you have a COI, it's very difficult for you to be neutral and adding links to somethign you wrote is always going to come across as needless self promotion Nil Einne ( talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The article List of people from Reading, Berkshire draws heavily for it's WP:RS on two web pages published by Reading Borough Libraries Great People of Reading and Other Great People of Reading.
It looks like the the ultimate source for this list is The Oxford DNB but my question is, are these pages WP:RS given there is a clear WP:COI between Reading Borough Libraries and promoting Reading ? Codf1977 ( talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- another editor ( Eliscoming1234 ( talk · contribs)) wants to use blogs as sources (e.g. [12]). I have indicated on the talk page that this is unacceptable, but my attempt to remove these references and ask for better ones was reverted. This should be a straightforward matter, but rather than get into edit war I'm looking for feedback here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if the links in question could be verified, I fail to see how they constitute evidence that this blog is the "official site" of the yeshiva. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Power.corrupts ( talk · contribs) has been removing several unsourced BLP tags and adding links to Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, claiming that is a reliable source since it was once professionally manged. But since then it has been converted to a wiki that anyone can edit and that is the source that Power is linking to. He claims there is editorial oversight, but according to their editing guide anyone can edit it. I contend it is an invalid source per WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS and would like him to stop adding links to it to articles claiming it is a source to support the verifiability of the topic and to comply with the BLP policy. MBisanz talk 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Tonight, I discovered via Amazon.com that a second digital release will occur for the song Bad Romance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I added the content to the article using the Amazon.com MP3 store page as the reference. It was reverted by Legolas2186 ( talk · contribs) the first time around because it was a " retail link". I brought this up on his talk page where he suddenly changed his reason for removing it stating that " Amazon fails as a WP:RS" where the only discussion concerning this has been when I brought up the issue with his reverts on his talk page. The third time he stated that if I added the content back it would be considered vandalism.
A good portion of the other releases concern the content existing on iTunes, so stating that Amazon.com is a "retail link" and should not be used is pointless. He has told me that my addition of this information with a source is considered vandalism, and I have never encountered anything in WP:RS or WP:VAND that states that this. Clearly, there needs to be some outside input concerning the use of this Amazon MP3 Store link. Legolas2186 states that "Amazon chooses to sale a product irrespective of the owner's agreement, while itunes only sells licensed and copyrighted products released to them". All of the Amazon.com MP3 store is mirrored on iTunes, so I do not see why this would be a reason against using the Amazon.com link as a source. If next week, the iTunes Store has this content and I add it, there would be no opposition against my addition of the content it seems.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically, can Amazon.com be used as a reliable source when it comes to (digital) music release dates/content? And where the hell was there a discussion that says Amazon.com cannot be a reliable source, as Legolas2186 suggested?—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is that I added a statement (or a list) that said that this digital album exists. I did not use the Amazon.com page to say when the album is going to be released but that it is going to be released. The reasons as to why Legolas2186 removed it seems to just be because the reference is to Amazon.com and not, say, the iTunes Store which is certainly not accessible to everyone. I have not gotten a good enough response as to why this particular link cannot be used, other than from Peregrine Fisher in that it should not be allowed just because the album has not been released yet. I think that this is ridiculous. Why should a link to the iTunes Store page following its release be the only reference used on the article? Why can't a link to an Amazon.com page prior to its release be used? And what if after the album is released it is only available via Amazon.com? Would I have to argue against Legolas2186's reasoning here that just because it is only available on Amazon means that the content cannot be added to the article?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
None of the sites are reliable for release dates. Not because the site it unreliable but because for commercial/logistic reasons it is often advantageous to move the release dates at the last minute. I do think it's fine to use amazon as a wp:rs. I will comment more on the above issues when at a PC(currently on iPhone) and above section is to big to add comments. SunCreator ( talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, Amazon.com's MP3 store is a reliable source for information on digitally released music. Legolas2186 should not have edit warred to remove the link to the Amazon.com store, which was probably just because he does not want to use it as a source. It turns out that after he reverted me for the third time, he added a hidden comment.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Like to add this in while it occurs to me. This track which in the UK is only currently on the album Jay Sean Featuring Sean Paul And Lil' Jon - Do you remember. iTunes have recently revised the album date to 12 February 2010 - two days ago. However that is not correct it has been there for ages, it's been in the UK charts(based on album track downloads) for a while now see chart info (you'll find it as #23). So iTunes are not without faults! SunCreator ( talk) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This article currently lists a great many notable people as "Georgists." (Ambrose Bierce [22] Matthew Bellamy [23] Ralph Borsodi [24] William F. Buckley, Jr. [25] Winston Churchill [26] Clarence Darrow[27] Michael Davitt [28] Henry Ford[29] Mason Gaffney David Lloyd George [30] George Grey [31] Walter Burley Griffin[32] Fred Harrison William Morris Hughes Aldous Huxley Blas Infante [33] Mumia Abu-Jamal[34] Tom L. Johnson Samuel M. Jones Wolf Ladejinsky [35] Ralph Nader[36] Francis Neilson Albert Jay Nock Sun Yat Sen[37] Herbert Simon Leo Tolstoy[38] William Simon U'Ren[39] William Vickrey [40]. Frank Lloyd Wright[citation needed] ) The main problem is that some of the references are from a group dedicated to Georgism, and many of the other cites do not actually call the person "Georgist." It also relies heavily on such sites as "cooperativeindividualism.org" which is part of [13] the Council of Georgist Organizations , which also may not qualify as a third party publisher either. Can someone kindly review the claims made in that article about notables being "Georgists" whether or not anything outside the Georgist community makes the claim? I fear this is like using any organization's publications as proof that famous people were part of it <g>. Collect ( talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I ask if because of this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail [14], which uses and recommends the self published Road Scholar website (but also is a verification that the author is an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation). Does this make that website reliable in any way? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that http://www.michiganhighways.org meets the criteria for inclusion? Chris Bessert and his website are regularly featured in the Detroit Free Press, his he's a professional cartographer with the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, which works in transportation and infrastructure planning for the Grand Rapids Metro Area, and his site has come recommended by the Library of Michigan, the FOIA Office at the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Grand Rapids Public Library and other official sources. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
For such questions, also see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources. John Z ( talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the Debka.com website a reliable source? Mjroots ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There has been some discussion on wp:ani about the above site as a reliable source for wikipedia, with one editor calling for it to be blacklisted.
Can I request an independent review of the site from uninvolved editors and not the 'usual suspects' with an agenda one way or another.
I wrote the software behind the site, but the content is provided by established authorised users. It is NOT a wiki or blog but a repository of press releases.
If there are any suggestions on improving it, eg by including a statement from the content providers, that can be implemented. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Per Atama I suggest that reports on gibnews.net can be used as a primary source. Gibnews writes at [35] "There is scrutiny of content, and content providers are told that in the TOS. But the contributors are REPUTABLE ORGANISATIONS. Anything libelous would be removed to comply with Gibraltar law which is very different to that in the US. So far I am informed nothing has been removed.The site provides an archive with permalinks of press releases in Gibraltar, 'as-is' without alteration. Some of the material is not available anywhere else, and even where it is, the links are guaranteed permanent.The rationale for 'banning' references to it is not clear, Yes I wrote the code behind it. No I do not write the content referenced in wikipedia."
I understand that it runs scripts, written by Gibnews himself, which aggregate external reports, many of which are not available elsewhere. It would be nice to have some external confirmation that the site is regarded as an accurate reporter - Gibnews may well be able to point us to one. But in the meantime, given that we have the above statement from Gibnews himself that nobody at gibnews.net actually changes text or adds content to this site (perhaps he'd like to make this absolutely explicit?), I feel that we should assume good faith.
