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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
I would like an opinion on the Gay Erotic Video Index. It seems to have editor control, but it lacks an "About Us" page.
Warning: contains pornographic images. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Citation: ^ "Who are the most prolific performers?". Gay Erotic Video Index. www.wtule.net. Retrieved 2010-02-15.
Hey everybody. I was wondering if I could reach out to the wiki community at large to get an outside opinion on the reliability and neutrality of some sources that keep being brought into the article on Jean-Bertand Aristide. To me, these cited articles come across as editorials, but I, myself, may be biased against them in that I do not believe the extent of their claims. Can we get some outside opinions?
Here are some examples of cites in question:
-- Bertrc ( talk) 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue is an alleged 16th century document which is claimed to have been discovered in 1995, a timely event as it coincided with the deliberation of the canonisation of Juan Diego. It purportedly described the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1531. This is, unsurprisingly, highly contentious. An IP is adding a claim from the Texas Catholic Herald, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, that ""This document has been subjected to several scientific tests and all of them indicate that it is an original of that period of time.". See [3]. I removed this as I can find no sources saying anything about these tests other than this 'house organ', which I don't see as a reliable source. In any case, I think this is a WP:REDFLAG issue. I've made my reasons clear in the edit summaries I've made, the IP's response was " Sarcasm is what it is, but hey, let the reader judge. Reliable source? Please point me to the rule that distinguishes "reliable" from "unreliable")". Dougweller ( talk) 08:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Bellarmino ( talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) The reference to sarcasm was to that employed by Brading in his comment on the Codex Escalada. He treated it not with any scientific method but sought to discredit it with a sarcastic comment. Having read your material on classifying "reliable" sources I see how he qualifies and those who oppose him sometimes don't - i.e. he has the secular university community behind him - but the comment he makes in this context is less than worthless. In fact, it discredits the position of those who claim to be governed by reason. That's why "let the reader judge" is the only possible response (since you don't appear willing to have the sarcasm deleted).
Bellarmino ( talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Now if the Texas Catholic Herald is sufficient as "as an example of a source making a claim" then surely it ought not to have been deleted. It ought to have been corrected. What am I missing?
Bellarmino ( talk) 10:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I've made some more edits. It turns out that the stuff about the "painting" and the various layers is from a secret investigation in 1982, which has never been published. Instead, it was referred to in an article in the magazine "Proceso" from where it was gleefully lifted by rationalists and spread far and wide. From what I've seen so far of the quality of the reasoning governing things here, it belongs on Wikipedia, but on the hypothesis that the statements about verifiable quality sources has some level of sincerity, I've deleted it. I await with interest the reaction of the mob.
Bellarmino ( talk) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) It's called a fact. Apparently Wikipedia recognises those, despite its pose as being uninterested in truth as such. The only way you could impugn that fact is if you had some source in which it were claimed that Brading or Poole had examined the Codex, but no such source exists because they have not done so. I have a source in which it is admitted that they did not examine it, but no such source is needed in the absence of any claim to the contrary. As for insults, if the hat fits, wear it. If the hat doesn't fit, don't insist on being insulted, since it obviously isn't aimed at you.
Is [4] a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that Arthur A. Goldberg is a convicted felon? I worry that the allegation is not sufficiently backed up for WP standards ( WP:BLP and current lengthy discussion on deletions). It is possible that there might be some dislike for the person, to be sure. Collect ( talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, did this website hire the entire staff of the South Florida Blade? Hipocrite ( talk) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | In February 2010, a joint investigative report by activist organization Truth Wins Out, formed to counteract what it refers to as the "ex-gay" myth, and South Florida Gay News reported that Goldberg was fined $100,000 and sentenced to eighteen months in prison for fraud in 1989. They tied the conviction for fraud to what they see as his "dishonest present-day work" with JONAH and NARTH. | ” |
Looking at the current easy-accessed sources there is a long history here of the man forming groups and championing causes as well as books discussing his finance work including starting a credit union which was central to the fraud case. There is a lot there but it can be presented NPOV and RS'd. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask for opinions about the video web site World of Martial Arts [5]. It does not appear to be a video blog: the videos are selected by the staff of WOMA. There is no statement about their editorial policy and there is no information about the copyright status of the videos on their site. There are interviews with popular martial artists [6].
Would these videos be acceptable as Primary Sources? Would inclusion in this site help a claim to notability? jmcw ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. For a while I've been using www.britballnow.co.uk as a source for a number of articles relating to American football in the UK. During the course of a peer review, the question was raised about whether this could be counted as a reliable source or not. So far I've seen no errors or causes for concern and I can personally vouch for one of the main contributors but I would like to gauge other people's opinions on this. Bettia (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion on gibnews.net above, I would like to raise another site, gibnet.com, also operated by User:Gibnews. I have also raised it at WP:COIN [7] because, separate to the reliablity matter, there is a COI matter too.
This site is a totally different kettle of fish to gibnews.net. It's a clearly partisan site which is doing much more than archiving the material - there is also opinion there, unsourced research, and yet it's being used as a factual reference and promoted in External Link sections.
This site is used in the following places [8].
To pick some examples:
I submit that - even before we consider the COI issues (please note, it's Gibnews' site and he himself is adding many of the links to it [11] [12]) - this site is totally unreliable for usage on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on the views of editors here, at COI/N and at ANI, I have submitted gibnet.com for inclusion on the blacklist here [13]. I will also remove all links to it from Wikipedia articles once that has been actioned, as I wish to preserve the record of links for the editor who deals with it. Gibnews, this noticeboard is for RS matters - please stick to those rather than discussing me: I'm utterly irrelevant to the reliability of the source, on which - unlike gibnews.net - there has been a unanimous response. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've removed all the links, replacing them with "fact" tags, and have started on the process of finding reliable sources to replace those. As I stated elsewhere, I'm finding this relatively easy, thanks to the power of Google. There really is no need to link to gibnet.com. (There is, however, one potential exception. The Bahá'í organisation's own website links to gibnet.com [14]. So, should we link to the Bahá'í website which lists Gibraltar, or should we link to gibnet.com too?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century a valid and reliable source to provide in whole or in part estimated statical information for articles here on Wikipedia? [15] LoveMonkey ( talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation but- Ha, by that standard Wikipedia is pretty hypocritical...Thanks for clarifying though. LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This version [16] of Megan Connolly was virtually word for word reproduction of [17] at TV.com. I have edited the content to the point that I think any copyright violations have been addressed, but the sole source for the article is the TV.com article and if that is just a wikipedia mirror, then the whole article needs to be resourced. MM 207.69.139.138 ( talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Editor Galassi is inserting "he was significant proponent of the Blood libel against Jews" in Vladimir Purishkevich. Galassi supports this with two refs.
Can this sources be used to support the content? Attention from uninvolved editors needed. DonaldDuck ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
So far as we have seen here, we have no source that justifies the text inserted by Galassi. Zero talk 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The insertion involves too much original research. The articles establish some sort of link, but not one that warrants the claims being made. This is really a question for the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some opinions pertaining to List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States regarding Avatar ticket sales in regards to Box Office Mojo.
Box Office Mojo is regarded as a highly reliable source on the film articles and is used almost exclusively on Wikipedia (and in the mainstream press) as the primary source for financial data. There is no question about its status as a reliable source, and that is at the root of the problem I am facing.
The chart mentioned above includes the film grosses adjusted for ticket price inflation, and also the number of ticket sales via the Box Office Mojo chart here: [20]. However, since ticket sales aren't tracked Mojo clearly states where the ticket sales are unknown it works it out using the average ticket price for the year the film was made. This is fine in most cases where the ticket price is static, but has caused a problem with Avatar, where it states that Avatar has sold over 87 million tickets in grossing $668 million.
Because ticket prices are different for the different formats Avatar was released in (2D/3D/IMAX), the simple model of dividing the gross by the average ticket price for that year no longer applies, as noted in their own article about Avatar's performance: [21]. They clarify the general methodology for how they calculate admissions: Unfortunately, the industry does not track admissions, only dollars. Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive.. Their article provides a breakdown of teh ticket sales in each format (and at the different prices for those formats) to extimate that "All told, Avatar's estimated admission count is 60.7 million thus far" in grossing $600 million.
The dispute is over whether to include the ticket sales estimate from their chart, which Box Office Mojo clearly indicates is inaccurate in the case of Avatar. Avatar clearly didn't sell another 27 million tickets going from $600 million to $668 million. So yes Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, its chart is usually considered reliable, but the Box Office Mojo analysis indicates the estimate is not reliable in the case of Avatar.
So what should take precedence in a case like this? The chart or the article, both published by the same source? It seems to me the article acts as a kind or errata in this instance. Would appreciate any opinions. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Iranica is used extensively in Al-Farabi to prove that he was Persian. The author of the Iranica article about al-Farabi, Dimitri Gutas gives a different account about al-Farabi's ethnicity in a different article published on the Stanford University site. Sole Soul ( talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume that most of the people here will not read the long Iranica article to make their conclusions about my claim. In the Iranica article, Gutas is "refuting" the Turkish ethnicity claim. He is saying that the primary sources that say al-Farabi was Turkish are pro-Turkish and should not be relied on.
