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 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Would a study conducted by an economics student at George Mason University that was published in Econ Journal Watch be reliable? [1] Truthsort ( talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See here. Truthsort ( talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
British politician Nick Griffin lost an eye in 1990. Of the three sources cited on that accident:
The Guardian says only: "Griffin had a serious accident, which led to his eye being surgically removed".
The Scotsman says: "he has a glass eye, although he didn't lose his on the rugby pitch but instead when a shotgun cartridge exploded in his face 20 years ago in France in unexplained circumstances".
The Times says:
he removes his glass eye and lays it on the table. It is curious behaviour that draws attention to a mysterious chapter in his shadowy past... By Griffin’s account, he lost his left eye in an accident when a discarded bullet exploded in a pile of wood he was burning at his home in 1990. Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres” – a version lent some credence because his wife, Jackie, was not informed until a week later. The timing is interesting: Griffin had just left the extremist National Front (NF) after an ideological spat and was living in France, where he had cashed in on the 1980s property boom after buying houses in Shropshire. Leading a disgruntled breakaway faction of the NF, he founded a new movement with one of the most notorious fascists in Europe. Griffin’s collaborator, Roberto Fiore, was wanted by police in Italy after the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station, which left 85 people dead and 200 wounded...
The article goes on to discuss Griffin's involvement with Fiore before returning to the eye injury.
However, the current version of the article reports Griffin's version of events as fact, without acknowledging any doubt over the matter. I don't believe this is appropriate use of the sources cited, since the only one that mentions the "pile of wood" story treats it with a good deal of scepticism. It seems to me that we're effectively accepting Griffin as a RS on himself, while ignoring the doubts raised by the Times article. I have tried to modify the article to represent this as Griffin's account rather than presenting it as fact, but these edits have been reverted. Suggesitons/comments? -- GenericBob ( talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
When different reliable sources give different accounts of the "facts", we list them all, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, as I said, The Times isn't saying that it knows the facts of Griffin's accident. The wording at the moment must be amended because it misrepresents the sources. Taking the three newspaper reports together, all we can say is that Griffin lost an eye. We don't have a reliable source for Griffin's version of events so we have no basis to go into detail. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The owner of this site has added reviews from it to ~160 different industrial and electronic articles, but I don't really see a lot of editorial oversight. The site is not very professional, and the English articles are poorly written. I just wanted someone else to take a look before I start removing his reviews and links from all the pages. Thanks. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
...em.. but it's not being used as a RS is it? it needs to considered as an EL. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had a good look round, but so far haven't found any information about using information panels/interpretation boards as a reliable source. They're the most common form of providing information in museums and all around popular locations, so I was wondering if they can be considered Reliable Sources. In my particular case I'd like to cite information from some large, professionally produced information boards making up part of a display at Fort Nelson, Hampshire, produced by the Royal Armouries museums service. I can't imagine for one minute that they would be unreliable to be honest. If they are good to use, does anyone have any idea how to cite it? There doesn't appear to be an appropriate template in Category:Citation templates. Cheers in advance, Ranger Steve ( talk) 12:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that he can use book names to reference specific claims, without supplying the relevant page numbers. In general I find the claims dubious, because he initially used a book published in 1991 as a reference regarding claims made about a company established in 1995. When I pointed out a book published in 1991 couldn't possibly be a proper source for the claims, he added additional book titles, but refused to provide pages numbers, insisting that WP:V only required page numbers for exact quotes, and that I needed to assume good faith regarding the rest. The actual discussion is here. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Crum375 is right. Supplying pages numbers is good practice, and when challenged, should be required. Cases where an entire book must be read to understand the basis for the reference would be non-ideal, and pretty rare. In the academic world, mistakes happen and are propagated due to sloppy referencing and pseudo referencing. Only by supplying pages numbers (or even better, quotes as well), is it reasonable to call a claim verified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help), citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995),
Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group,
ISBN
9780895296641 or Barbara Joseph (1998),
My Healing From Breast Cancer, McGraw-Hill Professional, pp.
272-273,
ISBN
9780879837112, citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995),
Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group,
ISBN
9780895296641 might serve.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)A fairly recent editor and follower of Menachem Mendel Schneerson has been countering objections made to Schneerson and his followers using sources such as:
See [3] [4] [5]. Are these reliable sources from which to construct counterarguments to published material? Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to distort what has actually been going on, and read what is being discussed on the Talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies#Needless_edit_warring, where your spurious arguments have already been addressed. None of this material was cited to counter any objections at all. They were simply the sources for the statements discussed in the article, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Winchester2313 ( talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the formatting of the references for clarity. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. I suggest you re-read my edits. The references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) It is impossible to respond until you actually read what was written, and make a coherent argument. I'd suggest you read both Goldbergs book (pseudonymous 'source' and all), and then read the references (secondary, in fact) I provided which completely disprove the SYNTH you are trying to promote here. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice try, Jay. Shach isn't mentioned a single time in any of Schneerson's correspondence, nor has anybody here claimed otherwise. You're tripping all over yourself here, guided by your not-so-discreet POV edit-warring. Please stop making things up.[Sanitized by request :)] Winchester2313 ( talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I constructed no argument using the Igros Kodesh, and indeed, haven't quoted a single word from them. I have no idea what you're on about, and suggest, yet again, that you carefully read what I wrote. Winchester2313 ( talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, the references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. I'd appreciate if you stopped ascribing motives, and actually read what I wrote. The references I provided later where Rabbi Hutner seeks the LR's blessings etc. are what I used to provide accurate and verifiable information. There's no SYNTH here, the sources I cited are absolutely clear. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, Winchester2313, the references to Igros Kodesh were given specifically for the purpose of refuting the fact that Hutner was a fierce critic of Schneerson's movement and idolization of Schneerson. Here's the edit
Before Winchester2313's edit | After Winchester2313's edit |
---|---|
However, he became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson. [1] | While some report that Hutner became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson, [1] there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect. Hutner corresponded with the Rebbe over the course of several decades, often seeking his guidance and input on a wide variety of halachic and particularly, chassidic subjects and texts. While most of their correspondence [2]centers on academic matters, Hutner also maintained regular contact via a number of Rabbis serving as messengers between the two, and occasionally sought Schneerson's blessings. [3] |
The source given for footnote 2 is "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485", the source we are discussing. Did those source really say "there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect", "often seeking his guidance" etc.? Or was that just your editorializing, based on primary sources? Jayjg (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No. As I said, the sources (Igros Kodesh) provided in footnote 2 are merely evidence of the fact that there was an ongoing correspondence, that's all. The sources for everything else are footnote 3, which is a secondary source, and necessitates no editorializing at all. Winchester2313 ( talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Levin (often written as Levine) is the chief archivist of the Agudas Chabad Library - one of the most renowned and extensive collections of antique Judaic literature in the world. He has also published around thirty books on historical research and Jewish law. As per your request, I will re-edit the article to copy exactly from what he says, and also include more of the published material. Winchester2313 ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have already noted that I cited the Igros Kodesh merely as evidence of correspondence, and not in support of any interpretation etc. As a matter of fact, however, Mibeis HaGenozim (a reliable seconday source) does cite these references as part of their section on Yitzchok Hutner, so it is a moot point. The rest of my edits were sourced from http://www.mysefer.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=17&P_ID=4797&strPageHistory=&strKeywords=shimshon&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=240 which is a thoroughly researched work that actually presents copies of all original documentation supporting the research. I don't believe there can be a more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources compliant source than a secondary source that also presents all the original documentation alongside. Winchester2313 ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
1. A link to the source in question: LiveScience.com: The Most Popular Myths in Science
2. The article in which it is being used: List of common misconceptions
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
A popular myth regarding human sexuality is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and as best researchers can tell, seven seconds seems a gross overstatement.