Red Hat mentions that Gibnews has used reports on this site to support his position. I suggest that this is not relevant to the reliability of the site itself, and that issues of possibly-inappropriate use of primary sources to support an oversimplified position are best left to the relevant talk page. Where indeed I hope they are already being dealt with. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Can I make the point that I have specifically asked for an independent review of the site and not the biased opinions of the editor who is trying his best to get it banned because he does not like the content. Thank you Richard & Tan for putting the record straight. The site policy, which can be read here. If I have strong views on the sovereignty of the country I reside in its no surprise! Those views are shared by 99% of the population However, gibnews.net carried material from ALL political parties in Gibraltar without bias. -- Gibnews ( talk) 13:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The following is moved from my talk page, as I do not feel it is approrpriate to try and sidestep this discussion in that way:
Hi, posting here because I don't want to fill up the RS page. This site demands special attention, because of the potential conflict of interests involved. This editor is very active at Talk:Gibraltar, and holds very strong views about its relationships with Britain and Spain. Maintaining a NPOV at that page is at times very difficult. A Wikipedia editor is using material from a site that he runs (even if it's just storing away documents he didn't write) to edit a page which has constant POV problems, so there is a very real potential conflict of interest. For example, it would be very easy to twist the meaning of a press release by editing out certain sentences. Or indeed, to omit a press release entirely from your archive, because it contained something you didn't like. Such a selectively operated collection of primary sources would be implicitly biased, and the site would not be reliable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
ACE Encyclopaedia, An online repository of election information
Gibraltar Environmental Safety Group - a large respected NGO
Universidad Complutense de Madrid UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 12 (Octubre / October 2006) ISSN 1696-2206 LO ESTRATÉGICO EN LA CUESTIÓN DE GIBRALTAR by Luis Romero (in Spanish)] Link used
The site is published and read in Gibraltar, it would not last a week if there were disputes with the content shown and the providers, However, as noted some press releases are available on other sites, feel free to check that the versions agree.
For an example of policing of websites see This item
I'd rather not get into a long debate with that editor as there is a long history of conflict. BUT as you ask.
The content providers do that.
The mission statement for the site, and the terms of conditions state specifically that does not happen. The reference to removing content is a legal requirement to avoid litigation. In the event it would be necessary the entire item and the content providers access would be removed. This has never happened. All sites and hosting services TOS contain similar provisions.
Neither of your references give the name of their webmasters. However the issue is the content which is provided externally, so the question is inappropriate.
See above
See above.
It really does not matter. If the material there is both accurate and provided by the content providers, then its a valid reference. Its hard to cite material that is not there ...
That is rather scraping the barrel, The terms of use say: We invite organisations based in Gibraltar who issue press releases on a regular basis to participate in this website by entering their content directly, or emailing us. As of today there are no organisations in Gibraltar proposing any political relationship with Spain. But a news site does not have to express EVERY opinion, the issue here is whether the material presented is reliable.
The website does not have 'an opinion' it presents the material submitted by its content providers, who are named and listed.
See answer to the other editor above for people citing material from it. including:
Luis Romero in an academic paper for a Spanish university.
Luis Romero Bartumeus es periodista, Master en Paz, Seguridad y Defensa (UNED), jefe de Relaciones Externas de la Mancomunidad de Municipios del Campo de Gibraltar. Miembro colaborador del Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños. Autor de El Estrecho en la política de seguridad española del siglo XX (2003), Algeciras, APCG. Su principal línea de investigación se centra en la seguridad en la zona del estrecho de Gibraltar.
Not everyone has an online archive of their press releases.
1. The GoG archive does not always return documents and they are in .pdf format 2. The Gibraltar Chronicle limits access to its archive and it has changed recently.
The links on gibnews.net are by design permanent.
3. www.gbc.gi does not provide a public archive of its news stories, only todays.
4. The FSC has its own arangements and I don't think they contribute to gibnews.net although they would be eligible to do so. As their site changes regularly maybe they should.
Similarly the GSLP publish press releases on their own website, but only from 2009 and the site format changes regularly and the CMS used has been troublesome. But again you can cross check material there against gibnews.net.
SUMMARY
For the avoidance of doubt, I registered my username here shortly after doing some work designing templates for that website, and it seemed a good idea at the time, not realising the amount of hassle I might encounter on Wikipedia from some editors. Later realising there might be some confusion - although its a sufficiently general term - I tried to change my username to something else but it did not work.
I also registered the domain ecrg.eu - the content on the European Conservative and Reformists Group is not mine either any more that the content of Wikipedia belongs to Jimmy Wales and whoever wrote the wikipedia software, but I expect they would defend its integrity robustly.
The issue should be reliability of the content not an implied personal attack on the site owners or myself.
-- Gibnews ( talk) 12:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The reply comes in three parts.
1. My finances are none of your business, and quite irrelevant.
2. The site makes it quite clear there are no charges to content providers.
3. The content providers are organisations like
Are you seriously suggesting I bung the above organisations brown envelopes in order to write press releases to win arguments on Wikipedia ?
-- Gibnews ( talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the Famous Pictures Magazine [44] a reliable source for a copyright status of the photos presented there?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a contentious article on a controversial Israeli dissident journalist. As such, it suffers frequent edit wars and disputed sources. The latest dispute raises some issues which I think require general clarification.
A hostile comment has been added to the article, sourced to the Israeli news aggregating site "Omedia". [45] This site is currently undergoing upgrade, and none of its content is available. Following the link originally cited in the article gives a 404 page unavailable error. [46] In an attempt to check the validity of the source and the context of the comment, I discovered the same text at a different site -- a blog by an Israeli settler in the Golan Heights, Uri Heitner. [47] The blog asserts that Heitner wrote this text, as does a second website quoting this. [48] These appear to be the only two sites where the text is currently available.
Despite this, another editor claims that the text was actually written by Ran Farhi, an editor at Omedia, and is repeatedly restoring the text, sourced to Omedia.
I have two questions here: 1) Is there any justification for repeatedly citing an unavailable link, rather than an alternative site where the text is available? 2) Is a blog a reliable source for extremely hostile comments about a living person? Would Omedia (if the material originated there, rather than on a blog" be acceptable?
Please note that all of the sources here are in Hebrew. There is a separate issue, which can probably be resolved, over the accuracy of the translations used. I am asking here merely about the reliability and relevance of sources. RolandR ( talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
After 11 days on this board, the discussion on the topic Shakespeare authorship question source is bogged down with no clear consensus. Four uninvolved editors say the source meets Wikipedia standards as an acceptable WP:SPS. One uninvolved editor dissents. I tried to summarize, but when I said it appears to be a consensus I was slapped down and a long, non-productive discussion followed. Who actually makes a decision as to whether the source is reliable when four editors say it meets standards and one doesn't? Whatever you call it, the status quo is not a consensus. Is this the way Wikipedia works? Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Are these 2 citations reliable sources for the two sentences proposed for the XMRV Article?:
Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV. [50](pgs 22-23)
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations. [51] Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Acronym Finder a reliable source for the use of neologisms? "While the database is not open content, users can help to expand the database by submitting new definitions, which are subject to editorial control" - is it enough for reliability? Black Kronstadt ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, user: Osm agha is reverting, deleting what he doesn't like about Arabic biased content, i think some intervention is required about this article. thank you.
I am doing some work on a number of articles on University Debating. Most, if all reference on them come from www.debating.net or flynn.debating.net.
While this is clearly a Primary sources, however is it a reliable one ?
