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 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Is the following statement in the article Mass killings under Communist regimes supported by the citation. The article says:
Following his removal from power, on 25 December 25, 1989, the communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people, and other crimes and sentenced to death. Ceausescu and his wife were executed by firing squad shortly after the sentence was handed down. In 1990 Ceausescu's brother was convicted of incitement to genocide, and four aides to the former dictator were convicted of complicity in genocide.... [1]
The source cited says:
Several Romanian leaders, including the son of Nicolae Ceausescu, were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide. The allegations concerned mass killings during the Decembetr 1989 popular uprising, as well as other victims of the Ceausescu regime. [2]
TFD ( talk) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the Glass family article is entirely referenced to this one source Dead Caulfields, a website devoted to a detailed analysis of the life of J. D. Salinger and his works. The trouble is, I have no idea whether this should be considered a reliable source. The site is maintained by Kenneth Slawenski, the author of the biography, J. D. Salinger: A Life Raised High (which has received a number of positive reviews: [3], [4], [5], [6]), but little else seems to be known of the man. He is not an academic or an acknowledged scholar of Salinger. So, is this a reliable source? Does his well-received bio of Salinger confer notability upon his website? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion may interest editors with an interest in RS Anthony ( talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if papers and booklets published by Drug Free Australia, specifically "The Kings Cross Injecting Room - The Case for Closure" and "The Case for Closure: Detailed Evidence", can be considered reliable sources? Are they WP:SPS? Can they be used without attribution? Steinberger ( talk) 10:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This site has been used in a number of articles on SF authors as a source for books and awards. Most awards are either reported in journals and news articles and books have a number of high quality alternatives. The site was called into question on Talk:Charles Stross and on examination appears to be more oriented towards their forums rather than as an independent news site. The site FAQ states "Our awards listings are very accurate as that data is relatively easy to come by on-line. Many authors provide press kit information on their web sites like bios and pictures etc. that we'll use here. We won't use information that is outside the public domain without permission and getting permission is time consuming and laborious thus the many holes in our author data. The same issue exists for our novels. Synopses are public domain and most times freely available on-line but many publishers/authors do not wish to share excerpts so we don't always have those."
This site might be useful as an external link but should we recommend this is not a reliable source? Fæ ( talk) 14:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Khojaly Massacre talk about the reliability of two Azerbaijani sources: Today.az and the U.S. Azeris Network. The latter features a PDF image of document, most likely a scan, which is genuine in my opinion. User Divot in the talk thread thinks otherwise, without any evidence, on the ground of alleged Azeri propaganda. Can we use those refs to support the sentence in question? Brandmeister t] 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded the scan of the original document to wiki commons and wikisource. See here: [11] Also there's a confirmation of the authenticity of the document from Mrs. Ellen Story, the State Representative. Anyone can contact the House of Representatives of Massachusetts or its individual members to check for themselves. Plus, I added a link to report from Azertaj, which is the State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan Republic, an official governmental source. [12] I think this should suffice to eliminate any doubts of the authenticity of the document. Grand master 10:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Today.az is a major Azeri mainstream news organisation, little doubt that they are reliable similar to other major mainstream news organisation from other countries. If the claims are controversial we might attribute them, similar to what we do with controversial claims in other major mainstream news outlets such as the BBC or Le Monde or the New York Times. Pantherskin ( talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Azeris Network doesn't appear to be notable, however Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency, Today.az and International Security Research and Intelligence Agency all appear to be reasonably reliable sources who are unlikely to mis-report an event like this. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I will answer both of you once. There is a reason why in a court of law, evidences provided should be disclosed in full to both sides and the sources too. Confirmations like this are acceptable for an author who writes a book, because he takes responsability for what he writes. That's why secondary sources are what everyone search for. But here, everyone who questions the claim has to contact some official. That's sure not acceptable. We don't know what happened, for all we know there might have been three person in the house that day which would be worth clarifying, but since no info is available nothing can be writen about it. We also have a line or two provided by Grandmaster, I doubt that the reply limited to a line or two. He should be disclosing it in full. Ionidasz ( talk) 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you are not being true again. It says: "The Massachusetts State House of Representatives adopted a document on February 25, acknowledging the Khojaly massacre." The House adopted a doc? And acknowledging the massacres? Here is the quote of the quote of the codument from the same news agency: "Be it hereby known to all that: Massachusetts House of Representatives offers its sincerest acknowledgement of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre" Clearly there was no document by the House ADOPTED. Neither there was acknowledgment of massacres but of commemoration. Assuming good faith, I cannot see why you continue advocating these after obvious false claims and propaganda that can be noted even from their own written article. Aregakn ( talk) 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This suggest it's the house doing, which is not true. Ionidasz ( talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would really appreciate if any uninvolved editor could help to draft the best wording to describe the content of the discussed document. I don't really think that edits like this [21] accurately describe the document. Any help for dispute resolution will be appreciated. The authenticity of the document is not disputed anymore. Grand master 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the Iranian media and Al Jazeera reliable sources to represent the views of a country's government (beyond Iran) about the Nuclear program of Iran? Users Lihaas ( talk · contribs) and Evenfiel ( talk · contribs) think they are.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There's absolutely no basis for describing Al Jazeera as a 'questionable source' that I am aware of. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to hear what you think about Al-Manar the satellite television station of Hezbollah also used in that problematic edit.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is the url of the source in question?
- In which article is the source being used?
- What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
- Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?
I am in dispute with User:HCPUNXKID over his edits to this article, which lists diplomatic missions of a largely unrecognised country, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)
User:HCPUNXKID wishes to mention that the SADR has "general delegations" to Australia, the United States and a number of European countries.
For partially recognised country or entity (where it is recognised by at least one generally recognised country) we have allowed their representative offices to be included as long as they perform a quasi-diplomatic function. This has allowed us to include for example Palestinian representative offices abroad, or de facto missions in Taipei.