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. [6] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
LiveScience has a professional editorial staff [7] all of whom have degrees in journalism, science or both. Their articles are frequently featured by other reliable sources such as MSNBC, [8] New York Daily News, [9] National Science Foundation, [10] Christian Science Monitor, [11] NASA, [12] etc. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if the site - Euractiv [13] - is a reliable source (here is an FAQ on the website [14]). This is in specific reference to the article on Antonio Tajani and if this story [15] could/should be used since it involves WP:BLP. Interestingly, this article mentions that Tajani's press office has been trying to edit the article. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
/* External links */ Marianne Moore: Poetry--A Blog for Her Poetry Sources. I would like to post a link to this website: http://moore123.wordpress.com. The site is a blog developed by Dr. Patricia C. Willis to explore and contribute sources for Moore's poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmetta ( talk • contribs)
Is Codeweavers a reliable source for the inclusion of this edit? [16] And to also provide an external link to the site specified in the ref? mark nutley ( talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Various articles from burnham-on-sea.com are being used to support statements on the article Burnham-on-Sea. I have just nominated this for GA status but on the talk page another editor has suggested that burnham-on-sea.com should not be considered a reliable source. I would welcome discussion of this in case a GA reviewer challenges the source.— Rod talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To avoid edit warring or violating WP:3RR I would like some help with a matter regarding a current film icon. There is a belief on the net that Robert Pattinson is a Catholic, which even if were true would not warrant categorization ( Category:English Roman Catholics) per WP:BLP as it is nominal at best and plays no apparent or public role in his life, except for the controversy it has generated on Wikipedia and Wapedia. This entire premise is based solely on four words, never expanded upon, during an interview, with a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, to wit: "Robert Pattinson is a Catholic Who Believes in Abstinence" (Video Courtesy of movies ireland), which may have been a facetitious comment. NNDb, as faulty as any other information gatherine site, picked up this second-hand info as has included it in their profile of the actor. The following is an excerpt of the interview:
As another poster, Rachel, points out on the same thread: Okay. First of all, method acting is a style of acting where the actor attempts to feel and think all of the things that the character s/he is portraying feels. This is in order to give a more “lifelike” performance ... Notice that the interviewer says that Robert is “taking on” the abstinence BECAUSE OF his being a method actor. He then goes on to talk about Robert and Edward as the same person because of this. Robert agrees and continues the conversation in the first person (”I”) because he’s still talking about himself AS EDWARD. Make sense? Watch it again with this in mind — it’ll click ... And if you think that this means Robert is becoming like Edward in real life, entirely, as a permanent fixture of his personality — it doesn’t really make any sense, does it? What about all the other roles Robert has played in other movies? Robert Pattinson is a method actor all the time, not just with Twilight. That’s his style of acting. So thinking that Pattinson is turning into Edward for real is as absurd as believing that he’s also turning into Cedric Diggory, Salvador Dali, Tyler Whatshisname from Remember Me (lol, sorry — I can’t remember.), etc... Does this mean that Pattinson absolutely isn’t Catholic? Of course not. But this interview says as much about his own personal beliefs about Catholicism as it does about his own personal beliefs about Buddhism. Which is nothing. [17].
The following is excerpted from the talk page colloquy:
In response to all this rush of data User:Bbrezic states "Personally, I sincerely doubt that CNN would publish an article that had not been previously reviewed." -- I was not aware that Pattinson approves copy at CNN, and in any event I don't even recall CNN being one of the sources! Bbrezic ADDS: "Also, I sincerely doubt that Pattinson would said that he is a Catholic, and that in fact in real life he is not, especially with considering that in almost all interviews and articles he is characterized as an honest person who does not lie. Do you have some proof to offer that Pattinson is not Catholic, any proof, except your own belief that in the said interview he was lying? Suggest any reliable link to support your claim ... Here by I invite the admins to make the observations about this case. If they say that those links are not trustworthy or that is unclear if he he was telling the truth, ill back off, but it will be their decision to revert the article, and certainly not yours". This is inaccurate in several regards: firstly, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian acting in good faith to correct or delete information he/she knows or strongly believes to be false, biased or of dubious provenance, especially if they can provide a concrete reason for doing so, which I did on the talk page. Secondly, I never claimed or stated that Pattinson was "lying", but I hold (along with Rachel, WhereTheLinesOverlapXX and All Hallow's Wraith) that most likely he made a facetitious comment to a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, which does not and should not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Thirdly, whether Pattinson should be categorized as Catholic depends on the notability of that characteristic to his life and career, which is nil, based on the net evidence of four words in a silly interview. I recall a long ago battle over whether Haley Joel Osment and Emily Osment were to be categorized as Catholics and the decision, unless it has been disregarded since then (I haven't checked), was NO, despite the fact that there was no question they were raised Catholic.
To clarify matters, I told -- not threatened -- User:Bbrezic that I would take the matter to WP:ANI if he reverted my edit again without explanation or comment. He reverted again and left a reply on the talk page, which reasoning is, to my mind, wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore I have brought it here to be resolved to avoid further conflict with another editor. I will abide by whatever decision is rendered by an impartial administrator. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Links:
Fabritius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio" [18] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim. [19] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed. [20] [21] [22] [23] Fabritius then repeated the same [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored. [44] Edward321 ( talk) 01:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor of the Stephen Ambrose article ( Centpacrr) has used this web page as a source in the article. He uses it to buttress the argument that one of Ambrose's books had "significant errors, misstatements, and made-up quotes." Now granted, substantial problems have been found with Ambrose's work. The issue here, though, is whether this web page qualifies as a reliable source for documenting those errors.
Although from its name, the "Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum" might appear to be the website of a museum, in actuality, it's a site maintained by a group of railroad buffs interested in the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. Nothing on the site is peer reviewed; it's all self-published. One of the primary forces behind the site is Bruce Cooper, Centpacrr's real name, as stated on his user page.
"About the CPRR Museum" courtesy of Bruce C. Cooper, the great great grandson and biographer of CPRR First Assistant Chief Engineer, Lewis M. Clement – a veteran professional writer, digital image restorer, avid railroad collector, and frequent contributor to the Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum website. ( http://cprr.org/about.html)
My reading of WP:SOURCES suggests that the web page isn't a reliable third-party source. Moreover Centpacrr's affiliation with the website and his editing of the particular section of the Ambrose article raise issues of conflict of interest. I've placed an Unreliable sources tag on the section and asked for a more reliable source on the article's talk page, but I'd like a second look to make sure I'm doing the right thing.
Thanks for any help! 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you take a look at the index page of CPRR.org you will see that it contains literally thousands of articles, original source documents, maps, photographs, and other materials provided and/or written by hundreds of contributors. One such document is the 25-page research paper questioned by anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226. I am not one of the authors of that paper nor did I do any of the research for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, an earlier publication of mine was quoted by Ambrose in his book in a number of places, but all were also fully acknowledged in the book's introduction, chapter notes, and bibliography, and none of those references to my work were faulty or lacking in any way.)
As a question has been raised about the reliability of the researchers' paper, however, in an abundance of caution I have added an additional source bolstering the veracity and reliability of its material which is the 2001 revised second edition of the Ambrose book itself in which ALL of the corrections documented in the paper were accepted and incorporated in the text. Whether or not anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 accepts or rejects the paper, or the information about myself that I have posted on my userpage, is completely up to him/her. I created my userpage as a courtesy to other editors in order to help them evaluate my contributions. I have nothing to hide, and anyone is free to check anything there in whatever way they want to. Unlike 75.2.209.226, I have have disclosed exactly where I am coming from. But as i say, the bottom line to this discussion is the fact that the publisher of the Ambrose book completely accepted the material in the researchers' paper and incorporated all of it in the revised second edition. This speaks for itself as to its reliability as a source. Centpacrr ( talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I just spent some time looking for reliable third-party reviews of Nothing Like It in the World, and in just a few minutes, I found well over a dozen, in both scholarly peer-reviewed journals and popular media.
In addition, there were reviews in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, Christian Science Monitor, National Forum, Publishers Weekly, Forbes, and Fortune. Rather than asking the question of whether the self-published website is a reliable source, the real question, it seems to me, is: With the wealth of reliable, third-party reviews by disinterested parties available, why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?
As to your assertion that "publishing a journal is simply a somewhat more involved process than what the CPRR group did", nothing could be further from the truth. Articles in peer-reviewed journals undergo substantial vetting. A manuscript is likely to be reviewed by 3 to 6 experts in the field, some of whom are selected because they hold positions contrary to the manuscript's author. There are typically multiple rounds of reviewing, as the first set of reviewers asks for revisions, then those revisions are made, and then the revised manuscript is reviewed again, and so on. Last comes a round of copyediting by professional copyeditors. I doubt very much if the CPRR webpage underwent any kind of outside scrutiny, by impartial reviewers or copyeditors. In any case, the question remains: why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?
75.2.209.226 (
talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
All one has to do is just go to the paper itself and actually READ it. There you will find all the details and sources (many of them original source documents) to document the Ambrose book's errors that you want.. Centpacrr ( talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Jewish Sports Review ( http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/) a reliable website for indicating whether or not WP:BLPs are Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem, as I expect you know Jay, is this. When a paragraph is clearly a cohesive whole, that makes sense. There is good reason to believe that the ref applies to the entire paragraph. What you have done, however, is write paragraphs, with facts that are not clearly part of a cohesive whole. There is no way of knowing, in such circumstances, whether the scrivener has a footnote at the end that covers only the last sentence, which of course may be the case, or if it is meant to cover the entire paragraph. Sloppy editors leave this as an open question. Careful editors do not.
Nobody knows, where you have a three-sentence paragraph, if the first two sentences are simply unreferenced. And as another editor of course may come along and add a sentence (unreferenced) in the middle, how would we know that it was unreferenced, and not covered by your footnote? We wouldn't. In fact, that may now be the case in your FA articles, as this is a collaborative enterprise. You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted. I mean, how much extra effort does that take?
The corollary to what you are saying, of course, is that I should be able to put a ref at the end of a list of Jewish athletes, indicating (at the time I tagged it) that all were Jewish as reflected in the ref. And ignore the fact that someone could come along, and add a non-ref covered person to the list. I doubt, given what I have seen you say, that you would be highly pleased by that.- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Google Scholar links. There seems to be a recognition in a few places that this is a reliable source about the subject of Jewish people in sport. ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Prometheus Books a reliable source for the article on Homeopathy? In particular the following book:
Shelton is a physicist and apparently teaches skeptical thinking - here's a source on him - [51]. The book was reviewed by the JAMA but I haven't read the actual article [52]. Here's another review, not sure how reliable it is [53]. Comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Undent. How do people think about the following summary of the discussion?