Regardless, the main question is: Is Iranica a RS in a disputed matter that relate to Iran. Sole Soul ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Is EInsiders.com a reliable source? The website has been around since before 1996, it has several very well known and well respected editors with editorial oversight to their content. EInsiders is on the internet, on several TV stations and has a radio show. Information is 3rd party verified. The editors are all long-term members of the Film Critics association and are high level professionals in the field of their expertise, the film industry. Other large publications use them for a source and often cite them as a source for information. They are on the list of approved film critics with Rotten Tomatoes and show up in the Rotten Tomato movie reviews as an official film critic. (I use Rotten Tomatoes as an example because they are used as a reliable source on Wiki and EInsiders.com is the source for some of that info) They attend film festivals and press-only movie screening by invitation from film PR firms and do live interviews with cast and report directly from the events. I can't find anything that would make EInsiders not a credible source. Please let me know if that is enough for reliability. Pharaway ( talk) 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I am going to bypass the above for now, and look at the original question posed by Pharaway. EInsiders does not have an "about us" link on its site. I can see nothing about who creates it. Its creators appear to be good at media marketing / linking - they've got facebook links, twitter etc, but at its core it is an unverifiable site for which a google search, and a google news search, fails to turn up other obvious commentary that might attest to its reliability. Sorry, Pharaway, but my examination suggests it fails the test. Assuming the source happens to get those death dates correct, your best bet is to use that as a heads-up, go to the newspapers online in following days and find a reliable source. If other editors replace an EI ref with a reliable source, i recommend those revisions be allowed to stand. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether einsiders.com is a reliable source, the discussion at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Pharaway shows a consensus that there has been an undue promotion of the site. Above, Pharaway states that the site is well known, with well respected editors and editorial oversight. However, I do not see anyway to verify these claims and I see no reason to regard einsiders as a reliable source. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(moved from a talk page) Off the very top of my head, Kim Walker and Ashleigh Aston Moore would be examples that illustrate my point. Both actors are obviously notable but their deaths were merely blips on the radar in the media. I spend quite a bit of time working on fairly obscure dead actors' articles which means I know where to look for even the smallest mention of a obit. In those cases, none can be found except for Einsiders. While I'm fully aware that any unsourced content can be removed or challenged by anyone, I do not believe a notable person's death should fall into that category. In both cases, the deaths were covered by an outside source. For whatever reason, this source is being called into question. If possible, I'd like to be pointed to the discussion regarding the reliability of this link. Aside from it being spammed by some person for whatever reason, I've never found any problem with the actual site itself. Again, if there's something I'm missing please about this situation, feel free to clue me in. Pinkadelica ♣ 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"DANNY DUKES Died Dec. 3, 2007
Adult film actor Danny Dukes (real name Danny Salas Jr.) died of a drug overdose at age 33. Mr. Dukes acted in several adult films between 2002 and 2004. He was also a sometime agent. He leaves behind a young son. Prayers of comfort for his family and friends. Some say that the adult film industry leads to drug abuse. Of course there are enough examples of legit film industry insiders getting hooked on drugs to make one wonder about such blanket condemnations. However, the bottom line is this, drugs will kill you. First they will kill your soul, then your body. All that remains is the pain you leave behind because you didn't care enough to fight the addiction" There are more examples, but their site is down, again for me. — Mike Allen 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
What the best way is to offer further 'proof that Einsiders.com is not a bona fide source; information on ownership, persons involved, etc. — that is, without violating terms here, etc. 842U ( talk) 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I brought the issue up about Scott Mantz on Pharaway's talk page, Scott Mantz is a critic for Access Hollywood, but his profile on einsiders says nothing, on RottenTomatoes the same search for Scott Mantz gives you his full bio and links to his original reviews, einsiders passes him off as one of their reviewers. Scott Mantz et al. are legit reviewers, einsiders is not. Darrenhusted ( talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
i have big doubts regarding this book. i explained on the discussion page of battle of kursk. first of all the book is convicted with using rotmistrovs steelguard as source, the book is claiming that the myth of prokhorvka is true. furthermore the claims of the strenghts are rediculous. i explained on the dischussionpage. while i think glantz is a reliable historian his book kursk seems to be punked by russian sources ( rotmistrov for example ). without checking german archival sources this book printed claims created by soviet propaganda. glantz is supporting the opinion that the red army was superior in many cases ( which is maybe possible but this is not the point) , he supports this claims with taking wrong strenght numbers and comparing them. his "ratios" are cited in the "battle of kursk" articles. for example he gives and overexxagrated number of german tanks and "forgots" the steppe front. so his ratios are simply ridicolous... . newer research is discrediting many statements of him. zetterling/frankson , have written an book about the statistical analyse of kursk and we see that glantz simply faked the numbers. "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol.8 " (2007) has an entire chapter regarding the prokhorovka myth. i explained this problem on the discussion page but nobody responed glantz is still even cited for the prokhorvka battle which is very sad... Blablaaa ( talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Glantz, David M. & House, Jonathon (1995). When Titans Clashed; How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. University of Kansas Press. iam not sure if the user who makes the dubios statements is citing this book because he seems to own Glantz/ House ... Kursk too. but most of the dubios statements are from when titan clashed. i can present more dubios statements of the book about kursk. again i have to say that i dont think glantz is not reliable, but his statements about kursk are more than wrong Blablaaa ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
ok than explain to me why he is forgeting entire fronts for his strenght ratios. explain to me? u cant... explain to me why he is using rotmistrov. u cant.... . Rebut my points and dont say "ignore the user"....
lets stick to the point. i dont say he is unreliable but i think his numbers for zitadelle are. thats why iam really interested in his book Kursk, we talk here about "when titans clashed" this book is 12 years older. and please hohum tell me your opinion about "forgeting" the steppe front? i know our opinion is irrelevant....
they both have the same number but one of them is missing a front/armygroup/Heeresgruppe. i think we can give both numbers but than the infobox becomes very huge. is there a possibility that somebody decides which source is better for the box. zetterling frankson wrote a book only about the numbers of kursk.... .the other numbers can be explained in the text, in the text its easy to explain the numbers and the reader will see fast that glantz simply missed a front which took part and his numbers are nonsense.... . another issue: glantz is quoting the myth of prokhorovka , what now? Blablaaa ( talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
argh, this has nothing to do with "like" or POV or bias, here its : correct or wrong. its simply wrong. and we have more then one historian saying this. most historian include all participating troops and one does not! and what is with prokhorovka, what is neccessary that wikipedia dont uses historians which are punked by the myth? Blablaaa ( talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
no he is not using other sources -.- frieser and zetterling and frankson are counting all participating tanks and glantz not. i explained it so well i think, glantz is giving the number for central and voronez and the other historians give central voronez and steppe, which is the "truth" because steppe fought in the south. but when your green sentence is correct than the discussion is over because glantz is glantz. but its a bit sobering, isnt it ? i only hope that glantz dont decide to say germany won WWII because than wiki will start publishing this . iam sure there is a wikirule against being funny. so sorry for this.... Blablaaa ( talk) 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
David Glantz is a respected historian, with many published works to his credit. The book was published by a university press. As such, it would generally be considered to be a very reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Do anonymous testimonies in a RS journalist piece count as RS? The source in question is this, specifically in this passage:
It is a piece originally by the Washington Post, and is disputed primarily in here. Specifically whether it's acceptable to describe that woman as "night club worker" and "took money to keep men company" without the neighbour caveat. Although I am not here to dispute whether the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, I do strongly dispute whether that also covers anonymous testimonies from unreliable sources. This is nothing more than neighbour hearsay, the tabloid type material that would be instantly rejected if that woman was alive ( WP:BLP). The article gave its reader a caveat ("Neighbours recalled") on the unreliability of the source, and it can not be treated as something that Washington Post itself endorses. -- antilived T | C | G 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the information is important to the article. I fail to understand the eagerness to exclude this small piece of information. It's relevant, yah? Readers can make up their own mind. To say that something like a few dozen words in a several thousand word long article is pushing undue, is pushing it! (imho)-- Asdfg 12345 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Question about the use of op-ed in articles, specifically in the UN Watch article, and the following excerpt which some users have advocated [29]:
Journalist and former anti-apartheid activist Ian Williams, writing in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007, wrote that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also condemned UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians. [1]
Ian Williams was twice president and twice vice president of the United Nations Correspondents Association, originated the UNCA award for best UN coverage in 1995 years ago, and is a judge in the New York Overseas Press Club Awards. He has appeared on ABC, BBC, ITN, CNN and contributed to Newsday, LA Weekly, Village Voice, New York Observer, Penthouse. [30] He is also the author of Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776, The Deserter: Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans and His Past, The Alms Trade and The UN For Beginners [31]
It has also been noted that Wikipedia doesn't have any article on Williams, Williams may not have ever been a staff writer for a "major" publication. [32]
Thanks,-- 70.225.142.161 ( talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Can Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Website, The Shakespeare Authorship Page at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ be used as a reliable source for the orthodox opinion at the Shakespeare authorship question page? Kathman is profusely published in Shakespeare studies for the past 15 years, and his article “The Question of Authorship”, concerning the Shakespeare authorship question, appears in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide (2003), edited by well-known Shakespearean scholar Stanley Wells, and published by the Oxford University Press. In addition, according to his CV at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/kathman.html, in April 2001 he was the co-leader (with Jonathan Hope) of a seminar on “Theory and Methodology in Authorship and Attribution Studies” at the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia, Spain. He has also discussed Shakespeare and the authorship question in newspapers and on radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio. The Web site is recommended by academics to those seeking information about the authorship question, and is referenced in several books as a reliable site for information on the topic. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt’s first two points—that he is being treated unfairly and that Kathman is abusive (in Smatprt’s opinion) to anti-Stratfordians—have no bearing on whether the Web site is a reliable source. (In fact, Smatprt tries to make the very argument that Paul said he would: that Kathman is not an expert on the Shakespeare authorship question.)
As an uninvolved editor, I too think the website qualifies as a reliable source for the authorship article because:
Of course, whenever possible peer reviewed and reputable publications should be preferred in the article, and the content should be adequately attributed, but using the website as a source is consistent with WP:RS requirements. Abecedare ( talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The Kathman-Ross website should not be considered a reliable source because the so-called "expert opinions" expressed there are not kept current. The field of authorship studies is dynamic, with new articles on research, arguments and perspectives published all the time. Yet the Kathman-Ross website takes no notice of any of this. Kathman has said repeatedly that his mind is made up, and he has moved on to other topics. As a result, to take one example, the section of their website on The Tempest is very out of date. They ignore the work of Stritmatter and Kositsky (metioned above). They ignore Nina Green's refutation of their claim that The Tempest is based on the Strachey letter. Her refutation, titled "David Kathman’s false parallels between the Strachey letter, the Jourdain account, the anonymous True Declaration and Shakespeare’s The Tempest" is at the bottom of the documents page on her site at: http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html. This refutation was brought to Kathman's attention, yet he has ignored it, as if it did not exist. Books are immutable, but there's a presumption that a website regarded as a "reliable source" will be kept reasonably up to date. This is not true in the case of the Kathman-Ross website. They have made it clear that they are closed-minded ideologues who no longer pay attention to others' views, and do not take them into account on their website. That being the case, their website should not be regarded as a reliable source for purposes of determining the current state of orthodox views. Schoenbaum ( talk) 05:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Summarizing policy/guidelines here:
Is anything unclear about that? Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused by your syntax, but never mind; it's enough to know that you oppose the site as a reliable source. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I suppose I was confused about why you would give the example for an article such as William Shakespeare when we're discussing the article Shakespeare authorship question. Regardless, Paul's point is still relevant. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you have an inflated view of the number of reliable sources there are rebutting anti-Stratfordism, but it is far from "many." Yes, several notable scholars have done so (although I have no idea what Smatprt is talking about when he says Stanley Wells has made a point-by-point rebuttal; if he has, I don't know of it), but books devoted to refuting the anti-Shakespeare claim such as McCrea's are rare. In fact, I can think of only two others: Irv Matus's Shakespeare, In Fact (1997) and the soon-to-be-published Contested Will, by James Shapiro. Yes, other notable Shakespeareans have written about it: S. Schoenbaum wrote a 65-page survey of the phenomenon (without refuting the claims) in his 600+ page Shakespeare's Lives (1970, 1991); Jonathan Bate gave it 35 pages in his The Genius of Shakespeare (1998); Harold Love uses it as an example of how not to do it in his primer, Attributing Authorship (2002); and Stanley Wells gives it a scant 18 pages in his Is It True What they Say About Shakespeare? (2007). Total up all the pages and I doubt they'll amount to 1 percent of the amount of anti-Stratfordian literature that has been published in the past 150 years, all of which is still cherry-picked by anti-Stratfordians to give their movement a gloss of scholarship. Nor do most of them directly address particular anti-Stratfordian or Oxfordian claims in detail the way Kathman does on his Web site, Matus being the exception.
I think that these three topics from the WP:FRINGE page might be appropriate, especially the sentence, "If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced."
It appears to me that we have a consensus that Kathman's Web site is a reliable source, but I thought that these points would help in assuring the independent editors that the decision stretches none of Wikipedia's policies. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to explain, because you are right, I describe myself more as a Shakespearean than a Wikipedian, and I'm unfamiliar with many Wikipedia policies, although by the reading I have been doing it seems to me that common sense is pretty much followed in those policies.
My statement about Wikipedia allowing unreliable sources to discuss fringe theories was confined to the articles discussing anti-Stratfordism, such as the Shakespeare authorship question, the Oxfordian theory article, and the Baconian theory article. All of them most certainly do explain their topics by pointing to a series of polemical anti-Stratfordian books or websites and describing their contents, as is evident to anyone who peruses the sites, so I assume these are the types of articles you are talking about that do not yet conform with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Am I correct in that assumption? Or do I still misunderstand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources?