The reason I ask is I am planning to tydy up Grand Finalist & ESL Champion Team Members section of the European Universities Debating Championship article most of which is referenced to one or other of the above sites. However before I do I just wanted to check that it is appropriate to use those sites as references. Codf1977 ( talk) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
So can we treat the above sites as WP:RS ? Codf1977 ( talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone (unconnected with the above articles) please advise on this. Codf1977 ( talk) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please someone must be able to give some help ? Codf1977 ( talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've come across a couple of articles that include citations to copies of reliable sources, and I'd like some input on them. The articles in question are Grief Recovery Institute and Ebsco Publishing, although other articles may have similar issues so a centralized discussion is appropriate. Each of these articles contain citations to copies of reliable sources which are hosted on the subject's own site. It's significant that each of these articles was created by editors with a likely conflict of interest. I attempted to replace the references with ones that linked directly so they could be verified, but was unable to do so. This could be because copies are not available online, or because copies simply do not exist. I'm here because I'm hesitant to remove sources which may be reliable, but uncomfortable leaving them in because they can't be verified. Thoughts?-- otherl left 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have (legally!) accessed the WSJ article via a commercial news archive ( Factiva) and compared it to the alleged copy at [56]. The two have identical text except: (1) The Factiva version does not have the side-bar (the list of statistics in the box labeled "THE GRIEF INDEX"); (2) the Factiva version does not give the URLs for GRI and SHRM. Apart from this, you can cite the information in the article to WSJ. Whether you can also link to [57] is a separate issue. Zero talk 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Emporis considered a reliable source? They review and include sourced submissions [58] per "To add new information to our database, we need a reliable source. A source can be newspaper articles, the official website, architectural reports or blueprints." ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Are these papers reliable for citations about politics in black metal? I guess they are, since they look like academic publications and therefore may be the most reliable sources for such citations. Though some people in Talk:Black metal have doubts about it. Black Kronstadt ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if this isn't the normal place to post this, but apparently a significant change was made to WP:RS and I wasn't aware of the debate, despite being very active in reliable sourcing debates, and I'd like all the regulars here to know about it. For some reason, the WP:RS guideline was retitled as "Identifying Reliable Sources". Which seems a little stilted to me though not too bad, and a new shortcut WP:IRS was created.
However, the shortcut WP:RS was moved to a section within the policy WP:V, which is a very big deal which seemed to happen without a separate debate. To me, this has the effect of promoting the reliable sourcing guidelines to the level of a policy, because when most people discuss reliable sources, they think "RS". Also there are many links to the RS guideline all over Wikipedia, including anchor links which will be broken if the shortcut is changed.
There's also been a large amount of instruction creep within WP:V, which is supposed to be only the basics of citing your sources; compare a 2006 version with today. I've decided to "be bold" and change RS to point back where it belongs. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/products/WAprodinfo.asp
Is this not a RS? You can nominate a friend. You can write your own biography. (see lower left) To me, that is a paid directory, not a RS. If you disagree, I am open to listening. JB50000 ( talk) 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will now not write a new article based on a biographical entry that I saw there. I was debating what to do. Thank you. JB50000 ( talk) 03:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Does the 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia qualify as a reliable source? If so, what if about when it's contradicted by more recent scholarship? It's commonly cited on religion pages. Catholic Encyclopedia Leadwind ( talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's generally not considered reliable, much like other century-old tertiary sources. As far as I know, it wasn't even an official church publication, so it's really the author's/editors' views on a topic, not the Catholic church's. While it might be possible to use it as "a reliable source for Catholic positions in the early 20th century", that would essentially be using it as a primary source. And while it might also be used for information about "some obscure saint of a thousand years ago, and there are no more recent sources", if in fact there are no more recent sources, then it's unlikely the topic itself is appropriate for Wikipedia. It's best avoided. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Toon Zone ( www.toonzone.net), sometimes credited as ToonZone, is a news and information website on the animation industry, ranging from American cartoons to anime. A search on Google News yields several pay-per-view articles from the Oakland Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Kansas City Star that cite toonzone.net. It was also cited by Anime News Network [68] [69] and Space.com [70], among others. Of course, their forums and wiki would not be considered reliable per policy. Arsonal ( talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a mutually agreed upon request from a mediation cabal mediation (parties: Bonewah, GRuban, mediators: Vicenarian, PhilKnight). The Wikipedia article List of charities accused of ties to terrorism has an entry for the Capital Athletic Foundation. The entry is based on multiple sources, but this RSN question is about this one: "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism", by Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006, pages 28-29. Is this a reliable source for the entry?
The arguments against are that:
The arguments for are that:
Some confusion has arisen in the band Lesser of Two's editing process regarding whether certain blogs and myspace content is acceptable to verify that particular concerts occurred. I have contended that such self published references are acceptable in the WP:SELFPUB exception for non-reliable self published sources especially given the context. They are relevant and there is little doubt to the authenticity of the information. I believe that some editors believe any "blog" or myspace site is never acceptable as a reference. I do not see that to be the policy. Could someone help clarify who is an administrator?noodle 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Citizendium has been discussed before here ("OK if not spam") and here ("it's a mess"). Neither discussion mentions the (new?) distinction within citizendium between "approved" and nonapproved (draft?) articles. I believe that unapproved Citizendium articles are no better than wikipedia ones (ie, not RS) but that "approved" articles there have gone through a peer review that should make them RS.
The reason I bring this up is this proposal in the Voting Systems wikiproject. The point is that there is a lot of expertise on voting systems which is not published in any RS. My idea, in line with what User:Abd proposes, is to use existing forums (electowiki and the election methods mailing list) to bring enough expertise to write and peer-review some articles on Citizendium, then use those articles as reliable sources for wikipedia. I'm not talking about cutting-edge "I just thought of a great voting system which obeys criteria X, Y, and Z"-type stuff - that will never be stable enough for Citizendium - but about getting basic simulation data like Yee's pictures "vetted" as being accurate and unbiased. Homunq ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
CZ, even their "approved" articles are not reliable sources. There are serious lapses in quality control. Hipocrite ( talk) 22:46, 15 February 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 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | → | Archive 60 |
Issue: Steak and Oyster sauce was a common English recipe documented as early as 1815 ref The Times, 17 August 1815; Mendicity
My intoduction of the above refrerence has prompted the challenge I call bullshit on your Times reference.
I have uploaded the section : But could someone, with access to the time database confirm the validity of the refence? CyrilThePig4 ( talk) 13:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on improving the So Yesterday article and I notice there was a source confirming the July 15, 2003 airplay release date and July 29 retail date, but I'm not so sure of the reliability. It is an archive of an article from Business Wire (which I'm not sure if it's reliable or not either), but their website only has a limited archive of press releases. Could this FindArticles.com archive be used to confirm the release date? – Chase ( talk) 03:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Just interested if the Yahoo! Music Chart Watch UK by James Masterton is considered a WP:RS. SunCreator ( talk) 13:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Are op-eds in major newspapers considered reliable sources for supposed events that no other reliable sources publish?
Specifically, I am taking about this source. The article paints a very negative picture of the Islamic Society of Boston. But the authors of the article headed organizations that were sued by the ISB, which, IMO, renders them non-third party sources. Not surprisingly, then, the article uses rather biased and non-objective words to describe members of the ISB and others associated with it: "purveyors of the most intolerant religious teachings on the planet", "a hate-mongering preacher", "warped views".