Although Prometheus books is not as reliable as a top-tier academic publisher, or well-respected academic journal, it is an adequately reliable publisher, per WP:PARITY, for fringe topics and pseudoscience. However, particularly controversial points should be attributed to the author, and when possible should be supplemented or replaced with sources of higher reliability.
That's a statement I could certainly agree with, and I believe also reflects the current use on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Is http://worldmeets.us/ a reliable source? They claim on their "about us" page http://worldmeets.us/aboutus.shtml that they gather and translate news from around the world. First off, there is an obvious copyright issue. They take the ENTIRE news articles, without permission from many sources. And are the sources they take content from all reliable? Most places that source things to them, do mention the original source they are quoting from. [54] Linking to a site that violates copyright laws, I believe is forbidden. Perhaps linking to the original site through Google translate would work well enough. Dream Focus 02:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Charles Glass is a noted journalist and author, former correspondent for papers like Newsweek and The Observer. Is he a WP:RS? The question has arisen on Sderot, where some people want to keep him out. It can also be noted that the same person who wants to keep Charles Glass out as a source from of wikipedia articles, wants to keep David Duke in as a source, saying he meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and that in WP:BLP, no less. See here. Huldra ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
My view is that in this particular case a lecture in a prestigious academic institution given by a writer who is an expert in the field can be considered RS. - coming at this cold, that's nonsense. On that basis, we could submit lecture notes as RS and we don't do that. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Given the above discussions, I don't understand why using this webpage as a self-published source seems to be being shunned. It seems the correct solution in this instance. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you all for your input. This all started with one issue: is the present Israeli of town of Sderot located on the land of the depopulated Palestinian village of Najd...or not? On one hand, you have Walid Khalidi´s book, (=published by secondary source, and used as a ref. for just about all writers on the Middle East), Charles Glass, and many other sources (see list by Tiamut above). AFAIK; they all state that Sderot is on the land which once used to belong to Najd. This has has been ..and is, up until now,.. an undisputed fact. (See also this. And you can also see the UN files about Najd´s land ownership here: [57])
..On the other hand, you have SPA MaorM, who arrived on Wikipedia a few weeks ago (including in some IP-versions; ie, s/he would sign as "MaorM", while logged in as an IP. ) ,.....claiming this was not true, and that "Khalidi must be a liar" [58]. No More Mr Nice Guy, seem to support mr/ms. MaorM´s opinion. AFAIK: there is not a single published source which questions dr Khalidi`s statement that Sderot is on the land which once belonged to Najd.
No More Mr Nice Guy/ MaorM has then edit-warred to keep "according to Walid Khalidi, Sderot's land had belonged to the village" into the article. (Earlier it was: "Located just south of the former Palestinian village of Najd, Sderot's land had belonged to the village.")
Now: no other sourced fact in the Sderot article is "according to xx". (Shall we go through the whole article, sentence for sentence, and write "according to writer YY", "according to journalist XX" etc, etc? It would make a horrible article to read! So, one can ask; why this different standard?)
My question then is, do we have to write "according to XX"..when it is (judging by published info.) an undisputed fact?
Thank you all for your time, Huldra ( talk) 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion from a reliable source is being prevented without logical cause [59]. Could use some neutral editors to look at this issue, as there are a number of editors willing to simply ignore the rules for verifiability. It's potentially very serious, since the other editors are all experienced and obviously know the rules. Thanks for any comments. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled across the Zionism & Israel Information Center site being used as a source in both the Albert Einstein and Albert Einstein's political views articles. It's being used to support a statement but I'm not really concerned about that specific instance because plenty of sources are available for Einstein related topics. I would like to hear evidence based opinions on whether the site is an RS in general.
It appears to have come up once before on the noticeboard but the issue of whether it is an RS wasn't really addressed in the thread.
Their about page doesn't help much and I can't find instances of the site being used as a source by other RS although I haven't spent much time searching. It appears to be run by Ami Isseroff, Joseph M. Hochstein and is 'maintained by a group of volunteers'.
The site is used extensively in Wikipedia as a source. See LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I know Phil Linz, and he says the pieces of the original harmonica broken by Yogi Berra were picked up by Whitey Ford, and he still has them. If this is true, the original harmonica is not in the collection mentioned in the article. Phil Linz sells title insurance. If you want to reach him to check this, call [redacted].
Question on reliability of sources; there is debate about whether GetEducated.com is notable or not; a user has repeatedly added a {{notable}} tag, and others have removed it. Could people please look in on Talk:GetEducated.com and give their opinion, with a view to forming a consensus on whether or not it is notable, if the tag should be there or not?
Thanks, Chzz ► 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like your opinion about the following issue:
As im sure you're aware and encountered before many articles about albums cite Hits Daily Double as a source for sales. However the following error has occured.
Does this prove what i've suspected all along that in fact HDD is not a good source and not credible as well as factually inaccurate. if so what do we do about it's massive use on here?.
Thanks – Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Macintosh is undergoing a FAR and one of the key concerns is how to cite the tech specs of legacy models. A number of source ideas have been put forth, but I have had little to no feedback from the nominators, so I thought I'd try here.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. HereToHelp ( talk to me) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have recently been involved in a discussion in which an article in the 1995 edition of the above named work contained statements which were not to be found in any of the other reference sources I found. The article itself was not attributed to any other, had neither footnotes nor any sort of direct indication of sources for any statements contained therein, and contained a number of statements dismissing claims made in other reference works, sometimes in particularly dismissive language. I also found the rather bizarre bibliographical format less than helpful. In any event, I was wondering whether this work qualified as an RS, particularly relative to other works, like the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and other standard reference works. John Carter ( talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this website, http://mayerson.com/html/articles.html, a RS for the following text at industrial injury:
Industrial injuries can also be non-therapy type injuries as well, such as psychological injury or trauma or permanent body or facial disfigurement (such as scars or feature displacement). Several lawsuits have been contested with the injury specifically being harm to physical appearance.
In my opinion the source seems spammy. Thanks for the help. Wizard191 ( talk) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to get a sense of whether Paul Vallely's "How Islamic Inventors Changed the World, The Independent, 11 March 2006, should be used as a source, specifically as a source in history / history of science articles.
I recognize that The Independent would be generally considered reliable, and that Vallely, as a regular author for the paper, would be as well. This article, however, may be a special case. It lacks citations, makes extraordinary claims about inventions' origins in history which do not appear in reliable works of history scholarship, and has been subject to refutation at (and I realize this is likely not a reliable source, but their refutation is extensively footnoted) http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/20_Islamic_Inventions.
Two of many problematic claims:
The article is currently being used as a source in 10+ wikipedia articles.
article link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html
Dialectric ( talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor ( User:Sugar Bear(now also User:Yawaraey) has expressed concern that the journal articles and books I have cited in the article on nu metal are unreliable. I am certain that they are indeed reliable. Here are the sources I am trying to use:
And for good measure, this is the source I have removed for contradicting the many other sources:
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |pmd=
and |trans_title=
(
help)Can third parties please judge the reliability the aforementioned sources and give a third opinion at the nu metal article and talkpage please? Munci ( talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the first one [65], it's reliable. I think they're all reliable. I haven't looked at how they're used, so it's possible they're not being used correctly, but Scholarly journals are considered to be one of the most reliable things there are, ahead of books, newspapers, and websites. Also, having factual errors isn't a big factor in deciding reliability. Everybody makes mistakes, although if you have another reliable source that says one of these is factually inaccurate, that would good to bring up here. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We're lazy at this board. You should provide the exact statement in the article, and the source used. If you want to be really nice, you could even provide a direct quote of what you summarized. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Yediot Aharonot an appropriate source to support this information inserted into a BLP, Richard Goldstone?
A report carried by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot made accusations that during his role as judge during the State of Emergency in 1980s, Richard Goldstone sentenced 28 black men to death and 4 black men to receive lashings. The report also alleged that Goldstone sentenced these men to death after they appealed their conviction of murder. [4] [5] [6]
and...
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has compared Goldstone's judicial role in apartheid South Africa to that of Nazi war criminals. "Goldstone took a job as an apartheid judge. He allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed," Dershowitz told to Israeli Channel 2 TV. "You know, a lot of people say we just followed the law, German judges… That's what Mengele said too. That was Mengele's defense and that was what everybody said in Nazi Germany. 'We just followed the law.' When you are in an apartheid country like South Africa, you don't follow the law" Dershowitz added. [7]
Yediot has been discussed before here [66] although it was combined with a discussion of News of the World that somewhat overtook the thread; such as it was, the general opinion was that Yediot should not be used to source controversial information in BLPs, but it could bear a more focused look. Note that the Jewish Chronicle source above is simply a blog posting that summarizes/recounts the Yediot article. Thanks. — e. ripley\ talk 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yediot is not remotely similar to 'tabloids popular in Western countries'- if by that one means News of The World or similar. A better comparison would be with USA Today.