Since it has been established that David Kathman is an expert on the subject, having been published on the subject by leading university presses (you can't get much better than Oxford UP), led seminars on the topic at world conferences, and whose opinion on the topic is sought out by the media, I really don't understand why I would need to provide an example of a specific claim where I would need to use his website, since he is obviously "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", as per WP:SPS policy. Currently I don't have any edits that rely solely on Kathman's site. However, I happen to have one that is discussed here, which is the discussion that beget this opinion request. But once the rebuttal was fully understood, the relevant material in the section was deleted by the opposition (for lack of a better word) editors, rather than face such effective refutation. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the clueless one. Read Jayjg's comment directly above mine. Note the sentence, "For example, the Holocaust denial article does not explain what Holocaust denial is by pointing to a series of Holocaust denying websites or books and describing their contents." Both Holocaust denial and anti-Stratfordism are fringe theories, as even you admit. Now substitute "Shakespeare authorship question" for "Holocaust denial" in the statement: "For example, the Shakespeare authorship question article does not explain what the Shakespeare authorship question is by pointing to a series of Shakespeare authorship questioning websites or books and describing their contents." As anybody who peruses the references at the article can see, it most certainly does that. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
So far, the opinion request on whether Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Shakespeare Authorship Page can be used as a reliable source has resulted in comments by five uninvolved editors. Four of them, Dlabtot, Crum375, Verbal, and Abecedare, say it is an acceptable source within WP:SPS guidelines. One of them, Jayjg, says it is not.
It appears to me the consensus is to use it. Is that about it? Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You're correct, I am not near as expert in Wikipedia guidelines as almost anybody here. At that site it also says consensus is not unanimity. For the record, what would you say the consensus is among the five uninvolved editors right now? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Tom, you asked what I felt the consensus at this point is. Let me answer as best I can.
Now that we have a pretty good picture on how these editors feel, I think we can continue working on the article and decide how and when to use the website back on the article talk page. I acknowledge the feeling of the majority here and will provide greater leeway for the Kathman site as we move forward. Though I would have preferred a different outcome, I want to thank the editors here for providing input. I will copy this post to the article talk page so we can resume work there and on the article itself. Smatprt ( talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The Software Top 100 is verifiable, as it quotes material from annual reports, and clearly displays its methodology and calculations on its website. The Software Top 100 is online since 2003, and it is used by large software companies to review their competitive position and inform the public of their size. The point of view is neutral and objective: companies are only included on the basis of sufficient software revenues. Companies can not pay to be on the list, or something like that. The Top 100 Research Foundation makes the Software Top 100 on best effort, using its database with currently 10,000+ software companies. In doing the ranking, they do not differ from the makers of other rankings such as the Forbes 400 or the Fortune rankings, which do not claim to be complete, but do have a stated research methodology and a verifiable way of working.
Some time ago, it was decided by user Esoteric Rogue that the Software Top 100 is not a reliable source, and he proceeded to delete all links on Wikipedia to that source. His post on this noticeboard can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#softwaretop100.org . I do not agree with him. At the moment there is really no better source online for software company size than the Software Top 100. Try and compare with other sources and their methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_software_companies (Software Top 100 references were deleted from this page by Esoteric Rogue).
1. A report on European Software Strategy from the European Union 2. A report on the regional software industry by SELA, a regional intergovernmental organization that groups 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries. 3. A Research paper on Cloud Computing by the Georgia Institute of Technology With regards to the 2006 European IDC list you mention: it is a copy of the Truffle 100, of which the most recent (2009) edition was (according to their website) not researched by IDC but by the Top 100 Research Foundation; the makers of the Software Top 100. Anyone? -- BalderV ( talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I would appreciate peoples' views on whether the below news sources (primarily Pakistani and Iranian) are RSs for controversial reports concerning Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani accused of being an al-Qaeda member (who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents).
There has been a deep divide over many Pakistani reports (which the Boston Globe, for example, has described as "sketchy") [39] and many RS reports in this area.
Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick notes: The Dawn is arguably the most influential/reputable newspaper in Pakistan. The News is published Jang Group (which IIRC is the largest newspaper publisher in the country) and is also a well-established mainstream source. Daily Times (Pakistan) is relatively new but a legitimate and mainstream newspaper. Associated Press of Pakistan is also a genuine and well-established newswire service. FWIW, Nexis archives, Daily Times and The Nation among these Pakistani sources. Though I am sure that all these sources can be faulted with a pro-Pakistan bias (not same as pro-Pakistan government bias, except that APP is partially govt. controlled), I'd regard these newspapers as reliable sources, as defined on wikipedia. Of course, we need to take the usual precautions i.e., consider due weight, use attribution when warranted, and beware of redflag claims, or claims contradicted by other sources etc. Abecedare ( talk) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: Boston Globe saying that "With her whereabouts unknown, sketchy reports in Pakistani papers suggested ..." simply means that the newspaper reports are not detailed/confirmed, which reflects the difficulty in obtaining verifiable information, and is not a comment on the Pakistan newspapers reliability. Abecedare ( talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess my first question would be, is there freedom of the press in Pakistan? Any people here particularly knowledgeable in that arena? IronDuke 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Some background on freedom of the media in Pakistan (or lack of it) can be found here: "Press not free in Pakistan, says Freedom House" and here: "Map of Press Freedom", and info on pressures on the media in Pakistan can be found here: "Attacks on the Press 2009: Pakistan" and here: "5 journalists killed, 17 arrested, 61 injured, 27 harassed; 11 attacks on media property, 16 cases of gag orders; Annual State of Pakistan Media Report 2006-07". Information on Iran's freedom of the press can be found here: "Map of Press Freedom; 2009".-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My question is whether Heartless Bitches International, http://www.heartless-bitches.com, can be considered a reliable source for the article Nice guy. I don't think it can be, as they call their essays "rants", which suggest they fall under WP:RS#Statements of opinion, even if not questionable. I have pointed the participants there to this discussion. As I seem to be alone among the editors there, I thought I'd bring the matter to the relevant noticeboard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor wanted to use this as a source with this edit [40] (and back through redacts) and seemed pretty adamant it was a valid source [41]. But AFAIKS the site states that "Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Wikipedia.". I have added it to [42]. This entry is added should the other editor want to question this addition. If there is no questions then I'll zap whatever link we have in other articles. Ttiotsw ( talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Former Soviet Union (Cambridge World Encyclopedias) ~ Archie Brown (Editor), Michael Kaser (Editor) # Hardcover: 622 pages
Is this a reliable source? LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Also what is blacklisted? Where can I check that to confirm my sources here on Wiki? LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Last.fm [43] considered a reliable source? I always felt it wasn't, it depends on user-submitted content. For example, the band genres are based on users "tagging" the band with their own opinions on what the band is. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Previously:
I acknowledge that Gale Group has previously been thought of as reliable, and they certainly have the trappings of reliability. However, I am very concerned that they are not actually reliable: editors have used Gale Group works to insert two (and arguably three) factually questionable items into the Bill Moyers article relating to his 1967-70 tenure at Newsday.
The editor claims (I cannot verify, as my library does not hold, and the source is gated) that the Gale bio says:
But this contradicts contemporaneous sources.
Separately, another editor points out that Gale Group used the anachronism "progressive" to describe Moyers's role on the paper.
All in all, when a reference work makes so many basic errors, I find it hard to treat as "reliable." What say others at RSN? THF ( talk) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm relisting this because previous post had been commented on by users involved with WP:PORN and I was hoping to get a fresh perspective. If you're involved in the porn project and wish to comment please use previous post.
A book by this author entitled the Future of Israel is being used as a source in the article on the Battle of Yad Mordechai. The book uses flaming emotional language and is blatantly biased, including verses of poetry throughout. He keeps reiterating mention of Israeli struggle, sacrifice and heroism, talks about 26 martyrs in the battle who not merely sacrificed themselves but their enemies for Kiddush Hashem, and writes of how God seeks the blood of His enemies and that Israeli victories magnify and sanctify God in the eyes of the world. See page 196 and what follows in the book here. Can this really be used as a source in Wikipedia? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am curious about third opinion of the sourcing of the James Wesley Rawles article. I see that the key editor User:Trasel is an active participant on the blog of this self published survivalist author [46] [47] raising questions of independence. Looking at most of the 75 references to the article I see that they are nearly all self referential, pointing either to his self published book or blog. I didn't check all 75 references, and no doubt there are a few that do barely mention this author in third party sources, but I see none that feature this author amounting to notability. Multiple links that point to independent sources come up as dead links. I notice the earlier article for AFD debate [48] in April 2008 was likely influenced by editor canvasing [49] [50], and can guess that the 75 references now are in response to criticism then. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The below discussion was started on Talk:Tobin_tax
It was originally entitled, "Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig" and was started by "Cosmic Cube" (not myself)
I, Boyd Reimer, am seeking other editors to join this discussion for the following reason: If two heads are better than one, then I propose that three heads are better than two.
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 18:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussion begins here
I would suggest that Linda McQuaig is an unreliable source. For example, in one article she claims that Paul Volcker is a transaction tax supporter ( http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/762427--mcquaig-tory-chill-freezes-out-tobin-tax). She provides no support for this assertion. However, a Reuters article shows that Volcker opposes this idea ( http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BC0MH20091213) and they are able to quote him directly as evidence.
There are two possibilities regarding what could have happened here with respect to McQuaig (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
1. McQuaig is a mediocre journalist: I was able to find a direct source on Volcker's views in a few minutes. If I am able to do this and McQuaig cannot then it casts serious doubt on her journalistic ability.
2. McQuaig is biased (and, thus, willing to be loose with the facts when it comes to her bias): Here is a quote from McQuaig's article:
"What a tragedy that, as this rare opportunity approaches, we are saddled with the small-minded, Bay Street-beholden Harper government. Will we be doomed again to watch the Harperites stage photo-ops of themselves, this time hugging the CN Tower and straddling cannons at Old Fort York, while the rest of the G20 struggles to rein in reckless financial markets?"
A cursory review of articles by McQuaig suggests she is incapable of writing anything without directly attacking people she doesn't like (typically people in right-of-center governments). She is clearly spinning this against a political party she disagrees with (I don't think "staging photo-ops" is a characteristic exclusive to any particular part of the political spectrum). Would she still be saying the same thing if it were left-of-center party members engaging in the same behavior?
I don't know which of these cases is true, but at least one of them must be. In either event, this suggests that McQuaig is unreliable and I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future.
(The other possibility here, not having anything to do with McQuaig, is that Volcker changed his mind between December 13, 2009 (Reuters article) and February 9, 2010 (McQuaig's article). This seems unlikely given the short amount of time between these articles and the fact that he has had President Obama's ear during this period when the Volcker proposals were taking shape.)
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"Opposers" can "soften their doubts" as time passes
Notice that Strauss-Kahn took only one month to "soften his doubts."
It is possible that this can happen to others as well.
Therefore we must allow for this possibility in others also. For example Paul Volcker may have changed his mind between December, 2009 and February 2010.
Compare this edit and this edit
Also we must address the question of what is a reliable source: Is the Globe and Mail an unreliable source?
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, I checked this Wikipedia policy about on the reliability of sources and found this quote: "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."
The particular McQuaig article you are referred to in the above (previous) discussion is published by the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper.
Instead of discounting it outright, Wikipedia policy suggests that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."
A provocative style of writing is common among columnists from all sides of the political spectrum. (That is probably done to stir readers to write in, start a discussion, create a buzz, thereby causing more papers to be sold.) I am accustomed to seeing this from all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, despite that common culture of writing styles, it is still important not to tell an untruth. (Of course, an encyclopedic style of writing is very different from the columnist style of writing.)