Further, it makes statements of fact that I find hard to believe: "[ he Yusuf al-Qaradawi ] ... has urged that the Jews be murdered “to the last one.’’ "
Qaradawi is quite controversial, but the above statement is rather unbelievable. Should we accept the above source as legitimate or ask for other third party sources that report (and not editorialize) statements. VR talk 20:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Op eds (and even regular editorials), can be used only to source opinions held by their writers/publishers and are not a reliable source of "facts". Such opinions should be weighed for dueness and always need to be attributed in-line. Furthermore, in this particular case if the op-ed is used as a source for the writers' view of ISB, the CoI of the authors should be plainly stated just as Boston Globe itself does. Abecedare ( talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Reports of ties to radical Islam have been controversial. Boston Herald October 23, 2003
<noindex> Is [2] a reliable source? Using an online translator it seems it is in Czech. It is being used to confirm a person has acted in gay pornographic films - "Czechoslovakian competitive bodybuilder and model appearing in several gay porn films". If this is not reliable enough can those looking offer an alternative source? Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 14:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Web Gallery of Art a reliable source for information about a nineteenth century artist? -- Defender of torch ( talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The book Holy Madness, by this guy Georg Feuerstein. At issue is this book is published by this guy, controversial guru Lee Lozowick [3], who uses the Hohm press, [4] to self publish his own books as well as the books of others. The book is being used as a source to bring in contentious claims about another controversial guru, Adi Da. Concern is that book appears to directly source internet attack sites and there are concerns that there may be editorial bias, or a lack of editorial oversight, even though technically not self-published. David Starr 1 ( talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This is being used as the main source in several articles on dubious nutritional supplements. IT doesn't strike me as a reliable source. I have found blog references (themselves unreliable as sources for wikipedia) that said that the journal is funded by a guy who is himself a major sales person of "neutraceuticals" and is mainly used as a sales brochure for supplements masquerading as a scientific journal.
My own digging seems to support this and it would appear that the journal is not peer reviewed, is not affiliated with any sort of school and is - to be blunt - not an academic journal at all.
I thought it'd be best to bring this here before taking precipitious action (which will likely involve more than one stubbing and a couple of prods). Simonm223 ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this page suitable for citation as a source on Singita Game Reserve? It's a third party, possibly a Trade association (or " more than" that) but not a regulatory body. AlmostReadytoFly ( talk) 14:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A Request for comment which may be of interest to the reliable sources noticeboard: Template talk:Unreferenced#RFC: should this tag be allowed on stubs?. Fram ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.
Various online archives keep information for longer. At WP:GOODCHARTS, the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.
Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was
This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.— Kww( talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? -- SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson ( talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
|archiveurl=
), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.I am reluctant to use everyhit.com as a reliable source for UK Singles Charts. While there is rarely errors is any of the main chart sites, if there is some it is in everyhit.com
In my experience reliable sources for UK Singles Charts are in order of quality:
Upon further reflection I realise the situation of finding an error in a chart source is akin to looking for a spec of dust on a pinhead. The above discussion of supposedly 'impeccable reputation' like the BBC made me laugh and put into context that in fact, a BBC news source is much less reliable. Chart information isn't open to much interpretation, it is fixed information, an exact thing that is verified and checked to the OCC at the time. That means very little historical error ever occurs. So I am open to pass even everyhit.com off as a WP:RS. If one is ever in any doubt then multple referenced could be used, and even more in the most unlikely event of there being a conflict(has this ever occured in UK chart data on wikipedia?) then an email to the OCC will soon give you a solution. SunCreator ( talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
so basically, after all the discussions all over wiki that have taken place recently reguarding uk chart sources, other than the OCC and ChartsPlus, we're still no closer to a firm decision over what is acceptable and whats not. i guess they'll just have to carry on being treated on a case-by-case business, which sucks. Mister sparky ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Is a Jerusalem Post article, reporting that Richard Goldstone's standing in the South African Jewish comminity has plummeted following his UN report a reliable source, [5] or is it necessary to cite scientific polls to make claims about changes in the popular perception? For discussion, see Talk:Richard Goldstone (6, 10 and 15). -- Jonund ( talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the blog, http://www.readplatform.com/electric-retard/, a reliable source? What about http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4966-electric-retard.aspx? The relevant article is Electric Retard which is currently being discussed at deletion review. Before the article is undeleted and listed at AfD, I want to know if these are reliable sources.
I am inclined to believe that the first source is unreliable; see the tone of the articles listed at http://www.readplatform.com/, the homepage. The second source is possibly reliable per Pcap's comment at the DRV. Thank you for taking a look at this. Cunard ( talk) 22:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Source:
Articles:
Complaint: I had quoted some material from the above source but some people think that the articles aren't reliable.
Parties involved:
Concerned material: Encyclopedia Britannica labels RSS a "militant Hindu organization" [1] and says that "Hedgewar was heavily influenced by the writings of the Hindu nationalist ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and adopted much of his rhetoric concerning the need for the creation of a 'Hindu nation'. Hedgewar formed the RSS as a disciplined cadre consisting mostly of upper-caste Brahmins who were dedicated to independence and the protection of Hindu political, cultural, and religious interests." [2]
Would appreciate a third party opinion.-- Evox777 ( talk) 23:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
On invitation and for answering the complain of Evox777 i am hear and bellow are my counter claims and reference's which proves that the content of Britannica is not always correct and never be considered as fully neutral on few topics. Acceptance of Britannica about the mistakes on the articles of Hinduism and related org, they founded it wrong and promised to bring the necessary change which will take time http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 this is indian NGO who had asked Britannica to revive the content.This is another claim made by a 12 year old boy http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article506346.ece and Britannica had to accept the claims about the mistakes made by there so called experts. This is the book written by Kister's http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aUhjQgAACAAJ&dq=0897747445.&ei=AZ5qS6bFCYOSkASAsvyuDQ&cd=1 who had beautifully compared different encyclopedias and had doubted about the neutrality of Britannica's articles.
Moreover This are journals published by University of Chicago written by George L Burr http://www.jstor.org/pss/1832843 in which he had clearly mentioned its neutrality and laughed at Britannica and its contents.
In this news link also the Britannica is doubted http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n. Irish news had alleged Britannica for providing wrong information about the history http://www.independent.ie/national-news/britannica-errors-spark-unholy-row-2045150.html
My point hear is only that the information of Britannica can not be considered as authentic and free from biasness. Britannica is a form of corporate structure in which people are paid employee and no one can say that what mind set a person have writing the article on any person or organization. Regarding the complain of Evox777 this are his words and POV "reputation of an organization involved in mass killings, question anything remotely critical of the organization" which shows the users mind set while editing the article which is a dangerous sign while one is doing a selfless contribution to an open source, because one can't contribute neutrally if he/she had mind set for the particular person or org.