HCPUNXKID is claiming article demonstrates the SADR has general delegations in several countries. I do not find this source to be convincing because:
HCPUNXKID is claiming article demonstrates the SADR has a general delegation in Australia. Australia is not even mentioned in the article.
Anybody can claim to be a "representative". It is a tall order to then say they are the "general delegation" of a self-declared country to another.
HCPUNXKID has offered to withdraw these changes if I agree to the withdraw of unreferenced diplomatic missions in all the other (200+) articles. In most cases the other articles are referenced, either through references or through links to a credible source (usually the sending country's ministry for foreign affairs). In my view the absence of a reference in one article does not justify a wholesale policy change.
The matter has been edit-warred and extensively debated:
Could you please review the discussions (and by all means, seek HCPUNXKID's side of the story), and advise if you consider his/her sources are reliable or not.
Kransky ( talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
However I don't think it is appropriate to make up facts just because you think another unrecognised state inconsistently names its missions (when there is ample evidence those general delegations do not exist). Kransky ( talk) 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has been going on here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether publicly posted signs can be cited as sources. I think this is an important issue and would like to open it up to a larger pool of editors for consensus. The issue was discussed by a few editors that had consensus, and then it was archived, but the issue was raised again as an article that cites a sign is now at FAC, so I have resurrected the archived discussion and added a few comments. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."
I'd also like to add that since WP:SELFPUBOK clearly states guidelines for when self-published material can be cited in Wikipedia, the question is not about the reliability of a sign, as an entity conveying information about itself is considered reliable unless it is self-serving. The question is a matter of precedent: are signs sources or not?
Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, now that I think about it from another perspective, if an organization can spend little to no money or time to launch a website, and the information contained in that website is admissible to Wikipedia under the self published sources rule, then why would we exclude information from that same source when they've spent a lot of money to post a permanent signboard in a location viewable by the public? Quite literally, if they copied the information off the sign and slapped it onto their site, then it becomes allowable. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the current guidelines for acceptable use of self-published sources:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
So the question is: If a sign exists, and the material meets the criteria set forth above, is there any reason why it should not be cited in Wikipedia? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Museum placards have a procedure for citation in MLA 6th ed. (§5.8.2). If an academic procedure exists to cite signage, I think that helps put this question into perspective: it certainly isn't a new practice to scholarly writers. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
User is insistent that the following sources are reliable sources for band genres:
1.) Spirit of metal, a webzine [28] Note: has been brought up before: [29]
2.) Amazon.com [30] Note: the specific passage in question says it "was provided by the artist or their representative".
Input please 87.194.171.224 ( talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies so far. Anyone else have anything to say on them, or should I go ahead and remove the spirit of metal ref (seeing that HelloAnnyong has already replaced the amazon one with one more reliable). 86.129.194.243 ( talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Please look in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_L._Vaultonburg.
The author - auto-biographical - thinks that the references show notability; "I am confident if people who have this expertise see it they will be able to tell you these publication credits are pretty substantial."
Thanks, Chzz ► 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The question is about ErnestoJustiniano.org in the article Evo Morales. It is used several times in this edit.
My Spanish is not really good enough for me to judge the reliability of this source, but it didn't appear to me to be an established news organization with a defined editorial process. I could not find sources that testified to its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but, the language barrier prevents me from making a definitive judgment. What say you? Dlabtot ( talk) 06:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on Encubed was brought up at Visual novels task force and is a borderline case. It has been listed by Anime News Network (which is a news lexicon site) twice in their news section for non-press related info and have had interviews with staff at some visual novel companies at E3 and Anime Expo, both of which are invite-only conventions. This suggests that they also have industry contacts which suggests they aren't some random website or blog. List of interviews:
Bottom line is would they be a RS for information on User:Jinnai/Edelweiss, a visual novel? 陣 内 Jinnai 04:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be great to have more sources on Russian ships, but I don't read Russian and don't know if this qualifies (although they give handy flag icons that will invoke a Google translation). Discussion is at User talk:Omeganian. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
SaiyanIsland, it seems more like a fan site to me with users making opinionated guesses on upcoming information. An example of a page a user used to site information [31]. DragonZero ( talk · contribs) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In an article on the iPad, the use of The Morning Star as a source is being challenged on the basis that it is affiliated to the Communist Party and thus unreliable. The use is confirmatory of text derived from fully reliable sources such as the Financial Times, commenting on events in a factory in a country governed by the Communist Party; material sourced to Chinese national newspapers controlled by the Communist Party does not seem to be a problem, so I am unclear why this is a problem in using a similar source in the UK, and why political affiliation is a reason for discounting a source. Discussion is here: Talk:IPad#section break for Morning_Star. Mish ( talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
leaksallday.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.leaksallday.com
Although I am already inclined to blacklist this without this discussion, since there has been some significant refspamming of leaksallday.com; see:
It is still used here and there as a source for more extended statements (though it is generally used to attribute the sentence 'the album leaked onto the internet on DD/MM/YYYY.(ref)'). I have a strong feeling this is not exactly a reliable source, but I'd like some second thoughts on it. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello All. I am the editor of leaksallday.com. I noticed that there have been some questions as to the reliability of the information posted. I would like to ensure you that I do all of the research myself through a variety of forum threads and private bit torrent trackers. I actually listen to each album that is "leaked" before posting news. I am not sure what else could be done to make a site like this more valid as a source. Is there anything that comes to mind? Also, I respect your right to edit wikipedia content as you see fit. I noticed the reference was added again to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(album): 19:35, 3 June 2010 Ldud (talk | contribs) (1,566 bytes) (Undid revision 365170430 by Beetstra (talk) Important piece of information had been removed.) (undo)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.243.180 ( talk • contribs)