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Greetings Cosmic Cube:
Thank you for your comments. After reading my last comment I can understand how you may have been confused by it. Therefore, I should clarify: Here is the sequence in which things happened:
With all due respect, I do not see a dramatic "red flag" here. McQuaig's comment is corroborated by Saunders comment, and Saunders comment is corroborated by McQuaig's comment. Both are published in "mainstream" sources: the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. Two months earlier Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives indicated support for a "G20 ... financial transaction tax."
Your use of WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply in this case. That Wikipedia policy applies only in case when a prediction is made. Neither Saunders nor McQuaig Saunders were making predictions. Doug Saunders wrote in the past tense when he used the word "spoke." Linda McQuaig wrote the word "sees" which is present tense. There is no prediction here. Therefore the use of WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply in this case. On Feb 4 and 5, there was a meeting in Canada which was new. The reporters covering it were not simply repeating what had happened almost two months earlier (McQuiag writes: "last weekend as he hosted the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit." source)
Why am I going through all of this so carefully? I am not going through this explanation so that I can keep the Saunders (Feb 5) quote nor the McQuaig (Feb 9) quote in the "Tobin tax" article. In the above conversation I already thanked you for your discovery of the direct quote from Volcker.
The only reason I am carefully going through this is because you made the statement: "I would propose to other editors that she ([Linda McQuaig]) not be used as a primary source in the future." I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia, being the helpful community that it is, has provided this noticeboard so that we can get other editors opinions on this issue. With all due respect, I suggest that we bring this issue to the noticeboard before we delete every reference to Linda McQuaig or Doug Saunders in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken before any further deletions occur.
I am willing to live with the deletion of the Feb 5 and 9 writings. But it is a completely different situation to say "I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future."
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 13:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Greetings Cosmic Cube:
Thank you for your scrutiny of this very important issue. Scrutiny is healthy for pruning ideas. Two heads are always better than one.
I would like to focus attention on one of your statements: You stated, "Your point that we would have to prove that Volcker could not have changed his mind in between December and February is an example of idle speculation and is inappropriate."
I respectfully disagree with that particular statement of yours:
I have already given the example of Strauss-Kahn who took only one month to "soften his doubts." This example shows that my proposition is not "idle speculation."
Our job as Wikipedia editors is to draw upon sources, not to provide our own interpretation. Regardless of whether you or I think that the statements by Linda McQuaig and Doug Saunders are implausible, our opinions do not matter. Our job is simply to bring sources into Wikipedia.
If we would do that task without injecting our own interpretation, then all sourced evidence points to the justifiable belief that Volcker did change his mind between December and February. There are no sources yet which contradict the sources of Linda McQuaig nor Doug Saunders. If you can find such a source, I would be happy to rest my case. But so far, I haven't seen such a source. Therefore, all presently available sources support the justifiable belief that Volcker did change his mind.
See Theory of justification [of belief].
I will conclude with two logistical notes: First, I am combining this discussion with the above discussion entitled, "Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig." My reason for doing so is because this discussion quotes the earlier discussion. This might be confusing for readers who are following.
Here is my second logistical note: Like I said above, two heads are always better than one. By extension, this means that three heads are better than two, etc, etc. If there is a broader the range of input, then there is a better chance of coming to a compromise on this issue. So far my attempts at compromise appear to have failed. Please don't take this as an insult, but I feel that in order to come to agreement on this important issue, I feel that we need more input from more voices than just two. That is why I am posting this discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The title will be: Reliable Sources?: Doug Saunders and Linda McQuaig.
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
At this point I brought the discussion here to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 18:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"What a tragedy that, as this rare opportunity approaches, we are saddled with the small-minded, Bay Street-beholden Harper government. Will we be doomed again to watch the Harperites stage photo-ops of themselves, this time hugging the CN Tower and straddling cannons at Old Fort York, while the rest of the G20 struggles to rein in reckless financial markets?"
There's been an ongoing debate at Talk:Michael Aldrich about information sourced to AldrichArchive.com, which is a number of documents Aldrich donated to the University of Brighton. The website is being used to source a number of big claims added to a number of articles, including home shopping, online shopping, electronic commerce, among others. Most of the edits have been reverted( [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] (except for those at Michael Aldrich), and the discussion now seems to be stalled due to a couple of issues, including the use of aldricharchive.com as a reliable source. Assistance in verifying this source or finding others that can be used for sourcing would be helpful -- the latest discussion is Talk:Michael Aldrich#AldrichArchive.com. Flowanda | Talk 03:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please provide assistance in verifying sources, finding editors who can and/or communicating with the editor who's adding them. Since December 26, this SPA has made over 1,600 edits, adding an average of 33 edits to 48 articles using sources that have been questioned by multiple editors as to their verifiability and WP:RS. The editor continues to edit articles at an alarming pace and ignores any editor input that doesn't support his edits. I was able to check and add sourcing to a couple of articles, but I simply cannot keep up with the quantity of edits and I don't have the ability to verify the references, most of which are to non-English pages or to offline sources unavailable and unaccessible to me. I know I should provide diffs, but honestly, I just don't know where to begin, other than to provide links to his contribution page [59], a complaint [60] and related discussions on my talk page. [61] [62] Flowanda | Talk 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to confirm whether Current Psychology a peer-reviewed journal or not. Sources say Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed academic journal. [63] [64] [65] Founded and originally published by the Transaction Publishers, [66] [67] the journal is now published by the Springer Science+Business Media. [68] [69] According to SpringerLink, "from volume 1 (1981) to Volume 2 (1982), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research; as of Volume 3 (1984), the journal merged with Current Psychological Reviews; and from Volume 3 (1984) to Volume 6 (1987), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research & Reviews." [70] The journal is subscribed by university libraries like the library of the University of South Alabama. [71] But a discussion at Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Antisemitism discredit it. Requesting third party opinion. -- Defender of torch ( talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see George E. Terwilleger. Is that link to encyclopedia.com a reliable source? Woogee ( talk) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Digital Spy considered reliable? I've doubted its reliability for quite awhile, but I would like to get the opinions of other editors. – Chase ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This link is widely misinterpreted by editors. It's a page updated periodically(weekly?) of planned future song releases, meaning, firstly, it's not a good reference to link as the contents change and secondly because it's future releases then it is subject to WP:CRYSTAL. Another common mistake of editors is to imply it is a physical release, but it does not say that. SunCreator ( talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know why The Economist changes (apparently all of) their article names, renaming them from the original hard-print publication title to an online version. Does anyone know, and how should these articles be cited? Example:
On a related matter, how should we cite a source when the publisher changes its name over time? Should we cite the original publisher name, under which the source was first published, or the new publisher name, if the name changed after the source was published ? Sample, Naval Historical Center changed to Naval History & Heritage Command, effective 1 December 2008 (see bottom of this page). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
On a related note: When an online document lists a publisher, and the publisher thereafter changes its name (but not the name on the document), what should be listed: the old name, the new name, or both? In HMS Calliope (1884) I cited to two online documents, last revised in 2002, on the website of the “Naval Historical Center” of the US Department of the Navy. That center has since changed its name to the “Naval History and Heritage Command”, and has expressed a preference that it now be referred to by that name. See bottom of this page. (That refers to images, but there does not seem to be any reason why it would not apply to texts from that source.) The articles I used were first published under the old name, bear the old name, and have not been modified since. They however are continuously published by their presence on the website of the renamed entity. I have listed both names now—is there a right or wrong answer here? Kablammo ( talk) 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if we could get some opinions on the RFC at Talk:RAF_Rudloe_Manor#Notability_and_suitability_of_sources, which relates to another users desire to use two primary sources, documents from The National Archives, in support of his assertions. These are File:PROVOST.gif and File:GOVTDO3.gif There is also a notability issue, is the section within a larger Headquarters worthy of being singled out for discussion in the article.
Thanks
ALR ( talk) 10:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User is deleting this reference saying blogs are not RS What say you? Dlabtot ( talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added the source back per the above argument, however since this is not an ideal reliabl;e source, I have attributed it. I have removed the label "convative" from the lead sentence because using labels like this with a single source, especially a blog, is problematic per WP:LABEL. If a source mentions a label as part of a description, that's (probably) OK; but to go around looking for labels that sources have used in order to insert them into articles without explanation or context is a highly unconstructive thing to do, I think. -- Defender of torch ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm not sure you have George Thorogood's birthday right. I believe it is actually December 31st, can not confirm the year (1950-1952).
Thanks Lori
Can I get an opinion about this source being used to back up material added to the BLP of Debra Medina (politician)? Namely, is http://truthdig.org considered a reliable source? Thanks. — DoRD ( ?) ( talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. Well, actually, yes for editorial oversight, but of a particular political kind. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
STOP NOW - this is not the location for the two of you to continue an endless argument. My suggestion... place two maps side by side, so that both POVs are visually represented. Blueboar ( talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The main point is that the map avoids the entire western bibliography and can't be explained by any academic historical means. Alexikoua ( talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with placing highly pov material. Placing to pov is even worst, but Hammond is an expert in this field and I hardly believe its pov. @Megistias: You need to provide the specific pages with the relevant texts&maps, I remember that somewhere on the net I found a similar map directly scanned from Hammond's work. Alexikoua ( talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hammond's map is here [ [74]], it's identical to the one Megistias proposes. So it seems that is is quite reliable. On the other hand the 6th-8th century map is still of questionable value. Alexikoua ( talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is an Internet source with similar map showing Albanian presence in the 8th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not think that even Megistias can claim that this source is unreliable and not good enough to be used in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As far I see this book, which is completely contradicting the entire western bibliography in this part, does not explain why the ancestors of today's Albanians, should been placed there. No descriptions, no explanations, no prove, no nothing. Moreover this book is focused on modern post 1800 history. If the authors believe this it's not our problem. Typical wp:fringe.
For example this: [ [75]], is not enough to claim that Columbus was Greek. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not read all the above stuff, but here is what makes those maps unreliable: the source is an old schoolbook published during the Serbian communist period — a regime known for it's propaganda — while there are a lot of modern sources to follow. Another strange thing is that PANONIAN inserted those maps across all Wikipedias, making me sceptically. — Sebi talk 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To repeat what should not need repeating, maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, or as sources in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
I would like an opinion on the Gay Erotic Video Index. It seems to have editor control, but it lacks an "About Us" page.
Warning: contains pornographic images. - Stillwaterising ( talk) 16:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Citation: ^ "Who are the most prolific performers?". Gay Erotic Video Index. www.wtule.net. Retrieved 2010-02-15.
Hey everybody. I was wondering if I could reach out to the wiki community at large to get an outside opinion on the reliability and neutrality of some sources that keep being brought into the article on Jean-Bertand Aristide. To me, these cited articles come across as editorials, but I, myself, may be biased against them in that I do not believe the extent of their claims. Can we get some outside opinions?