Momma's Little Helper (
talk) 02:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Major Israeli newspaper, their exclusive stories have been widely cited by other news organisation such as the BBC or the New York Times, won several significant journalism prizes. Safe a peer-reviewed scholarly sources this is as close to a reliable source as it gets. Pantherskin ( talk) 10:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Goldstone is a distinguished former South African judge who is generally regarded as a leading proponent of human rights and a key anti-apartheid figure who played a major role in undermining and dismantling the apartheid system. A handful of editors want to add material to the biographical article on Goldstone that portrays him as a bloodthirsty "hanging judge" and supporter of apartheid, based on claims published 12 days ago in a tabloid newspaper. This is obviously a clear " red flag" issue, a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons". I've highlighted the BLP problems with this fringe theory at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. Some input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there a single admin board this hasn't been brought to yet?
While I find it interesting to watch the attmept to declare Yedioth Ahronoth not a reliable source, here are a few others you might want to add to that list if you're going to try to hush this up.
The Atlantic -
here
The New Republic -
here
And
here's a HuffPo post (not RS) with some specific information corroborating what YA said, for your research pleasure.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 12:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
<- Comparisons to USA Today and The Independent seem a little bizarre. Reliable sources generally don't facilitate ongoing coordinated smear campaigns against UN officials, human rights organizations and their staff, anyone who criticises the actions of Israel as part of their professional duties to measure and report compliance with international law during military conflicts like Operation Cast Lead. Not so in the Israeli media, including Yedioth, where it's rather routine and well organized with information flowing out to the usual North America based recipients like Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic along with several other columnists for republication in the States and Canada and of course it's been facilitated by the Israeli Government Press Office in the case of Maariv’s support for the extraordinary anti-New Israel Fund campaign. I see that in this latest campaign against Goldstone the Deputy Foreign Minister has said '"after (Goldstone's) dubious background was revealed, there is no reason not to think" that the judge had ulterior motives in composing the UN report accusing the IDF of perpetrating war crimes in Gaza.' I think that tells you quite clearly what this is all about. Focusing on Yedioth as a source kind of misses the point in my view. These reports move around from source to source in a fairly predictable way. It's more of a case of deciding to what extent Wikipedia is willing to facilitate the transmission of these smear campaigns and participate in information wars when it involves BLPs. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The newspaper of record in a way that Haaretz, established in 1918 isn't? In a way that the Jerusalem Post isn't? I feel that some people are missing the point of are what this noticeboard is about. We have been asked to say whether it is a good enough source for a contentious statement in a BLP. That's an important question and it needs to be addressed in relation to our policies and objective criteria. I am still hearing completely opposing views about the standing of this paper, with no middle ground in between. In the absence of any real indication to the contrary I'm currently minded to say treat like the Daily Mail, reliable for lots of non-contentious issues, but not good enough for politically sensitive BLPs. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the pifeedback.com forums are a reliable source for TV ratings. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites, [67] [68] [69] and there are currently 301 links to the site from multiple articles. [70] Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a RS to me. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 09:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In E.O. Green School shooting a single source [8] [9] is cited 19 times in the article, while the other 30-odd sources are generally cited 1-3 times. While the source cited is a WP:RS, Newsweek, the dominant POV expressed in the article itself has been received critically in other WP:RS. Am I right in thinking that over-reliance within an article has several problems - because it means the weight given to one source is potentially unbalanced, and that where a POV is expressed, this could affect the neutrality of the article; there is also the problem that so many references may well imply that the source is substantially being reproduced beyond what is normally acceptable in terms of fair use? I have tried to find some guideline on this, as I am sure I have come across this before, but cannot locate it. Mish ( talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor or two has been consistently removing sourced material when attributed to Media Matters for America with the justification that "it's not a reliable source" or "it's a self published source" or "policy overrides Noticeboard decisions", even though their criticisms are constantly cited by other reliable secondary sources (WSJ, NYT, NPR, NBC, et cetera ad infinitum). It has been consistently upheld that Media Matters is considered a reliable source for their own opinions when it's in the genre of their stated area of interest (media watchdog). Has this changed at all since the last time this question was asked? // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Impartial opinion(s) requested: The use of a reference to the partisan media research organization Media Matters for America has been deleted recently from the criticism and controversy section of the Fox News Channel article.
Two questions,
1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article?
2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way?
Thanks in advance for any advice offered. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] I asked two questions, seeing answers, summarizing:
Two questions,
1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article? [Answer: No.]
2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way? [Answer: Now if their research was published in a secondary source, or their basic story was being reported by third party sources then you could argue notability.]
The is absolutely no doubt that "their basic story has been reported by third party sources". See ISBN 9781416560104, page 4. says so clearly, plus many others. Therefore, I conclude that the two [71] [72] text deletions which I asked about were unfounded in WP:Policy. Thanks for the help! SaltyBoatr get wet 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the nub of this discussion centers around a question of sourcing requirements under WP:UNDUE for article inclusion of assertions/allegations made by "partisan" or "biased" entities. While the need for substantive "third-party sourcing" for "biased" content under BPL consideration is clear and unequivocal, it is, perhaps, less clear under Wikipedia policy than I had thought for non-BPL articles (or perhaps I'm just missing it somewhere...there has been considerable editing as of late in this area). It seems to me to be a logical extension of the BPL "philosophy" or "spirit" that "biased" or "partisan" content should mandate a higher level of "sourcing" under WP:UNDUE for non-BPL as well. Am I just missing this somewhere? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A relevant issue for WP:RSN about this source is whether it falls under the "self-published" designation talked about in WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper): "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable".-- Drrll ( talk) 16:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources. It is not self published, which would be a blog or vanity press. Obviously someone publishes newspapers, for example, yet they are not self-published even if the newspaper is not owned by a larger parent company. Although we do not "recognize that all sources are biased", MMfA is left-leaning. This does not render them unreliable, it affects how materiel from the site might be presented in the article. Please note that there is a difference between criticism and derogatory content. Criticism may indeed be negative, but it is not necessarily, or even often, derogatory. Please do not conflate the two. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If MMfA is allowed as a source for non-BLP articles, should it be allowed as a source for BLP articles? From WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."-- Drrll ( talk) 15:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I must say I just saw this for the first time. Blax is essentially complaining about a number of my edits, as well as others who remove MMfA bias and linkspam. He even complained on my Talk page. I find it in extremely bad form that he did not inform me of this discussion, particularly since he was on my Talk page just days before starting this thread. Yet I see a number of the same folks on his losing side of the MMfA consensus here. I have been successful in obtaining consensus in removing MMfA propaganda, despite Blax's efforts, so he has come here and not even informed me. Sneaky, rude, biased comes to mind. I have reason to believe Blax is somehow connected to MMfA. This recent sneaky trick is just one more reason. Some people will do/say anything to promote propaganda on Wikipedia, even if it means noncompliance with Wiki policies and common courtesy.
That said, substantively, I oppose inclusion of MMfA in articles other than those about or directly related to MMfA for the reasons stated here.
If anyone wishes to enlist my assistance in ridding MMfA POV/SOAP/OR/BIAS, please let me know. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the correct place to discuss the use of sources in BLPs. They can set the rules over at BLP, but we look at the sources. I've frequently advised people that a source is reliable, but not for controversial BLP info here, and I think we could decide it the other way if we wanted to. No opinion on this particular source. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source...
I am against the use of material from MMfA and MRC(if its anything like MMfA) in BLP's because it is commonly just used by trolls to quickly add some statements criticizing the person in question, and leads to a lot of needless, inflammatory attacks. Also, it's self published and not reliable enough for a BLP. Ink Falls 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the recent mostly positive support for using the media watchdog Media Matters for America as a reliable source [77], should the media watchdog Media Research Center / Newsbusters be considered a reliable source? A widely discussed RfC a few months ago overwhelmingly favored consistent use/non-use of these two organizations: [78]. Related questions are whether the MRC / Newsbusters is a reliable source for use in BLPs and whether the MRC is a self-published source.-- Drrll ( talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Newsweek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite episode}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |episodelink=
(
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
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 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Would a study conducted by an economics student at George Mason University that was published in Econ Journal Watch be reliable? [1] Truthsort ( talk) 18:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
See here. Truthsort ( talk) 18:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
British politician Nick Griffin lost an eye in 1990. Of the three sources cited on that accident:
The Guardian says only: "Griffin had a serious accident, which led to his eye being surgically removed".
The Scotsman says: "he has a glass eye, although he didn't lose his on the rugby pitch but instead when a shotgun cartridge exploded in his face 20 years ago in France in unexplained circumstances".
The Times says:
he removes his glass eye and lays it on the table. It is curious behaviour that draws attention to a mysterious chapter in his shadowy past... By Griffin’s account, he lost his left eye in an accident when a discarded bullet exploded in a pile of wood he was burning at his home in 1990. Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres” – a version lent some credence because his wife, Jackie, was not informed until a week later. The timing is interesting: Griffin had just left the extremist National Front (NF) after an ideological spat and was living in France, where he had cashed in on the 1980s property boom after buying houses in Shropshire. Leading a disgruntled breakaway faction of the NF, he founded a new movement with one of the most notorious fascists in Europe. Griffin’s collaborator, Roberto Fiore, was wanted by police in Italy after the 1980 bombing of Bologna railway station, which left 85 people dead and 200 wounded...