One more thing i will like to bring in the notice that the user had tried to fill the article with the references of Britannica only in different sections. My question is that how much advisable it is to use the same reference's again and again and filling the whole article. I can bring more reference's if asked by my contributer friend. regards -- Sandeep ( talk) 10:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This article will clearly show the biased nature of Britannica Hinduism and its beliefs http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/xpress/hindu-press-international/2009/05/16/encyclopaedia-britannica-will-review-its-hinduism-article/
This is the article published by university of Chicago written by Amy Barverman http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0412/features/index.shtml She had clearly mentioned that the so call religious scholars use to mis concept Hinduism and RSS is the social and cultural organization working in india for the prevention of Indus religions.-- Sandeep ( talk) 11:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with our friend G.Ruban and that's what i was saying since long. I just want to ask that can a whole article be edited with a single source and that to in so much controversies. The same references is getting used in every section of the article just to make it POV. There must be some standard to edit certain things on the basis of discussion and considering the view points of every user with proper neutral references. If one references say that one is a murder and another says that he/she is a holy person then i think that we must avoid discussing about that issue and concentrate on other parts... what my friends says ????????-- Sandeep ( talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help guys.-- Evox777 ( talk) 14:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As said by my friend Sean.hoyland that facts must be selected and not the oponions and this militant tag is the oponion of the Brittinica so how can we consider it as a fact. I also consider Brittinica a reliable source but it is little biased to some topics and that to about RSS it is confirmed by my refrences of Hindu Jan Jagruti's mail conversation http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/index.php?print/id:6919,pdf:1 . So hear i will request all my friends that in this case we can't consider Brittinica as reliable source. -- Sandeep ( talk) 13:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The Britannica has an article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) itself. But RSS is not referenced to as 'most militant Hindu organization' in it. Rather, in an article on an unrelated topic Hanuman, the author of article opines that RSS is most militant Hindu organization. So, there is clear inconsistency with respect to whether Britannica considers RSS as 'most militant organization'. Considering this, dear admins, will it be a good idea to mention in wiki that Britannica says "RSS is most militant Hindu organization"? Further, this stray remark about RSS in Hanuman article is not substantiated with anything related to it before or after it in the article. One more thing to note here is the quality of article Hanuman on Britannica. This article by controversial writer Wendy Doniger translates 'Ramayana' from Sanskrit into English as "Romance of Rama" which is completely incorrect. Admins, please suggest if you think it is good for an Wiki article to quote from Britannica's Hanuman article. -- Deshabhakta ( talk) 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As per the articles of Titchener which is included in the trusted archive of Indian University press the secondry articles of Brittinica are not adapted for intelligent readershttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1413113
I will also request admins to stop the user Evox777 using the references of Brittinica as this is still in discussion and yet come out with some conclusion.-- Sandeep ( talk) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
As per the Analaysis of Hinduism Studies of America AAR people who are famous for there biased nature on south east religions. AAR people not only holds Key positions in Brittinica but use veto incase of artilces related to south-eastern religion http://invadingthesacred.com/content/view/71/52/
The fallowing article is clearly showing that due to few scholors like Dongear and Brittinica the Hinduism and its org is badly shown in west countries http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_030314.htm-- Sandeep ( talk) 11:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Conclusions were: Not an RS for the song as recorded/released. Paysite should not be linked to. Cite only with attribution, mentioning that info is per sheet music published by the named publisher. -- JN 466 11:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I am currently doing a GA review, and the nominated article cites musicnotes.com (sheet music published by Alfred Music Publishing; the specific link is [7]). The source is cited for song details such as the number of instruments used, that it's in E minor, and that its tempo is 130 beats per minute.
I am not happy with the fact that the link invites me to download software, "including 5 free songs", and I reckon the link has to go. The publisher is clearly reputable though, and theoretically the sheet music could be cited like treeware, without a link.
However, using sheet music in this way raises a reliability question. Does anyone know how faithful such sheet music is to the recorded version of the song, and whether it can be used as a reliable source for describing details of the song as released? I am concerned that the arrangement reproduced in the sheet music may be simplified, leaving out a lot of details (overdubs etc.). As far as I am aware, such sheet music is designed to enable amateurs to play a song at home. It is not designed to be a faithful representation of the song as recorded. -- JN 466 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Musicnotes provides a digital copy of the published sheet music. It does require some freeware to view the digital copy, but I don't have any reason to believe the freeware is dangerous (I have it installed on multiple machines). In the cases that I have both a physical copy and a digital copy of the same song, the reproduction is faithful.
There are limits to using sheet music as a source. Some sheet music is specifically a transcription of a particular recording, and others are adaptations to make it playable for a given skill level or instrumentation. Generally, if the key has been changed, there's a note like "capo up to fret x to match recording" or something similar, but that isn't an absolute rule. I'm skeptical of using any sheet music that isn't specifically labeled as a transcription.— Kww( talk) 00:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for weighing in. So, deriving a tentative conclusion from the above input, if we cite musicnotes.com –
I believe the Madonna FA should then be updated accordingly, as it will otherwise encourage further inappropriate use of this source.
Unless someone wishes to argue that this summary is incorrect, I propose we can close this thread with the above conclusions. (I'll wait for a day or two before closing the thread to allow for further input.) -- JN 466 14:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
SUPPORT the summary bullet points, if it is 'corrected' to reflect the subsequent discussion of checking which EXACT publisher/company is their source.— Iknow23 ( talk) 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Somebody marked the issue resolved, but I still have concerns. My concerns are these: 1) The references for the legal charge do not seem to be reliable for an accusation such as this. I have seen that numerous people try to push gossip sources as reliable, and I would like to see this one properly sourced. Since there is no disagreement that the charge was a real one, I am not sure why this request is unreasonable. 2) The editors that have been making these edits have been attempting to shut down the discussion on this issue by making charges of bad faith and refusing to engage in any discussion whatsoever. This concerns me because it seems to be the way that some people make bad faith BLP edits. I am not saying this is the case, it just seems to be. In any case, I would like to see more input about the use of these sources on this BLP before this issue is closed.-- Jarhed ( talk) 09:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the removal for the reasons you cite.-- Jarhed ( talk) 12:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have honestly never read such utter nonsense. Firstly, to be "bound over" is a sentence that necessitates either a guilty plea or a guilty verdict for a criminal offence. People cannot be bound over if they are found innocent. Being bound over means that you have to sign a written agreement stating that you will be of good behaviour for a certain period of time after commiting an offence, otherwise you will have to pay a penality. You can also be fined and bound over for a further sum of money simultaneously - the two are not mutually exclusive measures (see this Metropolitan Police Authority document but Google a few court cases yourself if you like). The source you quoted says that Stedman Pearson "admited public indecency" at his hearing at Kingston Court. Admiting to a charge in court is pleading guilty. Honestly - what do you think pleading guilty means? And at no point did his article page mention the word "conviction", nor is that a necessary factor for the inclusion of these details. The article merely stated what he was arrested for, that the matter went to court, and the sentence the court gave him. One source says he was fined, another says he was bound over for £100. It would most likely be both, but regardless, this incident still happened and there were four valid sources to prove it. I think the pair of you have bitten off far more than you can chew here. Roguana ( talk) 03:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I am sure this has come up before. Another contributor feels it is essential to add "a liberal weblog" after Huffington Post, in the article for a journalist and historian who is also a regular contributor at the HP, the first time HP is mentioned.
The HP is like a print newspaper, in that the authors are generally chosen for being authoritative or otherwise notable commentators. Is it really necessary, or even a good idea to append "a liberal weblog" to "Huffington Post"? Would we do this for a print newspaper?
Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 22:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Can other sites be considered "Reliable Sources"? I am currently in a discussion on the Symphonic rock and Progressive Rock talk threads over changing the name of the genre "Symphonic rock" to either "Symphonic Progressive" or "Symphonic Prog". I have used Progressive Rock sites such as the [ Gibraltar Encyclopedia Of Progressive Rock], [ Prog Archives] and even on-line stores such as [ Amazon] as "Reliable Sources". The first two as sources specific to Progressive Rock and the latter as a "General Usage" reference.
Is this content here Azax World magazine a reliable source it is reporting some content from this source, http://www.prnewswire.co.uk I couldn't see the authors name and it looked like you only need to register to upload content? Off2riorob ( talk) 14:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this Slashdot article, which was submitted by a Wikipedia editor, sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:Notability purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM#Pending Slashdot Story/Review. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Slashdot.org is a reasonable source, and generally meets WP:RS, although with a certain degree of caution. Articles posted there are subject to editorial discretion (although comments following articles are not). The degree of editorial vetting that happens on Slashdot is definitely far less than in, e.g., a peer-reviewed source, but it is not a self-published source like a blog or personal website.
The above comment about the rapid publication schedule Slashdot is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding. The New York Times or CNN, for example, are eminently reliable sources, both of which often publish within minutes of the events they describe. The fact a source has an editorial review of hours (as opposed to days or weeks) merely describes the type of events and process it uses, but does not speak to its reliability (or the notability of topics addressed).