Here are some examples of cites in question:
-- Bertrc ( talk) 04:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The issue is an alleged 16th century document which is claimed to have been discovered in 1995, a timely event as it coincided with the deliberation of the canonisation of Juan Diego. It purportedly described the apparition of the Virgin Mary in 1531. This is, unsurprisingly, highly contentious. An IP is adding a claim from the Texas Catholic Herald, which is the official publication of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, that ""This document has been subjected to several scientific tests and all of them indicate that it is an original of that period of time.". See [3]. I removed this as I can find no sources saying anything about these tests other than this 'house organ', which I don't see as a reliable source. In any case, I think this is a WP:REDFLAG issue. I've made my reasons clear in the edit summaries I've made, the IP's response was " Sarcasm is what it is, but hey, let the reader judge. Reliable source? Please point me to the rule that distinguishes "reliable" from "unreliable")". Dougweller ( talk) 08:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Bellarmino ( talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) The reference to sarcasm was to that employed by Brading in his comment on the Codex Escalada. He treated it not with any scientific method but sought to discredit it with a sarcastic comment. Having read your material on classifying "reliable" sources I see how he qualifies and those who oppose him sometimes don't - i.e. he has the secular university community behind him - but the comment he makes in this context is less than worthless. In fact, it discredits the position of those who claim to be governed by reason. That's why "let the reader judge" is the only possible response (since you don't appear willing to have the sarcasm deleted).
Bellarmino ( talk) 08:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Now if the Texas Catholic Herald is sufficient as "as an example of a source making a claim" then surely it ought not to have been deleted. It ought to have been corrected. What am I missing?
Bellarmino ( talk) 10:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I've made some more edits. It turns out that the stuff about the "painting" and the various layers is from a secret investigation in 1982, which has never been published. Instead, it was referred to in an article in the magazine "Proceso" from where it was gleefully lifted by rationalists and spread far and wide. From what I've seen so far of the quality of the reasoning governing things here, it belongs on Wikipedia, but on the hypothesis that the statements about verifiable quality sources has some level of sincerity, I've deleted it. I await with interest the reaction of the mob.
Bellarmino ( talk) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC) It's called a fact. Apparently Wikipedia recognises those, despite its pose as being uninterested in truth as such. The only way you could impugn that fact is if you had some source in which it were claimed that Brading or Poole had examined the Codex, but no such source exists because they have not done so. I have a source in which it is admitted that they did not examine it, but no such source is needed in the absence of any claim to the contrary. As for insults, if the hat fits, wear it. If the hat doesn't fit, don't insist on being insulted, since it obviously isn't aimed at you.
Is [4] a sufficiently reliable source for a claim that Arthur A. Goldberg is a convicted felon? I worry that the allegation is not sufficiently backed up for WP standards ( WP:BLP and current lengthy discussion on deletions). It is possible that there might be some dislike for the person, to be sure. Collect ( talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Wait, did this website hire the entire staff of the South Florida Blade? Hipocrite ( talk) 13:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | In February 2010, a joint investigative report by activist organization Truth Wins Out, formed to counteract what it refers to as the "ex-gay" myth, and South Florida Gay News reported that Goldberg was fined $100,000 and sentenced to eighteen months in prison for fraud in 1989. They tied the conviction for fraud to what they see as his "dishonest present-day work" with JONAH and NARTH. | ” |
Looking at the current easy-accessed sources there is a long history here of the man forming groups and championing causes as well as books discussing his finance work including starting a credit union which was central to the fraud case. There is a lot there but it can be presented NPOV and RS'd. -- Banjeboi 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to ask for opinions about the video web site World of Martial Arts [5]. It does not appear to be a video blog: the videos are selected by the staff of WOMA. There is no statement about their editorial policy and there is no information about the copyright status of the videos on their site. There are interviews with popular martial artists [6].
Would these videos be acceptable as Primary Sources? Would inclusion in this site help a claim to notability? jmcw ( talk) 11:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi. For a while I've been using www.britballnow.co.uk as a source for a number of articles relating to American football in the UK. During the course of a peer review, the question was raised about whether this could be counted as a reliable source or not. So far I've seen no errors or causes for concern and I can personally vouch for one of the main contributors but I would like to gauge other people's opinions on this. Bettia (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion on gibnews.net above, I would like to raise another site, gibnet.com, also operated by User:Gibnews. I have also raised it at WP:COIN [7] because, separate to the reliablity matter, there is a COI matter too.
This site is a totally different kettle of fish to gibnews.net. It's a clearly partisan site which is doing much more than archiving the material - there is also opinion there, unsourced research, and yet it's being used as a factual reference and promoted in External Link sections.
This site is used in the following places [8].
To pick some examples:
I submit that - even before we consider the COI issues (please note, it's Gibnews' site and he himself is adding many of the links to it [11] [12]) - this site is totally unreliable for usage on Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Based on the views of editors here, at COI/N and at ANI, I have submitted gibnet.com for inclusion on the blacklist here [13]. I will also remove all links to it from Wikipedia articles once that has been actioned, as I wish to preserve the record of links for the editor who deals with it. Gibnews, this noticeboard is for RS matters - please stick to those rather than discussing me: I'm utterly irrelevant to the reliability of the source, on which - unlike gibnews.net - there has been a unanimous response. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've removed all the links, replacing them with "fact" tags, and have started on the process of finding reliable sources to replace those. As I stated elsewhere, I'm finding this relatively easy, thanks to the power of Google. There really is no need to link to gibnet.com. (There is, however, one potential exception. The Bahá'í organisation's own website links to gibnet.com [14]. So, should we link to the Bahá'í website which lists Gibraltar, or should we link to gibnet.com too?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Is the Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century a valid and reliable source to provide in whole or in part estimated statical information for articles here on Wikipedia? [15] LoveMonkey ( talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Just an observation but- Ha, by that standard Wikipedia is pretty hypocritical...Thanks for clarifying though. LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This version [16] of Megan Connolly was virtually word for word reproduction of [17] at TV.com. I have edited the content to the point that I think any copyright violations have been addressed, but the sole source for the article is the TV.com article and if that is just a wikipedia mirror, then the whole article needs to be resourced. MM 207.69.139.138 ( talk) 01:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Editor Galassi is inserting "he was significant proponent of the Blood libel against Jews" in Vladimir Purishkevich. Galassi supports this with two refs.
Can this sources be used to support the content? Attention from uninvolved editors needed. DonaldDuck ( talk) 06:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
So far as we have seen here, we have no source that justifies the text inserted by Galassi. Zero talk 00:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The insertion involves too much original research. The articles establish some sort of link, but not one that warrants the claims being made. This is really a question for the WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some opinions pertaining to List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States regarding Avatar ticket sales in regards to Box Office Mojo.
Box Office Mojo is regarded as a highly reliable source on the film articles and is used almost exclusively on Wikipedia (and in the mainstream press) as the primary source for financial data. There is no question about its status as a reliable source, and that is at the root of the problem I am facing.
The chart mentioned above includes the film grosses adjusted for ticket price inflation, and also the number of ticket sales via the Box Office Mojo chart here: [20]. However, since ticket sales aren't tracked Mojo clearly states where the ticket sales are unknown it works it out using the average ticket price for the year the film was made. This is fine in most cases where the ticket price is static, but has caused a problem with Avatar, where it states that Avatar has sold over 87 million tickets in grossing $668 million.
Because ticket prices are different for the different formats Avatar was released in (2D/3D/IMAX), the simple model of dividing the gross by the average ticket price for that year no longer applies, as noted in their own article about Avatar's performance: [21]. They clarify the general methodology for how they calculate admissions: Unfortunately, the industry does not track admissions, only dollars. Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive.. Their article provides a breakdown of teh ticket sales in each format (and at the different prices for those formats) to extimate that "All told, Avatar's estimated admission count is 60.7 million thus far" in grossing $600 million.
The dispute is over whether to include the ticket sales estimate from their chart, which Box Office Mojo clearly indicates is inaccurate in the case of Avatar. Avatar clearly didn't sell another 27 million tickets going from $600 million to $668 million. So yes Box Office Mojo is a reliable source, its chart is usually considered reliable, but the Box Office Mojo analysis indicates the estimate is not reliable in the case of Avatar.
So what should take precedence in a case like this? The chart or the article, both published by the same source? It seems to me the article acts as a kind or errata in this instance. Would appreciate any opinions. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Iranica is used extensively in Al-Farabi to prove that he was Persian. The author of the Iranica article about al-Farabi, Dimitri Gutas gives a different account about al-Farabi's ethnicity in a different article published on the Stanford University site. Sole Soul ( talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume that most of the people here will not read the long Iranica article to make their conclusions about my claim. In the Iranica article, Gutas is "refuting" the Turkish ethnicity claim. He is saying that the primary sources that say al-Farabi was Turkish are pro-Turkish and should not be relied on.
Regardless, the main question is: Is Iranica a RS in a disputed matter that relate to Iran. Sole Soul ( talk) 21:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Is EInsiders.com a reliable source? The website has been around since before 1996, it has several very well known and well respected editors with editorial oversight to their content. EInsiders is on the internet, on several TV stations and has a radio show. Information is 3rd party verified. The editors are all long-term members of the Film Critics association and are high level professionals in the field of their expertise, the film industry. Other large publications use them for a source and often cite them as a source for information. They are on the list of approved film critics with Rotten Tomatoes and show up in the Rotten Tomato movie reviews as an official film critic. (I use Rotten Tomatoes as an example because they are used as a reliable source on Wiki and EInsiders.com is the source for some of that info) They attend film festivals and press-only movie screening by invitation from film PR firms and do live interviews with cast and report directly from the events. I can't find anything that would make EInsiders not a credible source. Please let me know if that is enough for reliability. Pharaway ( talk) 05:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I am going to bypass the above for now, and look at the original question posed by Pharaway. EInsiders does not have an "about us" link on its site. I can see nothing about who creates it. Its creators appear to be good at media marketing / linking - they've got facebook links, twitter etc, but at its core it is an unverifiable site for which a google search, and a google news search, fails to turn up other obvious commentary that might attest to its reliability. Sorry, Pharaway, but my examination suggests it fails the test. Assuming the source happens to get those death dates correct, your best bet is to use that as a heads-up, go to the newspapers online in following days and find a reliable source. If other editors replace an EI ref with a reliable source, i recommend those revisions be allowed to stand. hamiltonstone ( talk) 04:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of whether einsiders.com is a reliable source, the discussion at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Pharaway shows a consensus that there has been an undue promotion of the site. Above, Pharaway states that the site is well known, with well respected editors and editorial oversight. However, I do not see anyway to verify these claims and I see no reason to regard einsiders as a reliable source. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
(moved from a talk page) Off the very top of my head, Kim Walker and Ashleigh Aston Moore would be examples that illustrate my point. Both actors are obviously notable but their deaths were merely blips on the radar in the media. I spend quite a bit of time working on fairly obscure dead actors' articles which means I know where to look for even the smallest mention of a obit. In those cases, none can be found except for Einsiders. While I'm fully aware that any unsourced content can be removed or challenged by anyone, I do not believe a notable person's death should fall into that category. In both cases, the deaths were covered by an outside source. For whatever reason, this source is being called into question. If possible, I'd like to be pointed to the discussion regarding the reliability of this link. Aside from it being spammed by some person for whatever reason, I've never found any problem with the actual site itself. Again, if there's something I'm missing please about this situation, feel free to clue me in. Pinkadelica ♣ 05:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"DANNY DUKES Died Dec. 3, 2007
Adult film actor Danny Dukes (real name Danny Salas Jr.) died of a drug overdose at age 33. Mr. Dukes acted in several adult films between 2002 and 2004. He was also a sometime agent. He leaves behind a young son. Prayers of comfort for his family and friends. Some say that the adult film industry leads to drug abuse. Of course there are enough examples of legit film industry insiders getting hooked on drugs to make one wonder about such blanket condemnations. However, the bottom line is this, drugs will kill you. First they will kill your soul, then your body. All that remains is the pain you leave behind because you didn't care enough to fight the addiction" There are more examples, but their site is down, again for me. — Mike Allen 06:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
What the best way is to offer further 'proof that Einsiders.com is not a bona fide source; information on ownership, persons involved, etc. — that is, without violating terms here, etc. 842U ( talk) 03:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I brought the issue up about Scott Mantz on Pharaway's talk page, Scott Mantz is a critic for Access Hollywood, but his profile on einsiders says nothing, on RottenTomatoes the same search for Scott Mantz gives you his full bio and links to his original reviews, einsiders passes him off as one of their reviewers. Scott Mantz et al. are legit reviewers, einsiders is not. Darrenhusted ( talk) 01:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
i have big doubts regarding this book. i explained on the discussion page of battle of kursk. first of all the book is convicted with using rotmistrovs steelguard as source, the book is claiming that the myth of prokhorvka is true. furthermore the claims of the strenghts are rediculous. i explained on the dischussionpage. while i think glantz is a reliable historian his book kursk seems to be punked by russian sources ( rotmistrov for example ). without checking german archival sources this book printed claims created by soviet propaganda. glantz is supporting the opinion that the red army was superior in many cases ( which is maybe possible but this is not the point) , he supports this claims with taking wrong strenght numbers and comparing them. his "ratios" are cited in the "battle of kursk" articles. for example he gives and overexxagrated number of german tanks and "forgots" the steppe front. so his ratios are simply ridicolous... . newer research is discrediting many statements of him. zetterling/frankson , have written an book about the statistical analyse of kursk and we see that glantz simply faked the numbers. "Das deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg Vol.8 " (2007) has an entire chapter regarding the prokhorovka myth. i explained this problem on the discussion page but nobody responed glantz is still even cited for the prokhorvka battle which is very sad... Blablaaa ( talk) 16:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Glantz, David M. & House, Jonathon (1995). When Titans Clashed; How the Red Army Stopped Hitler. University of Kansas Press. iam not sure if the user who makes the dubios statements is citing this book because he seems to own Glantz/ House ... Kursk too. but most of the dubios statements are from when titan clashed. i can present more dubios statements of the book about kursk. again i have to say that i dont think glantz is not reliable, but his statements about kursk are more than wrong Blablaaa ( talk) 11:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
ok than explain to me why he is forgeting entire fronts for his strenght ratios. explain to me? u cant... explain to me why he is using rotmistrov. u cant.... . Rebut my points and dont say "ignore the user"....