The article goes on to discuss Griffin's involvement with Fiore before returning to the eye injury.
However, the current version of the article reports Griffin's version of events as fact, without acknowledging any doubt over the matter. I don't believe this is appropriate use of the sources cited, since the only one that mentions the "pile of wood" story treats it with a good deal of scepticism. It seems to me that we're effectively accepting Griffin as a RS on himself, while ignoring the doubts raised by the Times article. I have tried to modify the article to represent this as Griffin's account rather than presenting it as fact, but these edits have been reverted. Suggesitons/comments? -- GenericBob ( talk) 00:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
When different reliable sources give different accounts of the "facts", we list them all, per WP:NPOV. Jayjg (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Well, as I said, The Times isn't saying that it knows the facts of Griffin's accident. The wording at the moment must be amended because it misrepresents the sources. Taking the three newspaper reports together, all we can say is that Griffin lost an eye. We don't have a reliable source for Griffin's version of events so we have no basis to go into detail. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The owner of this site has added reviews from it to ~160 different industrial and electronic articles, but I don't really see a lot of editorial oversight. The site is not very professional, and the English articles are poorly written. I just wanted someone else to take a look before I start removing his reviews and links from all the pages. Thanks. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 00:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
...em.. but it's not being used as a RS is it? it needs to considered as an EL. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've had a good look round, but so far haven't found any information about using information panels/interpretation boards as a reliable source. They're the most common form of providing information in museums and all around popular locations, so I was wondering if they can be considered Reliable Sources. In my particular case I'd like to cite information from some large, professionally produced information boards making up part of a display at Fort Nelson, Hampshire, produced by the Royal Armouries museums service. I can't imagine for one minute that they would be unreliable to be honest. If they are good to use, does anyone have any idea how to cite it? There doesn't appear to be an appropriate template in Category:Citation templates. Cheers in advance, Ranger Steve ( talk) 12:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that he can use book names to reference specific claims, without supplying the relevant page numbers. In general I find the claims dubious, because he initially used a book published in 1991 as a reference regarding claims made about a company established in 1995. When I pointed out a book published in 1991 couldn't possibly be a proper source for the claims, he added additional book titles, but refused to provide pages numbers, insisting that WP:V only required page numbers for exact quotes, and that I needed to assume good faith regarding the rest. The actual discussion is here. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Crum375 is right. Supplying pages numbers is good practice, and when challenged, should be required. Cases where an entire book must be read to understand the basis for the reference would be non-ideal, and pretty rare. In the academic world, mistakes happen and are propagated due to sloppy referencing and pseudo referencing. Only by supplying pages numbers (or even better, quotes as well), is it reasonable to call a claim verified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help), citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995),
Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group,
ISBN
9780895296641 or Barbara Joseph (1998),
My Healing From Breast Cancer, McGraw-Hill Professional, pp.
272-273,
ISBN
9780879837112, citing Sydney Singer; Soma Grismaijer (1995),
Dressed to kill: the link between breast cancer and bras, Avery Pub. Group,
ISBN
9780895296641 might serve.
Wtmitchell
(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)A fairly recent editor and follower of Menachem Mendel Schneerson has been countering objections made to Schneerson and his followers using sources such as:
See [3] [4] [5]. Are these reliable sources from which to construct counterarguments to published material? Jayjg (talk) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to distort what has actually been going on, and read what is being discussed on the Talk page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch_related_controversies#Needless_edit_warring, where your spurious arguments have already been addressed. None of this material was cited to counter any objections at all. They were simply the sources for the statements discussed in the article, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Winchester2313 ( talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have corrected the formatting of the references for clarity. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No it is not. I suggest you re-read my edits. The references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) It is impossible to respond until you actually read what was written, and make a coherent argument. I'd suggest you read both Goldbergs book (pseudonymous 'source' and all), and then read the references (secondary, in fact) I provided which completely disprove the SYNTH you are trying to promote here. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Nice try, Jay. Shach isn't mentioned a single time in any of Schneerson's correspondence, nor has anybody here claimed otherwise. You're tripping all over yourself here, guided by your not-so-discreet POV edit-warring. Please stop making things up.[Sanitized by request :)] Winchester2313 ( talk) 03:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I constructed no argument using the Igros Kodesh, and indeed, haven't quoted a single word from them. I have no idea what you're on about, and suggest, yet again, that you carefully read what I wrote. Winchester2313 ( talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, the references to Igros Kodesh were provided merely to source the fact that there was ongoing correspondence, no more and no less. I'd appreciate if you stopped ascribing motives, and actually read what I wrote. The references I provided later where Rabbi Hutner seeks the LR's blessings etc. are what I used to provide accurate and verifiable information. There's no SYNTH here, the sources I cited are absolutely clear. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Winchester2313 ( talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, Winchester2313, the references to Igros Kodesh were given specifically for the purpose of refuting the fact that Hutner was a fierce critic of Schneerson's movement and idolization of Schneerson. Here's the edit
Before Winchester2313's edit | After Winchester2313's edit |
---|---|
However, he became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson. [1] | While some report that Hutner became a fierce critic of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic group, and the idolization of its rebbe Schneerson, [1] there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect. Hutner corresponded with the Rebbe over the course of several decades, often seeking his guidance and input on a wide variety of halachic and particularly, chassidic subjects and texts. While most of their correspondence [2]centers on academic matters, Hutner also maintained regular contact via a number of Rabbis serving as messengers between the two, and occasionally sought Schneerson's blessings. [3] |
The source given for footnote 2 is "Igros Kodesh, Kehot 7:2,49,192,215, 12:28,193, 14:167,266, 18:251, 25:18-20, 26:485", the source we are discussing. Did those source really say "there is much evidence of a deep relationship of mutual respect", "often seeking his guidance" etc.? Or was that just your editorializing, based on primary sources? Jayjg (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No. As I said, the sources (Igros Kodesh) provided in footnote 2 are merely evidence of the fact that there was an ongoing correspondence, that's all. The sources for everything else are footnote 3, which is a secondary source, and necessitates no editorializing at all. Winchester2313 ( talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Levin (often written as Levine) is the chief archivist of the Agudas Chabad Library - one of the most renowned and extensive collections of antique Judaic literature in the world. He has also published around thirty books on historical research and Jewish law. As per your request, I will re-edit the article to copy exactly from what he says, and also include more of the published material. Winchester2313 ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have already noted that I cited the Igros Kodesh merely as evidence of correspondence, and not in support of any interpretation etc. As a matter of fact, however, Mibeis HaGenozim (a reliable seconday source) does cite these references as part of their section on Yitzchok Hutner, so it is a moot point. The rest of my edits were sourced from http://www.mysefer.com/product.asp?numPageStartPosition=17&P_ID=4797&strPageHistory=&strKeywords=shimshon&strSearchCriteria=&PT_ID=240 which is a thoroughly researched work that actually presents copies of all original documentation supporting the research. I don't believe there can be a more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources compliant source than a secondary source that also presents all the original documentation alongside. Winchester2313 ( talk) 17:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
1. A link to the source in question: LiveScience.com: The Most Popular Myths in Science
2. The article in which it is being used: List of common misconceptions
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
A popular myth regarding human sexuality is that men think about sex every seven seconds. In reality, there is no scientific way of measuring such a thing and as best researchers can tell, seven seconds seems a gross overstatement.
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. [6] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
LiveScience has a professional editorial staff [7] all of whom have degrees in journalism, science or both. Their articles are frequently featured by other reliable sources such as MSNBC, [8] New York Daily News, [9] National Science Foundation, [10] Christian Science Monitor, [11] NASA, [12] etc. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am wondering if the site - Euractiv [13] - is a reliable source (here is an FAQ on the website [14]). This is in specific reference to the article on Antonio Tajani and if this story [15] could/should be used since it involves WP:BLP. Interestingly, this article mentions that Tajani's press office has been trying to edit the article. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
/* External links */ Marianne Moore: Poetry--A Blog for Her Poetry Sources. I would like to post a link to this website: http://moore123.wordpress.com. The site is a blog developed by Dr. Patricia C. Willis to explore and contribute sources for Moore's poetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilmetta ( talk • contribs)
Is Codeweavers a reliable source for the inclusion of this edit? [16] And to also provide an external link to the site specified in the ref? mark nutley ( talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Various articles from burnham-on-sea.com are being used to support statements on the article Burnham-on-Sea. I have just nominated this for GA status but on the talk page another editor has suggested that burnham-on-sea.com should not be considered a reliable source. I would welcome discussion of this in case a GA reviewer challenges the source.— Rod talk 14:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
To avoid edit warring or violating WP:3RR I would like some help with a matter regarding a current film icon. There is a belief on the net that Robert Pattinson is a Catholic, which even if were true would not warrant categorization ( Category:English Roman Catholics) per WP:BLP as it is nominal at best and plays no apparent or public role in his life, except for the controversy it has generated on Wikipedia and Wapedia. This entire premise is based solely on four words, never expanded upon, during an interview, with a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, to wit: "Robert Pattinson is a Catholic Who Believes in Abstinence" (Video Courtesy of movies ireland), which may have been a facetitious comment. NNDb, as faulty as any other information gatherine site, picked up this second-hand info as has included it in their profile of the actor. The following is an excerpt of the interview:
As another poster, Rachel, points out on the same thread: Okay. First of all, method acting is a style of acting where the actor attempts to feel and think all of the things that the character s/he is portraying feels. This is in order to give a more “lifelike” performance ... Notice that the interviewer says that Robert is “taking on” the abstinence BECAUSE OF his being a method actor. He then goes on to talk about Robert and Edward as the same person because of this. Robert agrees and continues the conversation in the first person (”I”) because he’s still talking about himself AS EDWARD. Make sense? Watch it again with this in mind — it’ll click ... And if you think that this means Robert is becoming like Edward in real life, entirely, as a permanent fixture of his personality — it doesn’t really make any sense, does it? What about all the other roles Robert has played in other movies? Robert Pattinson is a method actor all the time, not just with Twilight. That’s his style of acting. So thinking that Pattinson is turning into Edward for real is as absurd as believing that he’s also turning into Cedric Diggory, Salvador Dali, Tyler Whatshisname from Remember Me (lol, sorry — I can’t remember.), etc... Does this mean that Pattinson absolutely isn’t Catholic? Of course not. But this interview says as much about his own personal beliefs about Catholicism as it does about his own personal beliefs about Buddhism. Which is nothing. [17].