The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it does add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the notability of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts about the topic. LotLE× talk 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for AfD re JWASM, where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- spin control 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not WP:AGF of other editors. Moreover, his position is absurd. It seems to be that if a WP article discusses a topic--not only as an editor of a WP article, but also a commenter on its talk page or an AfD about it--that editor is barred from writing about the same topic for other moderated publications concerning the same topic. Not for the New York Times, not for the Journal of Programming Languages, nowhere that might externally indicate relevance or notability of a topic. The fact is that Slashdot is really not the most carefully edited publication in the world. But it is an edited publication. The large majority of submissions for Slashdot articles are rejected (my understanding is that their acceptance rate is along the lines of 1/20th), and those articles that are accepted are edited by paid staff editors before publication (yes, often sloppily modified, but it's only the paid staff who can actually publish on the website--in articles, not in comments). The submission and subsequent publication of a review of JWASM--by a recognized expert in its field--by Slashdot indeed is relevant to the notability of its topic (although indeed should not be a sole indication of notability). The fact that the recognized expert happens to be a WP article is irrelevant... FWIW, I have also had an interest piqued by reading WP articles, and subsequently published moderated articles in various WP:RSs as followups to that acquired or renewed interest. And I very much hope that experts in other fields have done and continue to do likewise. LotLE× talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is here. It's that simple. -- spin control 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Spook said:
A look at the history confirms this [10]. Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you wrote an article, even if it's in a reliable secondary source do not add it yourself. Mention it in the talk page and let others decide whether it has any merit in the article. Being an editor here and at Slashdot is not mutually exclusive, but editing articles to promote content you edited in Slashdot is. Remember that even if you have good intentions one of the inherent problems is that when you have a COI, it's very difficult for you to be neutral and adding links to somethign you wrote is always going to come across as needless self promotion Nil Einne ( talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The article List of people from Reading, Berkshire draws heavily for it's WP:RS on two web pages published by Reading Borough Libraries Great People of Reading and Other Great People of Reading.
It looks like the the ultimate source for this list is The Oxford DNB but my question is, are these pages WP:RS given there is a clear WP:COI between Reading Borough Libraries and promoting Reading ? Codf1977 ( talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- another editor ( Eliscoming1234 ( talk · contribs)) wants to use blogs as sources (e.g. [12]). I have indicated on the talk page that this is unacceptable, but my attempt to remove these references and ask for better ones was reverted. This should be a straightforward matter, but rather than get into edit war I'm looking for feedback here. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 19:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if the links in question could be verified, I fail to see how they constitute evidence that this blog is the "official site" of the yeshiva. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Power.corrupts ( talk · contribs) has been removing several unsourced BLP tags and adding links to Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, claiming that is a reliable source since it was once professionally manged. But since then it has been converted to a wiki that anyone can edit and that is the source that Power is linking to. He claims there is editorial oversight, but according to their editing guide anyone can edit it. I contend it is an invalid source per WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS and would like him to stop adding links to it to articles claiming it is a source to support the verifiability of the topic and to comply with the BLP policy. MBisanz talk 06:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Tonight, I discovered via Amazon.com that a second digital release will occur for the song Bad Romance ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I added the content to the article using the Amazon.com MP3 store page as the reference. It was reverted by Legolas2186 ( talk · contribs) the first time around because it was a " retail link". I brought this up on his talk page where he suddenly changed his reason for removing it stating that " Amazon fails as a WP:RS" where the only discussion concerning this has been when I brought up the issue with his reverts on his talk page. The third time he stated that if I added the content back it would be considered vandalism.
A good portion of the other releases concern the content existing on iTunes, so stating that Amazon.com is a "retail link" and should not be used is pointless. He has told me that my addition of this information with a source is considered vandalism, and I have never encountered anything in WP:RS or WP:VAND that states that this. Clearly, there needs to be some outside input concerning the use of this Amazon MP3 Store link. Legolas2186 states that "Amazon chooses to sale a product irrespective of the owner's agreement, while itunes only sells licensed and copyrighted products released to them". All of the Amazon.com MP3 store is mirrored on iTunes, so I do not see why this would be a reason against using the Amazon.com link as a source. If next week, the iTunes Store has this content and I add it, there would be no opposition against my addition of the content it seems.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 08:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Basically, can Amazon.com be used as a reliable source when it comes to (digital) music release dates/content? And where the hell was there a discussion that says Amazon.com cannot be a reliable source, as Legolas2186 suggested?—
Ryūlóng (
竜龙) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is that I added a statement (or a list) that said that this digital album exists. I did not use the Amazon.com page to say when the album is going to be released but that it is going to be released. The reasons as to why Legolas2186 removed it seems to just be because the reference is to Amazon.com and not, say, the iTunes Store which is certainly not accessible to everyone. I have not gotten a good enough response as to why this particular link cannot be used, other than from Peregrine Fisher in that it should not be allowed just because the album has not been released yet. I think that this is ridiculous. Why should a link to the iTunes Store page following its release be the only reference used on the article? Why can't a link to an Amazon.com page prior to its release be used? And what if after the album is released it is only available via Amazon.com? Would I have to argue against Legolas2186's reasoning here that just because it is only available on Amazon means that the content cannot be added to the article?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 20:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
None of the sites are reliable for release dates. Not because the site it unreliable but because for commercial/logistic reasons it is often advantageous to move the release dates at the last minute. I do think it's fine to use amazon as a wp:rs. I will comment more on the above issues when at a PC(currently on iPhone) and above section is to big to add comments. SunCreator ( talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, Amazon.com's MP3 store is a reliable source for information on digitally released music. Legolas2186 should not have edit warred to remove the link to the Amazon.com store, which was probably just because he does not want to use it as a source. It turns out that after he reverted me for the third time, he added a hidden comment.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 05:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Like to add this in while it occurs to me. This track which in the UK is only currently on the album Jay Sean Featuring Sean Paul And Lil' Jon - Do you remember. iTunes have recently revised the album date to 12 February 2010 - two days ago. However that is not correct it has been there for ages, it's been in the UK charts(based on album track downloads) for a while now see chart info (you'll find it as #23). So iTunes are not without faults! SunCreator ( talk) 17:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This article currently lists a great many notable people as "Georgists." (Ambrose Bierce [22] Matthew Bellamy [23] Ralph Borsodi [24] William F. Buckley, Jr. [25] Winston Churchill [26] Clarence Darrow[27] Michael Davitt [28] Henry Ford[29] Mason Gaffney David Lloyd George [30] George Grey [31] Walter Burley Griffin[32] Fred Harrison William Morris Hughes Aldous Huxley Blas Infante [33] Mumia Abu-Jamal[34] Tom L. Johnson Samuel M. Jones Wolf Ladejinsky [35] Ralph Nader[36] Francis Neilson Albert Jay Nock Sun Yat Sen[37] Herbert Simon Leo Tolstoy[38] William Simon U'Ren[39] William Vickrey [40]. Frank Lloyd Wright[citation needed] ) The main problem is that some of the references are from a group dedicated to Georgism, and many of the other cites do not actually call the person "Georgist." It also relies heavily on such sites as "cooperativeindividualism.org" which is part of [13] the Council of Georgist Organizations , which also may not qualify as a third party publisher either. Can someone kindly review the claims made in that article about notables being "Georgists" whether or not anything outside the Georgist community makes the claim? I fear this is like using any organization's publications as proof that famous people were part of it <g>. Collect ( talk) 16:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason I ask if because of this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail [14], which uses and recommends the self published Road Scholar website (but also is a verification that the author is an employee of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation). Does this make that website reliable in any way? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean that http://www.michiganhighways.org meets the criteria for inclusion? Chris Bessert and his website are regularly featured in the Detroit Free Press, his he's a professional cartographer with the Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, which works in transportation and infrastructure planning for the Grand Rapids Metro Area, and his site has come recommended by the Library of Michigan, the FOIA Office at the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Grand Rapids Public Library and other official sources. Imzadi1979 ( talk) 21:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
For such questions, also see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Usage_by_other_sources. John Z ( talk) 20:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the Debka.com website a reliable source? Mjroots ( talk) 21:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There has been some discussion on wp:ani about the above site as a reliable source for wikipedia, with one editor calling for it to be blacklisted.
Can I request an independent review of the site from uninvolved editors and not the 'usual suspects' with an agenda one way or another.