lets stick to the point. i dont say he is unreliable but i think his numbers for zitadelle are. thats why iam really interested in his book Kursk, we talk here about "when titans clashed" this book is 12 years older. and please hohum tell me your opinion about "forgeting" the steppe front? i know our opinion is irrelevant....
they both have the same number but one of them is missing a front/armygroup/Heeresgruppe. i think we can give both numbers but than the infobox becomes very huge. is there a possibility that somebody decides which source is better for the box. zetterling frankson wrote a book only about the numbers of kursk.... .the other numbers can be explained in the text, in the text its easy to explain the numbers and the reader will see fast that glantz simply missed a front which took part and his numbers are nonsense.... . another issue: glantz is quoting the myth of prokhorovka , what now? Blablaaa ( talk) 22:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
argh, this has nothing to do with "like" or POV or bias, here its : correct or wrong. its simply wrong. and we have more then one historian saying this. most historian include all participating troops and one does not! and what is with prokhorovka, what is neccessary that wikipedia dont uses historians which are punked by the myth? Blablaaa ( talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
no he is not using other sources -.- frieser and zetterling and frankson are counting all participating tanks and glantz not. i explained it so well i think, glantz is giving the number for central and voronez and the other historians give central voronez and steppe, which is the "truth" because steppe fought in the south. but when your green sentence is correct than the discussion is over because glantz is glantz. but its a bit sobering, isnt it ? i only hope that glantz dont decide to say germany won WWII because than wiki will start publishing this . iam sure there is a wikirule against being funny. so sorry for this.... Blablaaa ( talk) 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
David Glantz is a respected historian, with many published works to his credit. The book was published by a university press. As such, it would generally be considered to be a very reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Do anonymous testimonies in a RS journalist piece count as RS? The source in question is this, specifically in this passage:
It is a piece originally by the Washington Post, and is disputed primarily in here. Specifically whether it's acceptable to describe that woman as "night club worker" and "took money to keep men company" without the neighbour caveat. Although I am not here to dispute whether the Washington Post is a reliable source or not, I do strongly dispute whether that also covers anonymous testimonies from unreliable sources. This is nothing more than neighbour hearsay, the tabloid type material that would be instantly rejected if that woman was alive ( WP:BLP). The article gave its reader a caveat ("Neighbours recalled") on the unreliability of the source, and it can not be treated as something that Washington Post itself endorses. -- antilived T | C | G 00:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the information is important to the article. I fail to understand the eagerness to exclude this small piece of information. It's relevant, yah? Readers can make up their own mind. To say that something like a few dozen words in a several thousand word long article is pushing undue, is pushing it! (imho)-- Asdfg 12345 13:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Question about the use of op-ed in articles, specifically in the UN Watch article, and the following excerpt which some users have advocated [29]:
Journalist and former anti-apartheid activist Ian Williams, writing in an opinion piece in The Guardian in 2007, wrote that the main objective of UN Watch "is to attack the United Nations in general, and its human rights council in particular, for alleged bias against Israel". Williams supported UN Watch's condemnation of the UN Human Rights Council as a hypocritical organization, but also condemned UN Watch itself of hypocrisy for failing to denounce what he called manifest Israeli transgressions against the human rights of Palestinians. [1]
Ian Williams was twice president and twice vice president of the United Nations Correspondents Association, originated the UNCA award for best UN coverage in 1995 years ago, and is a judge in the New York Overseas Press Club Awards. He has appeared on ABC, BBC, ITN, CNN and contributed to Newsday, LA Weekly, Village Voice, New York Observer, Penthouse. [30] He is also the author of Rum: A Social and Sociable History of the Real Spirit of 1776, The Deserter: Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans and His Past, The Alms Trade and The UN For Beginners [31]
It has also been noted that Wikipedia doesn't have any article on Williams, Williams may not have ever been a staff writer for a "major" publication. [32]
Thanks,-- 70.225.142.161 ( talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Can Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Website, The Shakespeare Authorship Page at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ be used as a reliable source for the orthodox opinion at the Shakespeare authorship question page? Kathman is profusely published in Shakespeare studies for the past 15 years, and his article “The Question of Authorship”, concerning the Shakespeare authorship question, appears in Shakespeare: An Oxford Guide (2003), edited by well-known Shakespearean scholar Stanley Wells, and published by the Oxford University Press. In addition, according to his CV at http://shakespeareauthorship.com/kathman.html, in April 2001 he was the co-leader (with Jonathan Hope) of a seminar on “Theory and Methodology in Authorship and Attribution Studies” at the World Shakespeare Congress in Valencia, Spain. He has also discussed Shakespeare and the authorship question in newspapers and on radio, including the BBC and National Public Radio. The Web site is recommended by academics to those seeking information about the authorship question, and is referenced in several books as a reliable site for information on the topic. Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Smatprt’s first two points—that he is being treated unfairly and that Kathman is abusive (in Smatprt’s opinion) to anti-Stratfordians—have no bearing on whether the Web site is a reliable source. (In fact, Smatprt tries to make the very argument that Paul said he would: that Kathman is not an expert on the Shakespeare authorship question.)
As an uninvolved editor, I too think the website qualifies as a reliable source for the authorship article because:
Of course, whenever possible peer reviewed and reputable publications should be preferred in the article, and the content should be adequately attributed, but using the website as a source is consistent with WP:RS requirements. Abecedare ( talk) 23:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The Kathman-Ross website should not be considered a reliable source because the so-called "expert opinions" expressed there are not kept current. The field of authorship studies is dynamic, with new articles on research, arguments and perspectives published all the time. Yet the Kathman-Ross website takes no notice of any of this. Kathman has said repeatedly that his mind is made up, and he has moved on to other topics. As a result, to take one example, the section of their website on The Tempest is very out of date. They ignore the work of Stritmatter and Kositsky (metioned above). They ignore Nina Green's refutation of their claim that The Tempest is based on the Strachey letter. Her refutation, titled "David Kathman’s false parallels between the Strachey letter, the Jourdain account, the anonymous True Declaration and Shakespeare’s The Tempest" is at the bottom of the documents page on her site at: http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/documents.html. This refutation was brought to Kathman's attention, yet he has ignored it, as if it did not exist. Books are immutable, but there's a presumption that a website regarded as a "reliable source" will be kept reasonably up to date. This is not true in the case of the Kathman-Ross website. They have made it clear that they are closed-minded ideologues who no longer pay attention to others' views, and do not take them into account on their website. That being the case, their website should not be regarded as a reliable source for purposes of determining the current state of orthodox views. Schoenbaum ( talk) 05:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Summarizing policy/guidelines here:
Is anything unclear about that? Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused by your syntax, but never mind; it's enough to know that you oppose the site as a reliable source. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I suppose I was confused about why you would give the example for an article such as William Shakespeare when we're discussing the article Shakespeare authorship question. Regardless, Paul's point is still relevant. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you have an inflated view of the number of reliable sources there are rebutting anti-Stratfordism, but it is far from "many." Yes, several notable scholars have done so (although I have no idea what Smatprt is talking about when he says Stanley Wells has made a point-by-point rebuttal; if he has, I don't know of it), but books devoted to refuting the anti-Shakespeare claim such as McCrea's are rare. In fact, I can think of only two others: Irv Matus's Shakespeare, In Fact (1997) and the soon-to-be-published Contested Will, by James Shapiro. Yes, other notable Shakespeareans have written about it: S. Schoenbaum wrote a 65-page survey of the phenomenon (without refuting the claims) in his 600+ page Shakespeare's Lives (1970, 1991); Jonathan Bate gave it 35 pages in his The Genius of Shakespeare (1998); Harold Love uses it as an example of how not to do it in his primer, Attributing Authorship (2002); and Stanley Wells gives it a scant 18 pages in his Is It True What they Say About Shakespeare? (2007). Total up all the pages and I doubt they'll amount to 1 percent of the amount of anti-Stratfordian literature that has been published in the past 150 years, all of which is still cherry-picked by anti-Stratfordians to give their movement a gloss of scholarship. Nor do most of them directly address particular anti-Stratfordian or Oxfordian claims in detail the way Kathman does on his Web site, Matus being the exception.
I think that these three topics from the WP:FRINGE page might be appropriate, especially the sentence, "If independent sources only comment on the major points of a fringe theory, an article that devotes the majority of its space to minor points that independent sources do not cover in detail may be unbalanced."
It appears to me that we have a consensus that Kathman's Web site is a reliable source, but I thought that these points would help in assuring the independent editors that the decision stretches none of Wikipedia's policies. Tom Reedy ( talk) 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to explain, because you are right, I describe myself more as a Shakespearean than a Wikipedian, and I'm unfamiliar with many Wikipedia policies, although by the reading I have been doing it seems to me that common sense is pretty much followed in those policies.
My statement about Wikipedia allowing unreliable sources to discuss fringe theories was confined to the articles discussing anti-Stratfordism, such as the Shakespeare authorship question, the Oxfordian theory article, and the Baconian theory article. All of them most certainly do explain their topics by pointing to a series of polemical anti-Stratfordian books or websites and describing their contents, as is evident to anyone who peruses the sites, so I assume these are the types of articles you are talking about that do not yet conform with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Am I correct in that assumption? Or do I still misunderstand Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources?