The following is excerpted from the talk page colloquy:
In response to all this rush of data User:Bbrezic states "Personally, I sincerely doubt that CNN would publish an article that had not been previously reviewed." -- I was not aware that Pattinson approves copy at CNN, and in any event I don't even recall CNN being one of the sources! Bbrezic ADDS: "Also, I sincerely doubt that Pattinson would said that he is a Catholic, and that in fact in real life he is not, especially with considering that in almost all interviews and articles he is characterized as an honest person who does not lie. Do you have some proof to offer that Pattinson is not Catholic, any proof, except your own belief that in the said interview he was lying? Suggest any reliable link to support your claim ... Here by I invite the admins to make the observations about this case. If they say that those links are not trustworthy or that is unclear if he he was telling the truth, ill back off, but it will be their decision to revert the article, and certainly not yours". This is inaccurate in several regards: firstly, it is the responsibility of every Wikipedian acting in good faith to correct or delete information he/she knows or strongly believes to be false, biased or of dubious provenance, especially if they can provide a concrete reason for doing so, which I did on the talk page. Secondly, I never claimed or stated that Pattinson was "lying", but I hold (along with Rachel, WhereTheLinesOverlapXX and All Hallow's Wraith) that most likely he made a facetitious comment to a rather sectarian-minded interviewer, which does not and should not satisfy Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. Thirdly, whether Pattinson should be categorized as Catholic depends on the notability of that characteristic to his life and career, which is nil, based on the net evidence of four words in a silly interview. I recall a long ago battle over whether Haley Joel Osment and Emily Osment were to be categorized as Catholics and the decision, unless it has been disregarded since then (I haven't checked), was NO, despite the fact that there was no question they were raised Catholic.
To clarify matters, I told -- not threatened -- User:Bbrezic that I would take the matter to WP:ANI if he reverted my edit again without explanation or comment. He reverted again and left a reply on the talk page, which reasoning is, to my mind, wholly unsatisfactory. Therefore I have brought it here to be resolved to avoid further conflict with another editor. I will abide by whatever decision is rendered by an impartial administrator. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 16:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Links:
Fabritius ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be "H.E. the Prince Massimo, Prince Don Fabrizio Massimo Brancaccio" [18] and is adding that claim to Massimo He started by removing sources to insert his unsourced claim. [19] A couple IPs repeated Massimo's removal of sources to make the claim, while adding a source that gets vastly less GScholar hits than the one he removed. [20] [21] [22] [23] Fabritius then repeated the same [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] eventually adding a sources before his birth and the websites of some private clubs (that don't seem to mention his claims) to "prove" he is the rightful head of the Massimo family. The page was locked and good deal of time spent on the talk page trying to explain Conflict of Interest and Reliable Sources to Fabritius, which he ignored. [44] Edward321 ( talk) 01:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor of the Stephen Ambrose article ( Centpacrr) has used this web page as a source in the article. He uses it to buttress the argument that one of Ambrose's books had "significant errors, misstatements, and made-up quotes." Now granted, substantial problems have been found with Ambrose's work. The issue here, though, is whether this web page qualifies as a reliable source for documenting those errors.
Although from its name, the "Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum" might appear to be the website of a museum, in actuality, it's a site maintained by a group of railroad buffs interested in the history of the Central Pacific Railroad. Nothing on the site is peer reviewed; it's all self-published. One of the primary forces behind the site is Bruce Cooper, Centpacrr's real name, as stated on his user page.
"About the CPRR Museum" courtesy of Bruce C. Cooper, the great great grandson and biographer of CPRR First Assistant Chief Engineer, Lewis M. Clement – a veteran professional writer, digital image restorer, avid railroad collector, and frequent contributor to the Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum website. ( http://cprr.org/about.html)
My reading of WP:SOURCES suggests that the web page isn't a reliable third-party source. Moreover Centpacrr's affiliation with the website and his editing of the particular section of the Ambrose article raise issues of conflict of interest. I've placed an Unreliable sources tag on the section and asked for a more reliable source on the article's talk page, but I'd like a second look to make sure I'm doing the right thing.
Thanks for any help! 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you take a look at the index page of CPRR.org you will see that it contains literally thousands of articles, original source documents, maps, photographs, and other materials provided and/or written by hundreds of contributors. One such document is the 25-page research paper questioned by anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226. I am not one of the authors of that paper nor did I do any of the research for it. (In the interest of full disclosure, an earlier publication of mine was quoted by Ambrose in his book in a number of places, but all were also fully acknowledged in the book's introduction, chapter notes, and bibliography, and none of those references to my work were faulty or lacking in any way.)
As a question has been raised about the reliability of the researchers' paper, however, in an abundance of caution I have added an additional source bolstering the veracity and reliability of its material which is the 2001 revised second edition of the Ambrose book itself in which ALL of the corrections documented in the paper were accepted and incorporated in the text. Whether or not anonymous IP editor 75.2.209.226 accepts or rejects the paper, or the information about myself that I have posted on my userpage, is completely up to him/her. I created my userpage as a courtesy to other editors in order to help them evaluate my contributions. I have nothing to hide, and anyone is free to check anything there in whatever way they want to. Unlike 75.2.209.226, I have have disclosed exactly where I am coming from. But as i say, the bottom line to this discussion is the fact that the publisher of the Ambrose book completely accepted the material in the researchers' paper and incorporated all of it in the revised second edition. This speaks for itself as to its reliability as a source. Centpacrr ( talk) 03:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I just spent some time looking for reliable third-party reviews of Nothing Like It in the World, and in just a few minutes, I found well over a dozen, in both scholarly peer-reviewed journals and popular media.
In addition, there were reviews in The New York Times, The New York Review of Books, Christian Science Monitor, National Forum, Publishers Weekly, Forbes, and Fortune. Rather than asking the question of whether the self-published website is a reliable source, the real question, it seems to me, is: With the wealth of reliable, third-party reviews by disinterested parties available, why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?
As to your assertion that "publishing a journal is simply a somewhat more involved process than what the CPRR group did", nothing could be further from the truth. Articles in peer-reviewed journals undergo substantial vetting. A manuscript is likely to be reviewed by 3 to 6 experts in the field, some of whom are selected because they hold positions contrary to the manuscript's author. There are typically multiple rounds of reviewing, as the first set of reviewers asks for revisions, then those revisions are made, and then the revised manuscript is reviewed again, and so on. Last comes a round of copyediting by professional copyeditors. I doubt very much if the CPRR webpage underwent any kind of outside scrutiny, by impartial reviewers or copyeditors. In any case, the question remains: why is a self-published website the appropriate source for criticism of Ambrose's book?
75.2.209.226 (
talk) 08:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
All one has to do is just go to the paper itself and actually READ it. There you will find all the details and sources (many of them original source documents) to document the Ambrose book's errors that you want.. Centpacrr ( talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Jewish Sports Review ( http://www.jewishsportsreview.com/) a reliable website for indicating whether or not WP:BLPs are Jewish? Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem, as I expect you know Jay, is this. When a paragraph is clearly a cohesive whole, that makes sense. There is good reason to believe that the ref applies to the entire paragraph. What you have done, however, is write paragraphs, with facts that are not clearly part of a cohesive whole. There is no way of knowing, in such circumstances, whether the scrivener has a footnote at the end that covers only the last sentence, which of course may be the case, or if it is meant to cover the entire paragraph. Sloppy editors leave this as an open question. Careful editors do not.
Nobody knows, where you have a three-sentence paragraph, if the first two sentences are simply unreferenced. And as another editor of course may come along and add a sentence (unreferenced) in the middle, how would we know that it was unreferenced, and not covered by your footnote? We wouldn't. In fact, that may now be the case in your FA articles, as this is a collaborative enterprise. You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted. I mean, how much extra effort does that take?