What would make it a reliable source? -- User:silencexx 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I am an expert on leaked albums, but that term seems unverifiable. Don't you agree? -- User:silencexx 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This web site IMRA (and this link in particular) is being used on the Gaza flotilla clash article. I can't see how the site in general meets WP:RS -- it seems to me like a web site run by one guy ("Dr Aaron Lerner") to write basically whatever he wants. He re-posts articles from other sources, hence the notion that it is a "digest". But in general I think this one is no better than a blog, particular in relation to instances like the link above. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to describing details of events that happened on FB is allfacebook.com considered reliable? Alatari ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
So I can spy on the page and use it to track down his sources but not use his application growth stats. Alatari ( talk) 01:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
During peer review of MacBook Air, the reviewers have found referencing from AppleInsider and MacRumors (rumor sites) strewn across the artical. Would these sources be reliable in any way, like if they were reporting on tech specs or an Apple announcement? -- mono 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Link in question: [33]
Article used in: Tree shaping
Text supported:
Other names for tree shaping include:
Talk Page Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tree_shaping&action=edit§ion=19
Consensus was to move our Alternate names section out of the mainspace into the Talkpage as on the main page it may have been being used to establish and push a non-neutral POV, surrounding the renaming or not of the page; whether or not certain names or any or all names are aka's for the page name (which has undergone contentious change and remains unresolved with an open discussion as to whether the page name should be returned to its original name or some other neutral name, as Tree shaping has turned out to not be so neutral after all); and thus whether and which of the names should even be included as other names, and also whether the other names should appear in the lead or be buried at the end of the article. That tedious discussion continues as part of an even more tedious systematic process of re-evaluating all of the citations (about 100) (including those left stationary for the time being on the main page) for drivel and unreliable sources, of which there have been found many unreliable sources so far. We need to know regarding this source, whether that list of names on the top left of the customized google map, presumably edited by the map's creator, is a reliable source for establishing secondary/tertiary uses of these other names, which all are purported to be aka's, not brand names, for Tree shaping. An involved editor insists that it is, and has turned out to be one of the members on the googlemaps page as a contributor.(listed thrice, by products). It's pretty sticky and we are trying to diplomatically overcome a suspected WP:Promotion situation as fairly and even-handedly as possible by first establishing which of the other names is legit, as supported (or not properly supported) by the multiple citations attached to them. Thanks for your help on this one. Duff ( talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the consult. Duff ( talk) 18:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu is using a source I find questionable. The source [34] is a reprint of a letter that was supposedly published in a magazine. The reprint is posted on a discussion forum (a site whose wikipedia article was recently deleted) by a member. I tagged the sources with a dubious tag and it has been removed by User:Wgungfu, who says that the letters can't be found anymore, but he's seen them himself. I replaced the tag and it was removed again, without any discussion....so here I am. I felt that just tagging it as dubious and leaving it in place was the least disruptive way to go, but since we are at this point, the question now is should the link stand as a RS, or be removed altogether? Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There's some gross misscharacterizations of my stance here, which I do not appreciate. First and foremost I want to state that I was in no way claiming a discussion forum to be a reliable source. Rather, I was stating that the letter being reprinted was from Inside Kung Fu (itself a notable and reliable source) and was a formal statement sent by the Ving Tsun Athletic Organization" to that and other magazines regarding the controversy in question at the time. The VTAA is a major governing body in Wing Chun/Ving Tsun/Wing Tsun, founded by Yip Man's students to govern his branch of the art (which William is a part of as a student of Yip Man's). At the time it was headed by his fellow peers, including Yip Man's two sons. Likewise, I did not state the letters can't be found anymore - I actually have an archive of back issues in storage I can get out and look up the exact issue numbers. I simply stated the letters/statements can't be found anywhere else online, i.e. "can't be "directly linked to". William Cheung is a controversial figure in this martial art, as is his brand of the art (the article topic) hence the section. Likewise, the very existence and marketing of his "traditional wing chun" is based on the controversial concept that only he teaches the "traditional" version (hence the name) and that everyone else teaches a "modified" version. That only he was taught a "special" version and everyone else something less. It's not Wikipedia's place to promote judgement (nor is it my intention to state some sort of judgement). But it is Wikipedia's place to denote this as being controversial, and to provide a referenced counterpoint to maintain neutrality. Addressing a point and counterpoint will not violate BLP if worded in a neutral manner. Other controversial topics, including valid criticism, are routinely discussed on Wikipedia. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec):::::::*And now you're going to lecture me, at length, about the BLP policy? And yes, I do find the whole coincidence interesting. Verifying the source info when it becomes available will probably be interesting too. Again, you've spent all this time and space talking about this when the tag, which was proper from the beginning, could have simply been left in place until you did your digging. But you want to act like I did you wrong somehow. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)*When you start talking about how point-counterpoint is allowed.....yeah, you're acting like I never heard that. And your request to move on.....was edited in while I was posting my reply, hence the edit conflict that I noted. Yeah, let's move on, we should have never had to be hear in the first place. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I am writing a wiki page off line. Because I do not want it getting deleted again until I am done. Alot of the Ref's are to an online paper that has won many journalist awards...infact they just beat out CNN in a catagory last month . I just don't want it to be questioned as a non reliable source. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/ I did notice that the City of New haven used a few of their articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticut and Yale Hospital did as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_%E2%80%93_New_Haven_Hospital as well as others as seen in this search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_%E2%80%93_New_Haven_Hospital
NHI has been recording this groups history. So it will be a large part of my Ref's....