Since it has been established that David Kathman is an expert on the subject, having been published on the subject by leading university presses (you can't get much better than Oxford UP), led seminars on the topic at world conferences, and whose opinion on the topic is sought out by the media, I really don't understand why I would need to provide an example of a specific claim where I would need to use his website, since he is obviously "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", as per WP:SPS policy. Currently I don't have any edits that rely solely on Kathman's site. However, I happen to have one that is discussed here, which is the discussion that beget this opinion request. But once the rebuttal was fully understood, the relevant material in the section was deleted by the opposition (for lack of a better word) editors, rather than face such effective refutation. Tom Reedy ( talk) 04:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the clueless one. Read Jayjg's comment directly above mine. Note the sentence, "For example, the Holocaust denial article does not explain what Holocaust denial is by pointing to a series of Holocaust denying websites or books and describing their contents." Both Holocaust denial and anti-Stratfordism are fringe theories, as even you admit. Now substitute "Shakespeare authorship question" for "Holocaust denial" in the statement: "For example, the Shakespeare authorship question article does not explain what the Shakespeare authorship question is by pointing to a series of Shakespeare authorship questioning websites or books and describing their contents." As anybody who peruses the references at the article can see, it most certainly does that. Tom Reedy ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
So far, the opinion request on whether Terry Ross and David Kathman’s Shakespeare Authorship Page can be used as a reliable source has resulted in comments by five uninvolved editors. Four of them, Dlabtot, Crum375, Verbal, and Abecedare, say it is an acceptable source within WP:SPS guidelines. One of them, Jayjg, says it is not.
It appears to me the consensus is to use it. Is that about it? Tom Reedy ( talk) 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You're correct, I am not near as expert in Wikipedia guidelines as almost anybody here. At that site it also says consensus is not unanimity. For the record, what would you say the consensus is among the five uninvolved editors right now? Tom Reedy ( talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Tom, you asked what I felt the consensus at this point is. Let me answer as best I can.
Now that we have a pretty good picture on how these editors feel, I think we can continue working on the article and decide how and when to use the website back on the article talk page. I acknowledge the feeling of the majority here and will provide greater leeway for the Kathman site as we move forward. Though I would have preferred a different outcome, I want to thank the editors here for providing input. I will copy this post to the article talk page so we can resume work there and on the article itself. Smatprt ( talk) 22:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The Software Top 100 is verifiable, as it quotes material from annual reports, and clearly displays its methodology and calculations on its website. The Software Top 100 is online since 2003, and it is used by large software companies to review their competitive position and inform the public of their size. The point of view is neutral and objective: companies are only included on the basis of sufficient software revenues. Companies can not pay to be on the list, or something like that. The Top 100 Research Foundation makes the Software Top 100 on best effort, using its database with currently 10,000+ software companies. In doing the ranking, they do not differ from the makers of other rankings such as the Forbes 400 or the Fortune rankings, which do not claim to be complete, but do have a stated research methodology and a verifiable way of working.
Some time ago, it was decided by user Esoteric Rogue that the Software Top 100 is not a reliable source, and he proceeded to delete all links on Wikipedia to that source. His post on this noticeboard can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#softwaretop100.org . I do not agree with him. At the moment there is really no better source online for software company size than the Software Top 100. Try and compare with other sources and their methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_largest_software_companies (Software Top 100 references were deleted from this page by Esoteric Rogue).
1. A report on European Software Strategy from the European Union 2. A report on the regional software industry by SELA, a regional intergovernmental organization that groups 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries. 3. A Research paper on Cloud Computing by the Georgia Institute of Technology With regards to the 2006 European IDC list you mention: it is a copy of the Truffle 100, of which the most recent (2009) edition was (according to their website) not researched by IDC but by the Top 100 Research Foundation; the makers of the Software Top 100. Anyone? -- BalderV ( talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I would appreciate peoples' views on whether the below news sources (primarily Pakistani and Iranian) are RSs for controversial reports concerning Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani accused of being an al-Qaeda member (who was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and attempting to kill U.S. soldiers and FBI agents).
There has been a deep divide over many Pakistani reports (which the Boston Globe, for example, has described as "sketchy") [39] and many RS reports in this area.
Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick notes: The Dawn is arguably the most influential/reputable newspaper in Pakistan. The News is published Jang Group (which IIRC is the largest newspaper publisher in the country) and is also a well-established mainstream source. Daily Times (Pakistan) is relatively new but a legitimate and mainstream newspaper. Associated Press of Pakistan is also a genuine and well-established newswire service. FWIW, Nexis archives, Daily Times and The Nation among these Pakistani sources. Though I am sure that all these sources can be faulted with a pro-Pakistan bias (not same as pro-Pakistan government bias, except that APP is partially govt. controlled), I'd regard these newspapers as reliable sources, as defined on wikipedia. Of course, we need to take the usual precautions i.e., consider due weight, use attribution when warranted, and beware of redflag claims, or claims contradicted by other sources etc. Abecedare ( talk) 00:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: Boston Globe saying that "With her whereabouts unknown, sketchy reports in Pakistani papers suggested ..." simply means that the newspaper reports are not detailed/confirmed, which reflects the difficulty in obtaining verifiable information, and is not a comment on the Pakistan newspapers reliability. Abecedare ( talk) 01:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I guess my first question would be, is there freedom of the press in Pakistan? Any people here particularly knowledgeable in that arena? IronDuke 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Some background on freedom of the media in Pakistan (or lack of it) can be found here: "Press not free in Pakistan, says Freedom House" and here: "Map of Press Freedom", and info on pressures on the media in Pakistan can be found here: "Attacks on the Press 2009: Pakistan" and here: "5 journalists killed, 17 arrested, 61 injured, 27 harassed; 11 attacks on media property, 16 cases of gag orders; Annual State of Pakistan Media Report 2006-07". Information on Iran's freedom of the press can be found here: "Map of Press Freedom; 2009".-- Epeefleche ( talk) 04:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
My question is whether Heartless Bitches International, http://www.heartless-bitches.com, can be considered a reliable source for the article Nice guy. I don't think it can be, as they call their essays "rants", which suggest they fall under WP:RS#Statements of opinion, even if not questionable. I have pointed the participants there to this discussion. As I seem to be alone among the editors there, I thought I'd bring the matter to the relevant noticeboard. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
An editor wanted to use this as a source with this edit [40] (and back through redacts) and seemed pretty adamant it was a valid source [41]. But AFAIKS the site states that "Portions of the summary below have been contributed by Wikipedia.". I have added it to [42]. This entry is added should the other editor want to question this addition. If there is no questions then I'll zap whatever link we have in other articles. Ttiotsw ( talk) 04:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia and the Former Soviet Union (Cambridge World Encyclopedias) ~ Archie Brown (Editor), Michael Kaser (Editor) # Hardcover: 622 pages
Is this a reliable source? LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Also what is blacklisted? Where can I check that to confirm my sources here on Wiki? LoveMonkey ( talk) 13:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Last.fm [43] considered a reliable source? I always felt it wasn't, it depends on user-submitted content. For example, the band genres are based on users "tagging" the band with their own opinions on what the band is. MrMoustacheMM ( talk) 05:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Previously:
I acknowledge that Gale Group has previously been thought of as reliable, and they certainly have the trappings of reliability. However, I am very concerned that they are not actually reliable: editors have used Gale Group works to insert two (and arguably three) factually questionable items into the Bill Moyers article relating to his 1967-70 tenure at Newsday.
The editor claims (I cannot verify, as my library does not hold, and the source is gated) that the Gale bio says:
But this contradicts contemporaneous sources.
Separately, another editor points out that Gale Group used the anachronism "progressive" to describe Moyers's role on the paper.
All in all, when a reference work makes so many basic errors, I find it hard to treat as "reliable." What say others at RSN? THF ( talk) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm relisting this because previous post had been commented on by users involved with WP:PORN and I was hoping to get a fresh perspective. If you're involved in the porn project and wish to comment please use previous post.
A book by this author entitled the Future of Israel is being used as a source in the article on the Battle of Yad Mordechai. The book uses flaming emotional language and is blatantly biased, including verses of poetry throughout. He keeps reiterating mention of Israeli struggle, sacrifice and heroism, talks about 26 martyrs in the battle who not merely sacrificed themselves but their enemies for Kiddush Hashem, and writes of how God seeks the blood of His enemies and that Israeli victories magnify and sanctify God in the eyes of the world. See page 196 and what follows in the book here. Can this really be used as a source in Wikipedia? -- Sherif9282 ( talk) 14:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am curious about third opinion of the sourcing of the James Wesley Rawles article. I see that the key editor User:Trasel is an active participant on the blog of this self published survivalist author [46] [47] raising questions of independence. Looking at most of the 75 references to the article I see that they are nearly all self referential, pointing either to his self published book or blog. I didn't check all 75 references, and no doubt there are a few that do barely mention this author in third party sources, but I see none that feature this author amounting to notability. Multiple links that point to independent sources come up as dead links. I notice the earlier article for AFD debate [48] in April 2008 was likely influenced by editor canvasing [49] [50], and can guess that the 75 references now are in response to criticism then. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The below discussion was started on Talk:Tobin_tax
It was originally entitled, "Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig" and was started by "Cosmic Cube" (not myself)
I, Boyd Reimer, am seeking other editors to join this discussion for the following reason: If two heads are better than one, then I propose that three heads are better than two.
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 18:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Discussion begins here
I would suggest that Linda McQuaig is an unreliable source. For example, in one article she claims that Paul Volcker is a transaction tax supporter ( http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/762427--mcquaig-tory-chill-freezes-out-tobin-tax). She provides no support for this assertion. However, a Reuters article shows that Volcker opposes this idea ( http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BC0MH20091213) and they are able to quote him directly as evidence.
There are two possibilities regarding what could have happened here with respect to McQuaig (not necessarily mutually exclusive):
1. McQuaig is a mediocre journalist: I was able to find a direct source on Volcker's views in a few minutes. If I am able to do this and McQuaig cannot then it casts serious doubt on her journalistic ability.
2. McQuaig is biased (and, thus, willing to be loose with the facts when it comes to her bias): Here is a quote from McQuaig's article:
"What a tragedy that, as this rare opportunity approaches, we are saddled with the small-minded, Bay Street-beholden Harper government. Will we be doomed again to watch the Harperites stage photo-ops of themselves, this time hugging the CN Tower and straddling cannons at Old Fort York, while the rest of the G20 struggles to rein in reckless financial markets?"
A cursory review of articles by McQuaig suggests she is incapable of writing anything without directly attacking people she doesn't like (typically people in right-of-center governments). She is clearly spinning this against a political party she disagrees with (I don't think "staging photo-ops" is a characteristic exclusive to any particular part of the political spectrum). Would she still be saying the same thing if it were left-of-center party members engaging in the same behavior?
I don't know which of these cases is true, but at least one of them must be. In either event, this suggests that McQuaig is unreliable and I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future.
(The other possibility here, not having anything to do with McQuaig, is that Volcker changed his mind between December 13, 2009 (Reuters article) and February 9, 2010 (McQuaig's article). This seems unlikely given the short amount of time between these articles and the fact that he has had President Obama's ear during this period when the Volcker proposals were taking shape.)
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 00:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
"Opposers" can "soften their doubts" as time passes
Notice that Strauss-Kahn took only one month to "soften his doubts."
It is possible that this can happen to others as well.
Therefore we must allow for this possibility in others also. For example Paul Volcker may have changed his mind between December, 2009 and February 2010.