I wrote the software behind the site, but the content is provided by established authorised users. It is NOT a wiki or blog but a repository of press releases.
If there are any suggestions on improving it, eg by including a statement from the content providers, that can be implemented. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Per Atama I suggest that reports on gibnews.net can be used as a primary source. Gibnews writes at [35] "There is scrutiny of content, and content providers are told that in the TOS. But the contributors are REPUTABLE ORGANISATIONS. Anything libelous would be removed to comply with Gibraltar law which is very different to that in the US. So far I am informed nothing has been removed.The site provides an archive with permalinks of press releases in Gibraltar, 'as-is' without alteration. Some of the material is not available anywhere else, and even where it is, the links are guaranteed permanent.The rationale for 'banning' references to it is not clear, Yes I wrote the code behind it. No I do not write the content referenced in wikipedia."
I understand that it runs scripts, written by Gibnews himself, which aggregate external reports, many of which are not available elsewhere. It would be nice to have some external confirmation that the site is regarded as an accurate reporter - Gibnews may well be able to point us to one. But in the meantime, given that we have the above statement from Gibnews himself that nobody at gibnews.net actually changes text or adds content to this site (perhaps he'd like to make this absolutely explicit?), I feel that we should assume good faith.
Red Hat mentions that Gibnews has used reports on this site to support his position. I suggest that this is not relevant to the reliability of the site itself, and that issues of possibly-inappropriate use of primary sources to support an oversimplified position are best left to the relevant talk page. Where indeed I hope they are already being dealt with. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Can I make the point that I have specifically asked for an independent review of the site and not the biased opinions of the editor who is trying his best to get it banned because he does not like the content. Thank you Richard & Tan for putting the record straight. The site policy, which can be read here. If I have strong views on the sovereignty of the country I reside in its no surprise! Those views are shared by 99% of the population However, gibnews.net carried material from ALL political parties in Gibraltar without bias. -- Gibnews ( talk) 13:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The following is moved from my talk page, as I do not feel it is approrpriate to try and sidestep this discussion in that way:
Hi, posting here because I don't want to fill up the RS page. This site demands special attention, because of the potential conflict of interests involved. This editor is very active at Talk:Gibraltar, and holds very strong views about its relationships with Britain and Spain. Maintaining a NPOV at that page is at times very difficult. A Wikipedia editor is using material from a site that he runs (even if it's just storing away documents he didn't write) to edit a page which has constant POV problems, so there is a very real potential conflict of interest. For example, it would be very easy to twist the meaning of a press release by editing out certain sentences. Or indeed, to omit a press release entirely from your archive, because it contained something you didn't like. Such a selectively operated collection of primary sources would be implicitly biased, and the site would not be reliable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
ACE Encyclopaedia, An online repository of election information
Gibraltar Environmental Safety Group - a large respected NGO
Universidad Complutense de Madrid UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 12 (Octubre / October 2006) ISSN 1696-2206 LO ESTRATÉGICO EN LA CUESTIÓN DE GIBRALTAR by Luis Romero (in Spanish)] Link used
The site is published and read in Gibraltar, it would not last a week if there were disputes with the content shown and the providers, However, as noted some press releases are available on other sites, feel free to check that the versions agree.
For an example of policing of websites see This item
I'd rather not get into a long debate with that editor as there is a long history of conflict. BUT as you ask.
The content providers do that.
The mission statement for the site, and the terms of conditions state specifically that does not happen. The reference to removing content is a legal requirement to avoid litigation. In the event it would be necessary the entire item and the content providers access would be removed. This has never happened. All sites and hosting services TOS contain similar provisions.
Neither of your references give the name of their webmasters. However the issue is the content which is provided externally, so the question is inappropriate.
See above
See above.
It really does not matter. If the material there is both accurate and provided by the content providers, then its a valid reference. Its hard to cite material that is not there ...
That is rather scraping the barrel, The terms of use say: We invite organisations based in Gibraltar who issue press releases on a regular basis to participate in this website by entering their content directly, or emailing us. As of today there are no organisations in Gibraltar proposing any political relationship with Spain. But a news site does not have to express EVERY opinion, the issue here is whether the material presented is reliable.
The website does not have 'an opinion' it presents the material submitted by its content providers, who are named and listed.
See answer to the other editor above for people citing material from it. including:
Luis Romero in an academic paper for a Spanish university.
Luis Romero Bartumeus es periodista, Master en Paz, Seguridad y Defensa (UNED), jefe de Relaciones Externas de la Mancomunidad de Municipios del Campo de Gibraltar. Miembro colaborador del Instituto de Estudios Campogibraltareños. Autor de El Estrecho en la política de seguridad española del siglo XX (2003), Algeciras, APCG. Su principal línea de investigación se centra en la seguridad en la zona del estrecho de Gibraltar.
Not everyone has an online archive of their press releases.
1. The GoG archive does not always return documents and they are in .pdf format 2. The Gibraltar Chronicle limits access to its archive and it has changed recently.
The links on gibnews.net are by design permanent.
3. www.gbc.gi does not provide a public archive of its news stories, only todays.
4. The FSC has its own arangements and I don't think they contribute to gibnews.net although they would be eligible to do so. As their site changes regularly maybe they should.
Similarly the GSLP publish press releases on their own website, but only from 2009 and the site format changes regularly and the CMS used has been troublesome. But again you can cross check material there against gibnews.net.
SUMMARY
For the avoidance of doubt, I registered my username here shortly after doing some work designing templates for that website, and it seemed a good idea at the time, not realising the amount of hassle I might encounter on Wikipedia from some editors. Later realising there might be some confusion - although its a sufficiently general term - I tried to change my username to something else but it did not work.
I also registered the domain ecrg.eu - the content on the European Conservative and Reformists Group is not mine either any more that the content of Wikipedia belongs to Jimmy Wales and whoever wrote the wikipedia software, but I expect they would defend its integrity robustly.
The issue should be reliability of the content not an implied personal attack on the site owners or myself.
-- Gibnews ( talk) 12:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The reply comes in three parts.
1. My finances are none of your business, and quite irrelevant.
2. The site makes it quite clear there are no charges to content providers.
3. The content providers are organisations like
Are you seriously suggesting I bung the above organisations brown envelopes in order to write press releases to win arguments on Wikipedia ?
-- Gibnews ( talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the Famous Pictures Magazine [44] a reliable source for a copyright status of the photos presented there?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a contentious article on a controversial Israeli dissident journalist. As such, it suffers frequent edit wars and disputed sources. The latest dispute raises some issues which I think require general clarification.
A hostile comment has been added to the article, sourced to the Israeli news aggregating site "Omedia". [45] This site is currently undergoing upgrade, and none of its content is available. Following the link originally cited in the article gives a 404 page unavailable error. [46] In an attempt to check the validity of the source and the context of the comment, I discovered the same text at a different site -- a blog by an Israeli settler in the Golan Heights, Uri Heitner. [47] The blog asserts that Heitner wrote this text, as does a second website quoting this. [48] These appear to be the only two sites where the text is currently available.
Despite this, another editor claims that the text was actually written by Ran Farhi, an editor at Omedia, and is repeatedly restoring the text, sourced to Omedia.
I have two questions here: 1) Is there any justification for repeatedly citing an unavailable link, rather than an alternative site where the text is available? 2) Is a blog a reliable source for extremely hostile comments about a living person? Would Omedia (if the material originated there, rather than on a blog" be acceptable?