I just want to make sure I dot all my I am check and make sure this is not going to be an issue -- Happypixie ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has continually been inserting biased material which is either not supported by the given citations, or is cited with websites. This is attested to in the diff above (it represents the re-insertion of often-deleted material). I would greatly appreciate some guidance from fellow editors as to whether this material is flagrantly in breach of WP:NOR and WP:RS, or whether I am in fact totally insane for being sure that this is so. I stand ready to call a psychiatrist or revert the article depending on your answer. BillMasen ( talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The source isn't used so much to validate specific statements, but to support the article's existence. I'm not familiar with Russia Today, so I don't think I have a good grounding on whether it is a reliable source or not. I know when I did a google search yesterday on this person (I believe with an alternate spelling, the article creator has been doing multiple versions) I only found links to Wikipedia and to Russia Today. Anyone who can give advice? Syrthiss ( talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any guidance on the use of such websites as cites in the English language Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiuserNI ( talk • contribs) 20:49, June 4, 2010
There is a lengthy history section in New Madrid County, Missouri, which appears to be lifted, from this site.
See, for example:
padding |
This letter produced upon Gov. Miro the effect desired by Wilkinson. On May 20, 1789, Miro wrote the Spainish concerning the policy of the conditions of the concession to Morgan and the extent of it. He denominated it an Imperium in Imperio and protested against it. He also wrote to Morgan, stating how he had been deceived in regard to the conditions and extent of the concession, and declared that it was entirely inadmissible |
and
padding |
This letter produced upon Gov. Miro the effect desired by Wilkinson. On the 20th of May 1789, Miro wrote the Spain concerning the impolicy of the conditions of the concession to Morgan, and the extent of it. He denominated it an Imperium in Imperio and protested against it. He also wrote to Morgan, stating how he had been deceived in regard to the conditions and extent of the concession, and declared that it was entirely inadmissable. |
(Interestingly, not a straight copy-and-paste, as one spelling error was corrected, but another introduced in an attempt to correct a wrong word choice.)
There are attribution questions, copyright questions and reliable source questions. Attribution is easy if the other two can be resolved.
I'm bringing the reliable source question here, because I doubt it will be considered a reliable source. The project sounds like an admirable one, but I have no familiarity with it, and my brief review doesn't identify the attention to sourcing we would require. If it turns out to be reliable, I'll turn to the copyright question, but I'd like to determine whether it passes this hurdle first.-- SPhilbrick T 11:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A series of recent edits made to Kashmir and related articles sought to use these websites as sources for the claims made therein. I visited the websites, and they seemed to project a suspiciously POV version of the history of events they seek to document. I'm not very well-versed with either the scholarship on this topic or the reliability of the sources that make these claims, but I've never seen them being made in any of the reliable sources that I've been through, nor do these sites appear to be scholastic prima facie, so I seek help and consensus in determining whether these sites can be used as reliable sources. The pages in question are available here and here). Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 05:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
User:79.72.128.246 is repeatedly reinserting content into
Isang Lakas about claims that certain actors and certain characters will be part of the show.
The edit summaries claim that the articles show that actors are portraying certain characters in an upcoming television series "Isang Lakas" or originally "Sanglakas".
There is clear evidence that the following will be part of the program
But the IP is insisting on inserting additional content.
I have searched each of these articles several times and found no mention of the series, let alone support that the actor will be appearing or what role the actor will be playing or a detailed description of the character. The IP has been asked to provide information about where these sources confirm the claims and the only response has been the edit summary "It says so in every article, most of these articles have it in different language and on second pages" which would put it in the forum posts, not reliable sources. I have attempted to communicate on the article talk page
[37] and the IP talk page
[38], but no additional response as to why the IP thinks these sources can be used to confirm any of the additional actors being cast for this program in the articles.
Can someone help?
Active Banana (
talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn from here, conveted to RfC on talk page
Talk:Isang_Lakas#Request_for_Comment_-_Do_the_sources_reliably_verify_the_claims_made_regarding_casting_and_characters.3F
Active Banana (
talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this particular site would be considered reliable to source a supposed internet rumor regarding the "Monroe gets raped" episode of the series Too Close for Comfort. IMO, the site looks to be a joke fansite of some kind that doesn't support the content I initially removed to begin with (it has since been restored because the link contains "primary content" hence this thread). I can't get the movie to play for some reason so perhaps that is the part that supports the content? Either way, I'd like some additional opinions as I believe the source and the content is shaky at best. Pinkadelica ♣ 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
DISCLOSURE for the purpose of context] I have been making a few minor edits here and there, but never engaged extensively in Wikipedia mainly because I do not have the time, not for lack of appreciation. Recently I thought that content from the site http://thepatientacapacitor.com/ would be useful and carry value to Wikipedia so I edited a few entries and inserted reference links. For the record these were;
"Perspective (graphical)"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/
"Perspective (visual)"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/
"Inertia Coupling"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2010/01/the-physics-of-moving-about/
"Alexander Abian"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/
"Gravitational Binding Energy"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/
"Fermi Paradox"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/why-would-extraterrestrial-aliens-contact-us/
"Carl Sagan"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/10/carl-sagans-indigo-children/
The author of these posts identifies himself in the /author/ page as a physicist by training with PL Monteiro as his real name, the whois for the owner of the domain says Paulo L Monteiro owns the site, and a search in Linkedin will turn up http://www.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro . A technicality important for the everything are rules and regulations people, is if the site is a blog or a start-up online publication. From the information in Linkedin, I would say the owner considers the latter should apply. In any case this distinction may be artificial given the arguments I am going to produce.
As to the links and referenced articles, I would say that at least in the "Alexander Abian" and "Inertia Coupling," the links I have added are of great relevance. In "Alexander Abian" the post linked examines in detail the facts of figures of the matter; in "Inertia Coupling" the post linked to allows a huge leap in understanding of what Inertia Coupling really is. In these two as in all the others it seems to me, my editing and insertion of links, should be read by the usefulness and value to the readers of Wikipedia. That's the consideration I made when making the edits, but I do admit this may be just my own personal opinion, and other editors may dispute it.