Compare this edit and this edit
Also we must address the question of what is a reliable source: Is the Globe and Mail an unreliable source?
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, I checked this Wikipedia policy about on the reliability of sources and found this quote: "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources .... Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."
The particular McQuaig article you are referred to in the above (previous) discussion is published by the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper.
Instead of discounting it outright, Wikipedia policy suggests that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text: "John Smith argues that X, while Paul Jones maintains that Y," followed by an inline citation."
A provocative style of writing is common among columnists from all sides of the political spectrum. (That is probably done to stir readers to write in, start a discussion, create a buzz, thereby causing more papers to be sold.) I am accustomed to seeing this from all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, despite that common culture of writing styles, it is still important not to tell an untruth. (Of course, an encyclopedic style of writing is very different from the columnist style of writing.)
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Cosmic Cube ( talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Greetings Cosmic Cube:
Thank you for your comments. After reading my last comment I can understand how you may have been confused by it. Therefore, I should clarify: Here is the sequence in which things happened:
With all due respect, I do not see a dramatic "red flag" here. McQuaig's comment is corroborated by Saunders comment, and Saunders comment is corroborated by McQuaig's comment. Both are published in "mainstream" sources: the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star. Two months earlier Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives indicated support for a "G20 ... financial transaction tax."
Your use of WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply in this case. That Wikipedia policy applies only in case when a prediction is made. Neither Saunders nor McQuaig Saunders were making predictions. Doug Saunders wrote in the past tense when he used the word "spoke." Linda McQuaig wrote the word "sees" which is present tense. There is no prediction here. Therefore the use of WP:NOTCRYSTAL does not apply in this case. On Feb 4 and 5, there was a meeting in Canada which was new. The reporters covering it were not simply repeating what had happened almost two months earlier (McQuiag writes: "last weekend as he hosted the G7 finance ministers in Iqaluit." source)
Why am I going through all of this so carefully? I am not going through this explanation so that I can keep the Saunders (Feb 5) quote nor the McQuaig (Feb 9) quote in the "Tobin tax" article. In the above conversation I already thanked you for your discovery of the direct quote from Volcker.
The only reason I am carefully going through this is because you made the statement: "I would propose to other editors that she ([Linda McQuaig]) not be used as a primary source in the future." I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Wikipedia, being the helpful community that it is, has provided this noticeboard so that we can get other editors opinions on this issue. With all due respect, I suggest that we bring this issue to the noticeboard before we delete every reference to Linda McQuaig or Doug Saunders in the "Tobin tax" article. I suggest that this action should be taken before any further deletions occur.
I am willing to live with the deletion of the Feb 5 and 9 writings. But it is a completely different situation to say "I would propose to other editors that she not be used as a primary source in the future."
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 13:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: 1) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; 2) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included.
Greetings Cosmic Cube:
Thank you for your scrutiny of this very important issue. Scrutiny is healthy for pruning ideas. Two heads are always better than one.
I would like to focus attention on one of your statements: You stated, "Your point that we would have to prove that Volcker could not have changed his mind in between December and February is an example of idle speculation and is inappropriate."
I respectfully disagree with that particular statement of yours:
I have already given the example of Strauss-Kahn who took only one month to "soften his doubts." This example shows that my proposition is not "idle speculation."
Our job as Wikipedia editors is to draw upon sources, not to provide our own interpretation. Regardless of whether you or I think that the statements by Linda McQuaig and Doug Saunders are implausible, our opinions do not matter. Our job is simply to bring sources into Wikipedia.
If we would do that task without injecting our own interpretation, then all sourced evidence points to the justifiable belief that Volcker did change his mind between December and February. There are no sources yet which contradict the sources of Linda McQuaig nor Doug Saunders. If you can find such a source, I would be happy to rest my case. But so far, I haven't seen such a source. Therefore, all presently available sources support the justifiable belief that Volcker did change his mind.
See Theory of justification [of belief].
I will conclude with two logistical notes: First, I am combining this discussion with the above discussion entitled, "Unreliable source: Linda McQuaig." My reason for doing so is because this discussion quotes the earlier discussion. This might be confusing for readers who are following.
Here is my second logistical note: Like I said above, two heads are always better than one. By extension, this means that three heads are better than two, etc, etc. If there is a broader the range of input, then there is a better chance of coming to a compromise on this issue. So far my attempts at compromise appear to have failed. Please don't take this as an insult, but I feel that in order to come to agreement on this important issue, I feel that we need more input from more voices than just two. That is why I am posting this discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The title will be: Reliable Sources?: Doug Saunders and Linda McQuaig.
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
At this point I brought the discussion here to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 18:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
"What a tragedy that, as this rare opportunity approaches, we are saddled with the small-minded, Bay Street-beholden Harper government. Will we be doomed again to watch the Harperites stage photo-ops of themselves, this time hugging the CN Tower and straddling cannons at Old Fort York, while the rest of the G20 struggles to rein in reckless financial markets?"
There's been an ongoing debate at Talk:Michael Aldrich about information sourced to AldrichArchive.com, which is a number of documents Aldrich donated to the University of Brighton. The website is being used to source a number of big claims added to a number of articles, including home shopping, online shopping, electronic commerce, among others. Most of the edits have been reverted( [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] (except for those at Michael Aldrich), and the discussion now seems to be stalled due to a couple of issues, including the use of aldricharchive.com as a reliable source. Assistance in verifying this source or finding others that can be used for sourcing would be helpful -- the latest discussion is Talk:Michael Aldrich#AldrichArchive.com. Flowanda | Talk 03:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please provide assistance in verifying sources, finding editors who can and/or communicating with the editor who's adding them. Since December 26, this SPA has made over 1,600 edits, adding an average of 33 edits to 48 articles using sources that have been questioned by multiple editors as to their verifiability and WP:RS. The editor continues to edit articles at an alarming pace and ignores any editor input that doesn't support his edits. I was able to check and add sourcing to a couple of articles, but I simply cannot keep up with the quantity of edits and I don't have the ability to verify the references, most of which are to non-English pages or to offline sources unavailable and unaccessible to me. I know I should provide diffs, but honestly, I just don't know where to begin, other than to provide links to his contribution page [59], a complaint [60] and related discussions on my talk page. [61] [62] Flowanda | Talk 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I want to confirm whether Current Psychology a peer-reviewed journal or not. Sources say Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed academic journal. [63] [64] [65] Founded and originally published by the Transaction Publishers, [66] [67] the journal is now published by the Springer Science+Business Media. [68] [69] According to SpringerLink, "from volume 1 (1981) to Volume 2 (1982), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research; as of Volume 3 (1984), the journal merged with Current Psychological Reviews; and from Volume 3 (1984) to Volume 6 (1987), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research & Reviews." [70] The journal is subscribed by university libraries like the library of the University of South Alabama. [71] But a discussion at Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Antisemitism discredit it. Requesting third party opinion. -- Defender of torch ( talk) 02:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Please see George E. Terwilleger. Is that link to encyclopedia.com a reliable source? Woogee ( talk) 05:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is Digital Spy considered reliable? I've doubted its reliability for quite awhile, but I would like to get the opinions of other editors. – Chase ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This link is widely misinterpreted by editors. It's a page updated periodically(weekly?) of planned future song releases, meaning, firstly, it's not a good reference to link as the contents change and secondly because it's future releases then it is subject to WP:CRYSTAL. Another common mistake of editors is to imply it is a physical release, but it does not say that. SunCreator ( talk) 13:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know why The Economist changes (apparently all of) their article names, renaming them from the original hard-print publication title to an online version. Does anyone know, and how should these articles be cited? Example:
On a related matter, how should we cite a source when the publisher changes its name over time? Should we cite the original publisher name, under which the source was first published, or the new publisher name, if the name changed after the source was published ? Sample, Naval Historical Center changed to Naval History & Heritage Command, effective 1 December 2008 (see bottom of this page). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
On a related note: When an online document lists a publisher, and the publisher thereafter changes its name (but not the name on the document), what should be listed: the old name, the new name, or both? In HMS Calliope (1884) I cited to two online documents, last revised in 2002, on the website of the “Naval Historical Center” of the US Department of the Navy. That center has since changed its name to the “Naval History and Heritage Command”, and has expressed a preference that it now be referred to by that name. See bottom of this page. (That refers to images, but there does not seem to be any reason why it would not apply to texts from that source.) The articles I used were first published under the old name, bear the old name, and have not been modified since. They however are continuously published by their presence on the website of the renamed entity. I have listed both names now—is there a right or wrong answer here? Kablammo ( talk) 18:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if we could get some opinions on the RFC at Talk:RAF_Rudloe_Manor#Notability_and_suitability_of_sources, which relates to another users desire to use two primary sources, documents from The National Archives, in support of his assertions. These are File:PROVOST.gif and File:GOVTDO3.gif There is also a notability issue, is the section within a larger Headquarters worthy of being singled out for discussion in the article.
Thanks
ALR ( talk) 10:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
User is deleting this reference saying blogs are not RS What say you? Dlabtot ( talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added the source back per the above argument, however since this is not an ideal reliabl;e source, I have attributed it. I have removed the label "convative" from the lead sentence because using labels like this with a single source, especially a blog, is problematic per WP:LABEL. If a source mentions a label as part of a description, that's (probably) OK; but to go around looking for labels that sources have used in order to insert them into articles without explanation or context is a highly unconstructive thing to do, I think. -- Defender of torch ( talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm not sure you have George Thorogood's birthday right. I believe it is actually December 31st, can not confirm the year (1950-1952).
Thanks Lori
Can I get an opinion about this source being used to back up material added to the BLP of Debra Medina (politician)? Namely, is http://truthdig.org considered a reliable source? Thanks. — DoRD ( ?) ( talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. Well, actually, yes for editorial oversight, but of a particular political kind. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
STOP NOW - this is not the location for the two of you to continue an endless argument. My suggestion... place two maps side by side, so that both POVs are visually represented. Blueboar ( talk) 23:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The main point is that the map avoids the entire western bibliography and can't be explained by any academic historical means. Alexikoua ( talk) 23:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with placing highly pov material. Placing to pov is even worst, but Hammond is an expert in this field and I hardly believe its pov. @Megistias: You need to provide the specific pages with the relevant texts&maps, I remember that somewhere on the net I found a similar map directly scanned from Hammond's work. Alexikoua ( talk) 23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hammond's map is here [ [74]], it's identical to the one Megistias proposes. So it seems that is is quite reliable. On the other hand the 6th-8th century map is still of questionable value. Alexikoua ( talk) 00:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Here is an Internet source with similar map showing Albanian presence in the 8th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html - I do not think that even Megistias can claim that this source is unreliable and not good enough to be used in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 18:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
As far I see this book, which is completely contradicting the entire western bibliography in this part, does not explain why the ancestors of today's Albanians, should been placed there. No descriptions, no explanations, no prove, no nothing. Moreover this book is focused on modern post 1800 history. If the authors believe this it's not our problem. Typical wp:fringe.
For example this: [ [75]], is not enough to claim that Columbus was Greek. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I did not read all the above stuff, but here is what makes those maps unreliable: the source is an old schoolbook published during the Serbian communist period — a regime known for it's propaganda — while there are a lot of modern sources to follow. Another strange thing is that PANONIAN inserted those maps across all Wikipedias, making me sceptically. — Sebi talk 11:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
To repeat what should not need repeating, maps in 1970s Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia schoolbooks are not reliable sources. They're old and unscholarly, and come from a source not noted for factual accuracy or editorial oversight. They cannot be used in Wikipedia articles, or as sources in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)