Please note that all of the sources here are in Hebrew. There is a separate issue, which can probably be resolved, over the accuracy of the translations used. I am asking here merely about the reliability and relevance of sources. RolandR ( talk) 14:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
After 11 days on this board, the discussion on the topic Shakespeare authorship question source is bogged down with no clear consensus. Four uninvolved editors say the source meets Wikipedia standards as an acceptable WP:SPS. One uninvolved editor dissents. I tried to summarize, but when I said it appears to be a consensus I was slapped down and a long, non-productive discussion followed. Who actually makes a decision as to whether the source is reliable when four editors say it meets standards and one doesn't? Whatever you call it, the status quo is not a consensus. Is this the way Wikipedia works? Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Are these 2 citations reliable sources for the two sentences proposed for the XMRV Article?:
Dr. Jerry Holmberg of the DHHS OPHS Advisory Committee on Blood Safety and Availability stated at the CFSAC meeting on 30 Oct 2009 that, because studies have now associated XMRV with prostate cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome, the committee will investigate the blood safety threat from XMRV. [50](pgs 22-23)
A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Blood XMRV Scientific Research Working Group has been formed according to the Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Association of America, and included in the planned investigations are validation studies for XMRV testing, evaluation of the incidence of XMRV in the populace and blood supply (including subgroups), XMRV transmission studies, and human disease associations. [51] Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 21:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Acronym Finder a reliable source for the use of neologisms? "While the database is not open content, users can help to expand the database by submitting new definitions, which are subject to editorial control" - is it enough for reliability? Black Kronstadt ( talk) 23:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, user: Osm agha is reverting, deleting what he doesn't like about Arabic biased content, i think some intervention is required about this article. thank you.
I am doing some work on a number of articles on University Debating. Most, if all reference on them come from www.debating.net or flynn.debating.net.
While this is clearly a Primary sources, however is it a reliable one ?
The reason I ask is I am planning to tydy up Grand Finalist & ESL Champion Team Members section of the European Universities Debating Championship article most of which is referenced to one or other of the above sites. However before I do I just wanted to check that it is appropriate to use those sites as references. Codf1977 ( talk) 13:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
So can we treat the above sites as WP:RS ? Codf1977 ( talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Can someone (unconnected with the above articles) please advise on this. Codf1977 ( talk) 19:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please someone must be able to give some help ? Codf1977 ( talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I've come across a couple of articles that include citations to copies of reliable sources, and I'd like some input on them. The articles in question are Grief Recovery Institute and Ebsco Publishing, although other articles may have similar issues so a centralized discussion is appropriate. Each of these articles contain citations to copies of reliable sources which are hosted on the subject's own site. It's significant that each of these articles was created by editors with a likely conflict of interest. I attempted to replace the references with ones that linked directly so they could be verified, but was unable to do so. This could be because copies are not available online, or because copies simply do not exist. I'm here because I'm hesitant to remove sources which may be reliable, but uncomfortable leaving them in because they can't be verified. Thoughts?-- otherl left 18:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I have (legally!) accessed the WSJ article via a commercial news archive ( Factiva) and compared it to the alleged copy at [56]. The two have identical text except: (1) The Factiva version does not have the side-bar (the list of statistics in the box labeled "THE GRIEF INDEX"); (2) the Factiva version does not give the URLs for GRI and SHRM. Apart from this, you can cite the information in the article to WSJ. Whether you can also link to [57] is a separate issue. Zero talk 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Emporis considered a reliable source? They review and include sourced submissions [58] per "To add new information to our database, we need a reliable source. A source can be newspaper articles, the official website, architectural reports or blueprints." ChildofMidnight ( talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Are these papers reliable for citations about politics in black metal? I guess they are, since they look like academic publications and therefore may be the most reliable sources for such citations. Though some people in Talk:Black metal have doubts about it. Black Kronstadt ( talk) 21:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies if this isn't the normal place to post this, but apparently a significant change was made to WP:RS and I wasn't aware of the debate, despite being very active in reliable sourcing debates, and I'd like all the regulars here to know about it. For some reason, the WP:RS guideline was retitled as "Identifying Reliable Sources". Which seems a little stilted to me though not too bad, and a new shortcut WP:IRS was created.
However, the shortcut WP:RS was moved to a section within the policy WP:V, which is a very big deal which seemed to happen without a separate debate. To me, this has the effect of promoting the reliable sourcing guidelines to the level of a policy, because when most people discuss reliable sources, they think "RS". Also there are many links to the RS guideline all over Wikipedia, including anchor links which will be broken if the shortcut is changed.
There's also been a large amount of instruction creep within WP:V, which is supposed to be only the basics of citing your sources; compare a 2006 version with today. I've decided to "be bold" and change RS to point back where it belongs. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.marquiswhoswho.com/products/WAprodinfo.asp
Is this not a RS? You can nominate a friend. You can write your own biography. (see lower left) To me, that is a paid directory, not a RS. If you disagree, I am open to listening. JB50000 ( talk) 06:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I will now not write a new article based on a biographical entry that I saw there. I was debating what to do. Thank you. JB50000 ( talk) 03:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Does the 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia qualify as a reliable source? If so, what if about when it's contradicted by more recent scholarship? It's commonly cited on religion pages. Catholic Encyclopedia Leadwind ( talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
It's generally not considered reliable, much like other century-old tertiary sources. As far as I know, it wasn't even an official church publication, so it's really the author's/editors' views on a topic, not the Catholic church's. While it might be possible to use it as "a reliable source for Catholic positions in the early 20th century", that would essentially be using it as a primary source. And while it might also be used for information about "some obscure saint of a thousand years ago, and there are no more recent sources", if in fact there are no more recent sources, then it's unlikely the topic itself is appropriate for Wikipedia. It's best avoided. Jayjg (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Toon Zone ( www.toonzone.net), sometimes credited as ToonZone, is a news and information website on the animation industry, ranging from American cartoons to anime. A search on Google News yields several pay-per-view articles from the Oakland Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and Kansas City Star that cite toonzone.net. It was also cited by Anime News Network [68] [69] and Space.com [70], among others. Of course, their forums and wiki would not be considered reliable per policy. Arsonal ( talk) 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a mutually agreed upon request from a mediation cabal mediation (parties: Bonewah, GRuban, mediators: Vicenarian, PhilKnight). The Wikipedia article List of charities accused of ties to terrorism has an entry for the Capital Athletic Foundation. The entry is based on multiple sources, but this RSN question is about this one: "Lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s “Charity” a Front for Terrorism", by Juan Cole, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2006, pages 28-29. Is this a reliable source for the entry?
The arguments against are that:
The arguments for are that:
Some confusion has arisen in the band Lesser of Two's editing process regarding whether certain blogs and myspace content is acceptable to verify that particular concerts occurred. I have contended that such self published references are acceptable in the WP:SELFPUB exception for non-reliable self published sources especially given the context. They are relevant and there is little doubt to the authenticity of the information. I believe that some editors believe any "blog" or myspace site is never acceptable as a reference. I do not see that to be the policy. Could someone help clarify who is an administrator?noodle 07:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Citizendium has been discussed before here ("OK if not spam") and here ("it's a mess"). Neither discussion mentions the (new?) distinction within citizendium between "approved" and nonapproved (draft?) articles. I believe that unapproved Citizendium articles are no better than wikipedia ones (ie, not RS) but that "approved" articles there have gone through a peer review that should make them RS.
The reason I bring this up is this proposal in the Voting Systems wikiproject. The point is that there is a lot of expertise on voting systems which is not published in any RS. My idea, in line with what User:Abd proposes, is to use existing forums (electowiki and the election methods mailing list) to bring enough expertise to write and peer-review some articles on Citizendium, then use those articles as reliable sources for wikipedia. I'm not talking about cutting-edge "I just thought of a great voting system which obeys criteria X, Y, and Z"-type stuff - that will never be stable enough for Citizendium - but about getting basic simulation data like Yee's pictures "vetted" as being accurate and unbiased. Homunq ( talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
CZ, even their "approved" articles are not reliable sources. There are serious lapses in quality control. Hipocrite ( talk) 22:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)