The corollary to what you are saying, of course, is that I should be able to put a ref at the end of a list of Jewish athletes, indicating (at the time I tagged it) that all were Jewish as reflected in the ref. And ignore the fact that someone could come along, and add a non-ref covered person to the list. I doubt, given what I have seen you say, that you would be highly pleased by that.- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Google Scholar links. There seems to be a recognition in a few places that this is a reliable source about the subject of Jewish people in sport. ScienceApologist ( talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Prometheus Books a reliable source for the article on Homeopathy? In particular the following book:
Shelton is a physicist and apparently teaches skeptical thinking - here's a source on him - [51]. The book was reviewed by the JAMA but I haven't read the actual article [52]. Here's another review, not sure how reliable it is [53]. Comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 11:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Undent. How do people think about the following summary of the discussion?
Although Prometheus books is not as reliable as a top-tier academic publisher, or well-respected academic journal, it is an adequately reliable publisher, per WP:PARITY, for fringe topics and pseudoscience. However, particularly controversial points should be attributed to the author, and when possible should be supplemented or replaced with sources of higher reliability.
That's a statement I could certainly agree with, and I believe also reflects the current use on the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Is http://worldmeets.us/ a reliable source? They claim on their "about us" page http://worldmeets.us/aboutus.shtml that they gather and translate news from around the world. First off, there is an obvious copyright issue. They take the ENTIRE news articles, without permission from many sources. And are the sources they take content from all reliable? Most places that source things to them, do mention the original source they are quoting from. [54] Linking to a site that violates copyright laws, I believe is forbidden. Perhaps linking to the original site through Google translate would work well enough. Dream Focus 02:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Charles Glass is a noted journalist and author, former correspondent for papers like Newsweek and The Observer. Is he a WP:RS? The question has arisen on Sderot, where some people want to keep him out. It can also be noted that the same person who wants to keep Charles Glass out as a source from of wikipedia articles, wants to keep David Duke in as a source, saying he meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, and that in WP:BLP, no less. See here. Huldra ( talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
My view is that in this particular case a lecture in a prestigious academic institution given by a writer who is an expert in the field can be considered RS. - coming at this cold, that's nonsense. On that basis, we could submit lecture notes as RS and we don't do that. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Given the above discussions, I don't understand why using this webpage as a self-published source seems to be being shunned. It seems the correct solution in this instance. ElKevbo ( talk) 18:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you all for your input. This all started with one issue: is the present Israeli of town of Sderot located on the land of the depopulated Palestinian village of Najd...or not? On one hand, you have Walid Khalidi´s book, (=published by secondary source, and used as a ref. for just about all writers on the Middle East), Charles Glass, and many other sources (see list by Tiamut above). AFAIK; they all state that Sderot is on the land which once used to belong to Najd. This has has been ..and is, up until now,.. an undisputed fact. (See also this. And you can also see the UN files about Najd´s land ownership here: [57])
..On the other hand, you have SPA MaorM, who arrived on Wikipedia a few weeks ago (including in some IP-versions; ie, s/he would sign as "MaorM", while logged in as an IP. ) ,.....claiming this was not true, and that "Khalidi must be a liar" [58]. No More Mr Nice Guy, seem to support mr/ms. MaorM´s opinion. AFAIK: there is not a single published source which questions dr Khalidi`s statement that Sderot is on the land which once belonged to Najd.
No More Mr Nice Guy/ MaorM has then edit-warred to keep "according to Walid Khalidi, Sderot's land had belonged to the village" into the article. (Earlier it was: "Located just south of the former Palestinian village of Najd, Sderot's land had belonged to the village.")
Now: no other sourced fact in the Sderot article is "according to xx". (Shall we go through the whole article, sentence for sentence, and write "according to writer YY", "according to journalist XX" etc, etc? It would make a horrible article to read! So, one can ask; why this different standard?)
My question then is, do we have to write "according to XX"..when it is (judging by published info.) an undisputed fact?
Thank you all for your time, Huldra ( talk) 03:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion from a reliable source is being prevented without logical cause [59]. Could use some neutral editors to look at this issue, as there are a number of editors willing to simply ignore the rules for verifiability. It's potentially very serious, since the other editors are all experienced and obviously know the rules. Thanks for any comments. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I stumbled across the Zionism & Israel Information Center site being used as a source in both the Albert Einstein and Albert Einstein's political views articles. It's being used to support a statement but I'm not really concerned about that specific instance because plenty of sources are available for Einstein related topics. I would like to hear evidence based opinions on whether the site is an RS in general.
It appears to have come up once before on the noticeboard but the issue of whether it is an RS wasn't really addressed in the thread.
Their about page doesn't help much and I can't find instances of the site being used as a source by other RS although I haven't spent much time searching. It appears to be run by Ami Isseroff, Joseph M. Hochstein and is 'maintained by a group of volunteers'.
The site is used extensively in Wikipedia as a source. See LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I know Phil Linz, and he says the pieces of the original harmonica broken by Yogi Berra were picked up by Whitey Ford, and he still has them. If this is true, the original harmonica is not in the collection mentioned in the article. Phil Linz sells title insurance. If you want to reach him to check this, call [redacted].
Question on reliability of sources; there is debate about whether GetEducated.com is notable or not; a user has repeatedly added a {{notable}} tag, and others have removed it. Could people please look in on Talk:GetEducated.com and give their opinion, with a view to forming a consensus on whether or not it is notable, if the tag should be there or not?
Thanks, Chzz ► 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like your opinion about the following issue:
As im sure you're aware and encountered before many articles about albums cite Hits Daily Double as a source for sales. However the following error has occured.
Does this prove what i've suspected all along that in fact HDD is not a good source and not credible as well as factually inaccurate. if so what do we do about it's massive use on here?.
Thanks – Lil-unique1 ( talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Macintosh is undergoing a FAR and one of the key concerns is how to cite the tech specs of legacy models. A number of source ideas have been put forth, but I have had little to no feedback from the nominators, so I thought I'd try here.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. HereToHelp ( talk to me) 04:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I have recently been involved in a discussion in which an article in the 1995 edition of the above named work contained statements which were not to be found in any of the other reference sources I found. The article itself was not attributed to any other, had neither footnotes nor any sort of direct indication of sources for any statements contained therein, and contained a number of statements dismissing claims made in other reference works, sometimes in particularly dismissive language. I also found the rather bizarre bibliographical format less than helpful. In any event, I was wondering whether this work qualified as an RS, particularly relative to other works, like the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion and other standard reference works. John Carter ( talk) 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this website, http://mayerson.com/html/articles.html, a RS for the following text at industrial injury:
Industrial injuries can also be non-therapy type injuries as well, such as psychological injury or trauma or permanent body or facial disfigurement (such as scars or feature displacement). Several lawsuits have been contested with the injury specifically being harm to physical appearance.
In my opinion the source seems spammy. Thanks for the help. Wizard191 ( talk) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to get a sense of whether Paul Vallely's "How Islamic Inventors Changed the World, The Independent, 11 March 2006, should be used as a source, specifically as a source in history / history of science articles.
I recognize that The Independent would be generally considered reliable, and that Vallely, as a regular author for the paper, would be as well. This article, however, may be a special case. It lacks citations, makes extraordinary claims about inventions' origins in history which do not appear in reliable works of history scholarship, and has been subject to refutation at (and I realize this is likely not a reliable source, but their refutation is extensively footnoted) http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/20_Islamic_Inventions.
Two of many problematic claims:
The article is currently being used as a source in 10+ wikipedia articles.
article link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-islamic-inventors-changed-the-world-469452.html
Dialectric ( talk) 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor ( User:Sugar Bear(now also User:Yawaraey) has expressed concern that the journal articles and books I have cited in the article on nu metal are unreliable. I am certain that they are indeed reliable. Here are the sources I am trying to use:
And for good measure, this is the source I have removed for contradicting the many other sources:
{{
cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |pmd=
and |trans_title=
(
help)Can third parties please judge the reliability the aforementioned sources and give a third opinion at the nu metal article and talkpage please? Munci ( talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the first one [65], it's reliable. I think they're all reliable. I haven't looked at how they're used, so it's possible they're not being used correctly, but Scholarly journals are considered to be one of the most reliable things there are, ahead of books, newspapers, and websites. Also, having factual errors isn't a big factor in deciding reliability. Everybody makes mistakes, although if you have another reliable source that says one of these is factually inaccurate, that would good to bring up here. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
We're lazy at this board. You should provide the exact statement in the article, and the source used. If you want to be really nice, you could even provide a direct quote of what you summarized. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Is Yediot Aharonot an appropriate source to support this information inserted into a BLP, Richard Goldstone?
A report carried by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot made accusations that during his role as judge during the State of Emergency in 1980s, Richard Goldstone sentenced 28 black men to death and 4 black men to receive lashings. The report also alleged that Goldstone sentenced these men to death after they appealed their conviction of murder. [4] [5] [6]
and...