To finish with context:] There was a legitimacy challenge in the "Fermi Paradox" that the editor making it dropped after a brief exchange. The statement there rounds off the whole discussion in the entry, which I think is appropriate to the head summary, and links to a post that is an allegory, conveying in this way points hard to make in other ways. More recently the legitimacy of the source was challenged in the "Carl Sagan" page, but in this case even the refutation of false claims that would undermine the credibility of the source, refutations whose acceptance would allow reaching an editorial agreement, were not ackowledged, the editor challenging the source sticking categorically to his interpretation of Wikipedia directives and rules, in the process raising ethical concerns I cannot simply pretend I didn't notice. If you are examining this issue, you may want to review the discussion there Talk:Carl_Sagan#Carl_Sagan.E2.80.99s_Indigo_Children. The issue boiled down to what a Reliable Source is and if the thepatientcapacitor.com is one.
THE ETHICAL ISSUES:] In the Sagan talk page I laid three different common sense challenges that could be made to the statement and link I inserted. These were 1) Is the statement appropriate and does it enrich Wikipedia? 2) Does the source validate the statement in ways that enrich Wikipedia? 3) Is the source reliable? The people debating me decided not to take the first two, instead focusing on the last, the only one that raises ethical concerns. In these I stated: "The fact is that it is ethically improper from me and from Wikipedia to declare that the (you call it blog) site is not a reliable source here, but then find that the links and statements [elsewhere] are significant enriching contributions to the users of Wikipedia, and the sourced site is reliable there." And additionally: "It would be highly objectionable from Wikipedia to keep those links unchallenged for the time being, and when someone gets [...] to rewriting [around] the original material in the specific blog posts, the links will be trashed out." So it becomes this: if the patientacapacitor.com becomes an unreliable source to Wikipedia, none of its original content, data, results, mathematical proofs, ideas can ever be used by Wikipedia in any way. This includes a rewrite of the content. Even if there are no laws against rewrite of, say, a mathematical proof, doing this would be to refuse to source the creator of the original content, while at the same time accepting it from someone else who in fact stole the ideas. These are the matters of principle.
Assumptions:] At this point I would like to clarify that this analysis in not about thepatientcapacitor, or not only about the patientcapacitor. I will assume in what follows that that particular site satisfies criteria I will be writing about, but to consider that fact, will continue to rest on Wikipedia editors agreeing with such criteria, and ascertaining thepatientcapacitor satisfies them. Additionally and from the outset, I would like to make a distinction about what common sense and pragmatic rules of thumb say is a Reliable Source as Commonly Understood and what Wikipedia editors interpret as a Reliable Source By The Rules. Notice that in the latter, the essence of the matter is not what Wikipedia directives say, but instead what editors think they mean.
Reliable Source as Commonly Understood] So what would be a Reliable Source to me, the rules of thumb, the criteria I think a source should have for me to consider it worthy of reference and belief? In general reliable sources have these characteristics 1) They are well written and care with detail was taken; 2) They are well researched, 3) The author articulates ideas that are intelligible and cogent; 4) There are no obvious flaws in reasoning or fact; 5) There is no intention to deceive or mislead; 6) Most, if not all, assumptions can be verified (either by our knowledge of the subject or independently in a different reference); 7) Generally information for verification purposes is supplied. To this, as a group of characteristics, I have to add a few words of alert to preconceived ideas we may have, to cloud our judgment in assessing a source: 1) You may not like the style. The writer is informal when you would prefer formal, or writes formal and you prefer informal. This depends on who the writer thinks s/he is addressing with the writing and something to be published in the Physical Review Letters for sure is inappropriate if trying to entice scientific curiosity in young people. 2) You may not like the content having a lot of colorful pictures. You would prefer dry graphs. Again who is the author writing to? 3) You just took a quick look and jumped to unpleasant conclusions. Is that fair if you really did not examine at all the source? 4) You may never have heard of the author. Well, authorities and experts sometimes go wrong, the author may actually be the best world expert in the very narrow field s/he is writing about but it just happens s/he never appeared in the cover of People Magazine, and talent, knowledge and understanding are not the exclusive domain of Ivy League, CalTech or MIT professionals. But the really important argument here begins by noticing that a mathematical proof, articulating ideas to a conclusion, may be incidentally made with different details by different people, but the fact of it does not depend on who made it. Would a proof of a geometrical theorem be valid if done by Michio Kaku, but invalid, being done the exact same way, by Joe The Carpenter? Of course there are different expectations in this: if receiving the proof from Kaku, you would think he thought about it, and he is qualified to make it. But that does not change the fact that getting that same proof from Joe, you can check and see if the proof does do what it is supposed to prove. The end result of shutting yourself out to any Reliable Source as Commonly Understood is that you'll only know, think and believe what comes from some authority, and I dare predict that in those circumstances in all likelihood you'll find yourself belonging to the group of people that know nothing, think nothing and do not understand anything of what they believe in.
Of course there's a line to be drawn in this and the argument of authority sometimes is the only one we can have. Michio Kaku worked extensively in String Theory, of which I do not know anything in any depth, so if Kaku says something about it, I'll believe him. I would not say the same about Joe. The crux of the matter here is that I do not really know or understand String Theory in any technical depth. However Michio Kaku can examine Joe The Carpenter statements about String Theory, and see if there's anything to them.
[CONTINUES BELOW] Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Article: Carl Sagan
Statement: "He remains a respected figure for many people in the generation growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s"
Talk page discussion: Talk:Carl_Sagan#Carl_Sagan.E2.80.99s_Indigo_Children
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]
At this point I wrote down a group of specific criteria to ascertain if a source is reliable, under an empiric pragmatic assessment anyone should be able to make. I did point out however that the editor making the check should be equipped with a minimum of the background knowledge and understanding required to read through the source, or trash it out for evident ignorance from the author.