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has compared Goldstone's judicial role in apartheid South Africa to that of Nazi war criminals. "Goldstone took a job as an apartheid judge. He allowed dozens of black people who were unfairly tried to be executed," Dershowitz told to Israeli Channel 2 TV. "You know, a lot of people say we just followed the law, German judges… That's what Mengele said too. That was Mengele's defense and that was what everybody said in Nazi Germany. 'We just followed the law.' When you are in an apartheid country like South Africa, you don't follow the law" Dershowitz added. [7]
Yediot has been discussed before here [66] although it was combined with a discussion of News of the World that somewhat overtook the thread; such as it was, the general opinion was that Yediot should not be used to source controversial information in BLPs, but it could bear a more focused look. Note that the Jewish Chronicle source above is simply a blog posting that summarizes/recounts the Yediot article. Thanks. — e. ripley\ talk 00:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yediot is not remotely similar to 'tabloids popular in Western countries'- if by that one means News of The World or similar. A better comparison would be with USA Today.
Momma's Little Helper (
talk) 02:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Major Israeli newspaper, their exclusive stories have been widely cited by other news organisation such as the BBC or the New York Times, won several significant journalism prizes. Safe a peer-reviewed scholarly sources this is as close to a reliable source as it gets. Pantherskin ( talk) 10:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Richard Goldstone is a distinguished former South African judge who is generally regarded as a leading proponent of human rights and a key anti-apartheid figure who played a major role in undermining and dismantling the apartheid system. A handful of editors want to add material to the biographical article on Goldstone that portrays him as a bloodthirsty "hanging judge" and supporter of apartheid, based on claims published 12 days ago in a tabloid newspaper. This is obviously a clear " red flag" issue, a claim that is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons". I've highlighted the BLP problems with this fringe theory at Talk:Richard Goldstone#Summary of BLP issues. Some input from uninvolved editors would be much appreciated. -- ChrisO ( talk) 07:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there a single admin board this hasn't been brought to yet?
While I find it interesting to watch the attmept to declare Yedioth Ahronoth not a reliable source, here are a few others you might want to add to that list if you're going to try to hush this up.
The Atlantic -
here
The New Republic -
here
And
here's a HuffPo post (not RS) with some specific information corroborating what YA said, for your research pleasure.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 12:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
<- Comparisons to USA Today and The Independent seem a little bizarre. Reliable sources generally don't facilitate ongoing coordinated smear campaigns against UN officials, human rights organizations and their staff, anyone who criticises the actions of Israel as part of their professional duties to measure and report compliance with international law during military conflicts like Operation Cast Lead. Not so in the Israeli media, including Yedioth, where it's rather routine and well organized with information flowing out to the usual North America based recipients like Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic along with several other columnists for republication in the States and Canada and of course it's been facilitated by the Israeli Government Press Office in the case of Maariv’s support for the extraordinary anti-New Israel Fund campaign. I see that in this latest campaign against Goldstone the Deputy Foreign Minister has said '"after (Goldstone's) dubious background was revealed, there is no reason not to think" that the judge had ulterior motives in composing the UN report accusing the IDF of perpetrating war crimes in Gaza.' I think that tells you quite clearly what this is all about. Focusing on Yedioth as a source kind of misses the point in my view. These reports move around from source to source in a fairly predictable way. It's more of a case of deciding to what extent Wikipedia is willing to facilitate the transmission of these smear campaigns and participate in information wars when it involves BLPs. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The newspaper of record in a way that Haaretz, established in 1918 isn't? In a way that the Jerusalem Post isn't? I feel that some people are missing the point of are what this noticeboard is about. We have been asked to say whether it is a good enough source for a contentious statement in a BLP. That's an important question and it needs to be addressed in relation to our policies and objective criteria. I am still hearing completely opposing views about the standing of this paper, with no middle ground in between. In the absence of any real indication to the contrary I'm currently minded to say treat like the Daily Mail, reliable for lots of non-contentious issues, but not good enough for politically sensitive BLPs. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the pifeedback.com forums are a reliable source for TV ratings. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites, [67] [68] [69] and there are currently 301 links to the site from multiple articles. [70] Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a RS to me. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 09:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In E.O. Green School shooting a single source [8] [9] is cited 19 times in the article, while the other 30-odd sources are generally cited 1-3 times. While the source cited is a WP:RS, Newsweek, the dominant POV expressed in the article itself has been received critically in other WP:RS. Am I right in thinking that over-reliance within an article has several problems - because it means the weight given to one source is potentially unbalanced, and that where a POV is expressed, this could affect the neutrality of the article; there is also the problem that so many references may well imply that the source is substantially being reproduced beyond what is normally acceptable in terms of fair use? I have tried to find some guideline on this, as I am sure I have come across this before, but cannot locate it. Mish ( talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
An editor or two has been consistently removing sourced material when attributed to Media Matters for America with the justification that "it's not a reliable source" or "it's a self published source" or "policy overrides Noticeboard decisions", even though their criticisms are constantly cited by other reliable secondary sources (WSJ, NYT, NPR, NBC, et cetera ad infinitum). It has been consistently upheld that Media Matters is considered a reliable source for their own opinions when it's in the genre of their stated area of interest (media watchdog). Has this changed at all since the last time this question was asked? // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Impartial opinion(s) requested: The use of a reference to the partisan media research organization Media Matters for America has been deleted recently from the criticism and controversy section of the Fox News Channel article.
Two questions,
1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article?
2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way?
Thanks in advance for any advice offered. SaltyBoatr get wet 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] I asked two questions, seeing answers, summarizing:
Two questions,
1) Does WP:RS depend on whether the source is being used for "derogatory" comments in a criticism and controversy section of a media article? [Answer: No.]
2) Is Media Matters considered a form of disallowed "primary research" in this way? [Answer: Now if their research was published in a secondary source, or their basic story was being reported by third party sources then you could argue notability.]
The is absolutely no doubt that "their basic story has been reported by third party sources". See ISBN 9781416560104, page 4. says so clearly, plus many others. Therefore, I conclude that the two [71] [72] text deletions which I asked about were unfounded in WP:Policy. Thanks for the help! SaltyBoatr get wet 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the nub of this discussion centers around a question of sourcing requirements under WP:UNDUE for article inclusion of assertions/allegations made by "partisan" or "biased" entities. While the need for substantive "third-party sourcing" for "biased" content under BPL consideration is clear and unequivocal, it is, perhaps, less clear under Wikipedia policy than I had thought for non-BPL articles (or perhaps I'm just missing it somewhere...there has been considerable editing as of late in this area). It seems to me to be a logical extension of the BPL "philosophy" or "spirit" that "biased" or "partisan" content should mandate a higher level of "sourcing" under WP:UNDUE for non-BPL as well. Am I just missing this somewhere? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
A relevant issue for WP:RSN about this source is whether it falls under the "self-published" designation talked about in WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper): "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable".-- Drrll ( talk) 16:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters is a watchdog site, and as such is particularly valuable to offer counterpoint, criticism, and corrections to right-leaning sources. It is not self published, which would be a blog or vanity press. Obviously someone publishes newspapers, for example, yet they are not self-published even if the newspaper is not owned by a larger parent company. Although we do not "recognize that all sources are biased", MMfA is left-leaning. This does not render them unreliable, it affects how materiel from the site might be presented in the article. Please note that there is a difference between criticism and derogatory content. Criticism may indeed be negative, but it is not necessarily, or even often, derogatory. Please do not conflate the two. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
If MMfA is allowed as a source for non-BLP articles, should it be allowed as a source for BLP articles? From WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."-- Drrll ( talk) 15:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I must say I just saw this for the first time. Blax is essentially complaining about a number of my edits, as well as others who remove MMfA bias and linkspam. He even complained on my Talk page. I find it in extremely bad form that he did not inform me of this discussion, particularly since he was on my Talk page just days before starting this thread. Yet I see a number of the same folks on his losing side of the MMfA consensus here. I have been successful in obtaining consensus in removing MMfA propaganda, despite Blax's efforts, so he has come here and not even informed me. Sneaky, rude, biased comes to mind. I have reason to believe Blax is somehow connected to MMfA. This recent sneaky trick is just one more reason. Some people will do/say anything to promote propaganda on Wikipedia, even if it means noncompliance with Wiki policies and common courtesy.
That said, substantively, I oppose inclusion of MMfA in articles other than those about or directly related to MMfA for the reasons stated here.
If anyone wishes to enlist my assistance in ridding MMfA POV/SOAP/OR/BIAS, please let me know. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is the correct place to discuss the use of sources in BLPs. They can set the rules over at BLP, but we look at the sources. I've frequently advised people that a source is reliable, but not for controversial BLP info here, and I think we could decide it the other way if we wanted to. No opinion on this particular source. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source...
I am against the use of material from MMfA and MRC(if its anything like MMfA) in BLP's because it is commonly just used by trolls to quickly add some statements criticizing the person in question, and leads to a lot of needless, inflammatory attacks. Also, it's self published and not reliable enough for a BLP. Ink Falls 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the recent mostly positive support for using the media watchdog Media Matters for America as a reliable source [77], should the media watchdog Media Research Center / Newsbusters be considered a reliable source? A widely discussed RfC a few months ago overwhelmingly favored consistent use/non-use of these two organizations: [78]. Related questions are whether the MRC / Newsbusters is a reliable source for use in BLPs and whether the MRC is a self-published source.-- Drrll ( talk) 12:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Newsweek
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite episode}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |episodelink=
(
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)