A FLAW WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT] (topics: public education; perspective, interpretation and insight) I may not be completing this, for the time it would require, no proper place to do it, and the affront to common sense DVdm seems to want to make this issue to go through. See below. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully request that WP:RS be overruled in the specific list of links above, to thepatientcapacitor.com, under the WP:IAR policy. The reasons to do so, are explained above. Do these links improve Wikipedia? That has always been my point. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. —George Pólya, quoted from WP:WIARM. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 06:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Original section title was: The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter as evidence of common usage of arborsculpture to name the craft, supporting usage as a generic term and possibly supporting a page move back to its original name.
1. [49] p.6 Arbor Sculpture: If you like I'll Grow You a Mirror 2. Tree shaping
Richard Reames is an American arborsculptor[39] based in Williams, Oregon, where he manages a nursery, botanical garden, and design studio collectively named Arborsmith Studios.[39]
(In 1995, he wrote and published his first book, How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary.) In it he coined the word arborsculpture[4] and since then this word has been used around the world to refer to the craft in general,[39] to the works of various live woody plant artisans, and to the artisans themselves as arborsculptors, including Christopher Cattle,[39]...
Dr. Christopher Cattle is a retired furniture design professor from England.[39]
According to Cattle, he developed an idea to train and graft trees to grow into shapes, which came to him in the late 1970s, in response to questions from students asking how to build furniture using less energy.[52][53][39]
Current editors at Tree Shaping are sorting through a raft of alternate names, and questionable sources for both the synonymity and neutrality of those names, all of which were presented and used to establish the neutrality of the current title Tree shaping and to sink all other names, including the original page title, out of the lead (except if used as trade names, oddly) and into a final section of the article. Tree shaping and shaped trees as neutral terms have turned out to be not so neutral after all, as they are strongly associated with a pair of the article's covered artists, who are well documented as soon-to-publish their own book entitled Pooktre knowledge to grow shaped trees, and who also continue to edit forcefully on the page.
This source is one of many that use arborsculpture/arborsculptor as generic terms for the craft and the craftspersons who practice it.
The bullet points are the five instances in the article, of citation to the named source, and for which the analysis is requested. A more pointed link to the pertinent discussion on the talk page is: Talk:Tree Shaping#Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter Duff ( talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is no doubt that HipHopDX has information that is reliable and is credible. But recently, they have started a new weekly post called "Wednesday Rap Release Dates". Now, many users are using this to justify information and one page is purely sourced by HipHopDX (this page is of course 2010 in hip hop music#References), 99% of those release dates are sourced with the same multiple links of HipHopDX. The list of release dates on HipHopDX does not cite any of their knowledge of the release date. They could say Detox will be out next week and it could be sourced on Wikipedia.
I am just wondering if information should be purely based on this weekly post, release dates should be backed up by more reliable sources (such as artist pages, record labels, Billboard, XXL, MTV, etc.) like it used to be. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 06:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well they are all dates released by the record companies. Fyi that post "Wedsday Rap Release Dates" has been up and going since 2009 so don't state it as "new." As you said "HipHopDX is reliable and is credible" they have been right about dozenes of Rap Release dates and were also the first to report them. They would not be dumb enough to say "Detox" would come out next week. If there date is wrong then it's not their falut its the record companies false info. STAT -Verse 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've checked the archives and can't seem to find anything discussing allmovie.com in the context of biogrpahical info. I know NYTimes mirrors their info in some cases (movie credits). I know they have paid writers and an editorial staff, but I don't know that they work on biographical data. Specifically, we're looking for a solid source for a birthdate for the late Michelle Thomas. The obits we've found disagree on her age when she died, so her birthdate might not be solidly established anywhere. In any case, Allmovie gives a birthdate. Is this a reliable source? - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(Exdent) FYI... this will most likely soon be a moot point as there is now a question about Michelle's DOB on Phynjuar Thomas' Facebook tribute page. [50] FWIW, her mother added this picture to the Facebook page [51] in which the years are 1968-1998. Erikeltic ( Talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A little bit off topic, but claims that the mother's personal site is an "ultimate authority" are not valid. There are many many reasons why a person may "fudge" the birthdate of their child. Self published sites can be used as sources for non-controversial material about the subject, but if they are in conflict about data covered in reliable sources, than the content from the self published site must be taken with a grian (or more) of salt. Active Banana ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay I know blogs are not realy a RS. But he is the problem The source we have show fax for new icarly episodes adds them but then a few weeks later or so takes the new episodes down. I was just wondering could we use http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/. I know it is a blog site but here is the thing. the person who runs the site and the victoious site gets the episodes off show fax and puts them on there. the new episodes would be under the section upcoming episodes on the bottom of the page. Now if this is fine, How would I use this without it getting takien down when I put the new episodes up. Also What is the difference between http://danwarp.blogspot.com/ wich is used for the main icarly pages and dan's other shows. danwarp is the creator of the show. With episodes up on show fax Dan also shows fans pics during the filming of that episode. The ones that are already confirmed. are iHave a hot Room and iDo. They will be deleted form show fax any time soon. I also don't realy know how to use the other type of back tracking. I say it is kind of Reliable since the person that gets the episodes and up them on the site gets them off show fax. I would like to start creating the season 4 section for the show. Checker Fred ( talk) 20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This is also on the Michelle Thomas article (see above). Are otherwise reliable sources archived at High Beam Research reliable? Specifically, an editor is questioning a Bay State Banner article and one from [ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22424893.html the LA Sentinel. My impression was that they were legit electronic archives of a whole raft of media outlets, and I've seen them used before. However, I cannot seem to find out much about the site itself. Opinions? - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
After the HighBeam issue (above), we have the question of www.dsrct.com, a site about desmoplastic small round cell tumor. I don't know much about who runs the site, other than the notice at the bottom of many of the pages: "I am not a medical or health professional. Information in this site has been gathered from numerous sources and is for research purposes only. I do not guarantee the accuracy of any information in this site." Another editor at Michelle Thomas wishes to use two articles copied at the site]. One says it is from "CBS Website, Dec. 1998", the other "AP wired reports, Spring 1999". Are these reliable archives of articles from (presumably) cbsnews.com and the AP wire? - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to give an outside opinion on the use of material published by "Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research" ( website), please? Specifically:
Thanks for any help you can give. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Need third party opinions on highly divisive Balkans related history. Particularly in reference to sourcing. Savonneux ( talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Main article Massacre of Kodra, talk page: Talk:Massacre_of_Kodra, deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Massacre_of_Hormova. The article and talk page have been deleted but I still want feedback on sources. -- Savonneux ( talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is the contention of Users Athenean ( talk · contribs), Alexikoua ( talk · contribs), and that the sources listed below fail WP:V and WP:RS. Users also maintain that the authors are essentially pro Albanian (it's on the talk page, I'm terrible at diffs).
Newspapers in English:
US Congressional Record:
United States Senate, 66th Congress, First Session (1919). "Albania: Statement by C.A. Dako". Congressional Serial Set, Treaty of Peace with Germany, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations.
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0FUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1005#v=onepage&q&f=false: G.P.O. pp. 1006–1010. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|location=
Books:
Source material in Dutch:
I asked generally if anyone involved would like to bring it to this notice board was ignored (dif deleted). So I made this. I never edited the article (dif deleted you'll have to take this on good faith now) it only came to my attention because it was nommed for deletion and most of my contributions are on AFD. -- Savonneux ( talk) 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Updated -- Savonneux ( talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC))
Have a journal article now that someone was kind enough to download for me, it covers the political situation more than anything else but confirms the names of the Dutch officers involved and that there was Greek activity: "However, the nascent Albanian gendarmerie and small army proved too weak to defend Albania against Greek insurgents in the south..."
With a reference to
Which is completely unavailable to me. -- Savonneux ( talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Alexikoua it seems like you said that you would need further secondary sources. The even is from 1914. However now it seems that we have further three (3) reliable secondary sources, and the event has not been notable for a determinate period of time, but for a larger frame. In fact we have the following secondary sources:
(The first two are declared partisan by the Greek side, but I'm sure that are many more in the History of Albania, however I am far from a library). When Fabius is brought here, I really think we should go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion. -- Sulmues Let's talk 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
[63].-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Explanation and the material at siger.org is very interesting. British MP claimed that he had photos of the massacre and he presented them to the House (apparently these are part of his photos). Also the source says that people were taken from Hormova village and were massacred at Kodra (that explains different references, Hormova massacre since they were from Hormova or Kodra massacre since they were massacred in Kodra). More interesting is that even in the article it is written that "Forty men were said to have been locked in a church and shot by men firing through the roof and the windows" so this was the first rumor, but then the investigation commission found "Approximately 200 partially mutilated corpses " clearly a massacre and also "In the church, investigators found traces of blood and bullet holes; spent small-arms cartridges were found on the roof" clearly confirming what was said about the church. Aigest ( talk) 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ermenji, Abas (1968). Vendi që zë Skënderbeu në Historinë e Shqipërisë (Albanian Edition). Di Lauro. Can also be read online here It's a book of Abas Ermenji, that now can be found online, published in Rome Italy in 1968. Mentions the burning of 314 Muslim villages and in particular the massacre of Hormova where Muslim Albanians were killed inside of a church from the Zographos paramilitary bands. -- Sulmues Let's talk 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been photographing,tasting and documenting Malaysian flora, especially uncommon fruit species for the past 5 years. Now, I have decided to put up an advertisement free Google site to bring people of the same research field together. I'm also organizing two Google groups one in Malay and another one in English to help the exchange of info. All the photos are watermarked "Sample" it doesn't mean that I'm selling them it simple means "Copyrighted". Is this site considered a reliable source? If not, what do I have to do to make it one?
Thanks,
Frank Frugivore ( talk) 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I've forgotten to give the address of the site
http://sites.google.com/site/malaysianedibleflora
Thanks,
Frugivore ( talk) 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking advice on the use of a source which says fairly much the same as the text I have entered into the Harm reduction#Heroin maintenance programs page. I have entered a criticism of heroin maintenance (now removed) to add some balance to the subject. It reads:
My main cited source is a statement by a drug prevention organization called Drug Free Australia, which is resisting a push for heroin maintenance in Australia. Its statement is found on the 'Update' official bulletin board listserver of the peak Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) organization in Australia called ADCA. ADCA's Update bulletin board provides AOD information and news to more than 1,000 AOD professionals in that country and has no comparable communication mechanism for this field in that country. Their guidelines are at http://www.adca.org.au/ndsis/uploaded_files/fck/Update%20Guidelines%202009.pdf . Subscribers to Update are required to post anything which is acceptable under the guidelines under their AOD organization's name, not under a private name only. The Drug Free Australia criticism, under the name and title of its Secretary, reads thus:
I have considered this a reliable and verifiable source (despite the Update archive being password protected the administrator can provide the post on request), adequate to the argument mounted by Drug Free Australia. It has been under discussion at Talk:Harm reduction#Harm reduction and Sweden from 6 June until now. But needing a second opinion. Minphie ( talk) 11:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
We're attempting to start gathering more reliable sources for Research Fellow. This article will describe what the job of a "research fellow" is, employment conditions, etc. Will job postings--that is, offers of employment posted by employers advertising for Research Fellows--count as Reliable Sources? My initial opinion is no, since at best each one refers only one, single, specific position, and that to use the material we'd have to engage in WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, I'd be afraid that, since each company/institution posted there own info, there's nothing reliable about that information. But as this is a new field for me, I wonder if there is any precedent either way. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly right. They can be reliable, but you can't extrapolate from them to generalizations about a job. That's OR. There are lots of things they could be reliable for, though. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Is the following statement in the article Mass killings under Communist regimes supported by the citation. The article says:
Following his removal from power, on 25 December 25, 1989, the communist leader Nicolae Ceausescu was tried by a military tribunal and convicted on charges of genocide, the murder of 60,000 people, and other crimes and sentenced to death. Ceausescu and his wife were executed by firing squad shortly after the sentence was handed down. In 1990 Ceausescu's brother was convicted of incitement to genocide, and four aides to the former dictator were convicted of complicity in genocide.... [1]
The source cited says:
Several Romanian leaders, including the son of Nicolae Ceausescu, were tried in 1990 for abetting genocide. The allegations concerned mass killings during the Decembetr 1989 popular uprising, as well as other victims of the Ceausescu regime. [2]
TFD ( talk) 02:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Currently, the Glass family article is entirely referenced to this one source Dead Caulfields, a website devoted to a detailed analysis of the life of J. D. Salinger and his works. The trouble is, I have no idea whether this should be considered a reliable source. The site is maintained by Kenneth Slawenski, the author of the biography, J. D. Salinger: A Life Raised High (which has received a number of positive reviews: [3], [4], [5], [6]), but little else seems to be known of the man. He is not an academic or an acknowledged scholar of Salinger. So, is this a reliable source? Does his well-received bio of Salinger confer notability upon his website? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion may interest editors with an interest in RS Anthony ( talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if papers and booklets published by Drug Free Australia, specifically "The Kings Cross Injecting Room - The Case for Closure" and "The Case for Closure: Detailed Evidence", can be considered reliable sources? Are they WP:SPS? Can they be used without attribution? Steinberger ( talk) 10:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This site has been used in a number of articles on SF authors as a source for books and awards. Most awards are either reported in journals and news articles and books have a number of high quality alternatives. The site was called into question on Talk:Charles Stross and on examination appears to be more oriented towards their forums rather than as an independent news site. The site FAQ states "Our awards listings are very accurate as that data is relatively easy to come by on-line. Many authors provide press kit information on their web sites like bios and pictures etc. that we'll use here. We won't use information that is outside the public domain without permission and getting permission is time consuming and laborious thus the many holes in our author data. The same issue exists for our novels. Synopses are public domain and most times freely available on-line but many publishers/authors do not wish to share excerpts so we don't always have those."
This site might be useful as an external link but should we recommend this is not a reliable source? Fæ ( talk) 14:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Khojaly Massacre talk about the reliability of two Azerbaijani sources: Today.az and the U.S. Azeris Network. The latter features a PDF image of document, most likely a scan, which is genuine in my opinion. User Divot in the talk thread thinks otherwise, without any evidence, on the ground of alleged Azeri propaganda. Can we use those refs to support the sentence in question? Brandmeister t] 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded the scan of the original document to wiki commons and wikisource. See here: [11] Also there's a confirmation of the authenticity of the document from Mrs. Ellen Story, the State Representative. Anyone can contact the House of Representatives of Massachusetts or its individual members to check for themselves. Plus, I added a link to report from Azertaj, which is the State Telegraph Agency of Azerbaijan Republic, an official governmental source. [12] I think this should suffice to eliminate any doubts of the authenticity of the document. Grand master 10:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Today.az is a major Azeri mainstream news organisation, little doubt that they are reliable similar to other major mainstream news organisation from other countries. If the claims are controversial we might attribute them, similar to what we do with controversial claims in other major mainstream news outlets such as the BBC or Le Monde or the New York Times. Pantherskin ( talk) 14:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
U.S. Azeris Network doesn't appear to be notable, however Azerbaijan State Telegraph Agency, Today.az and International Security Research and Intelligence Agency all appear to be reasonably reliable sources who are unlikely to mis-report an event like this. John Vandenberg ( chat) 05:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I will answer both of you once. There is a reason why in a court of law, evidences provided should be disclosed in full to both sides and the sources too. Confirmations like this are acceptable for an author who writes a book, because he takes responsability for what he writes. That's why secondary sources are what everyone search for. But here, everyone who questions the claim has to contact some official. That's sure not acceptable. We don't know what happened, for all we know there might have been three person in the house that day which would be worth clarifying, but since no info is available nothing can be writen about it. We also have a line or two provided by Grandmaster, I doubt that the reply limited to a line or two. He should be disclosing it in full. Ionidasz ( talk) 16:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Grandmaster, you are not being true again. It says: "The Massachusetts State House of Representatives adopted a document on February 25, acknowledging the Khojaly massacre." The House adopted a doc? And acknowledging the massacres? Here is the quote of the quote of the codument from the same news agency: "Be it hereby known to all that: Massachusetts House of Representatives offers its sincerest acknowledgement of the 18th commemoration of the Khojaly Massacre" Clearly there was no document by the House ADOPTED. Neither there was acknowledgment of massacres but of commemoration. Assuming good faith, I cannot see why you continue advocating these after obvious false claims and propaganda that can be noted even from their own written article. Aregakn ( talk) 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This suggest it's the house doing, which is not true. Ionidasz ( talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would really appreciate if any uninvolved editor could help to draft the best wording to describe the content of the discussed document. I don't really think that edits like this [21] accurately describe the document. Any help for dispute resolution will be appreciated. The authenticity of the document is not disputed anymore. Grand master 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the Iranian media and Al Jazeera reliable sources to represent the views of a country's government (beyond Iran) about the Nuclear program of Iran? Users Lihaas ( talk · contribs) and Evenfiel ( talk · contribs) think they are.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 13:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There's absolutely no basis for describing Al Jazeera as a 'questionable source' that I am aware of. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to hear what you think about Al-Manar the satellite television station of Hezbollah also used in that problematic edit.-- Nutriveg ( talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- What is the url of the source in question?
- In which article is the source being used?
- What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
- Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any?
I am in dispute with User:HCPUNXKID over his edits to this article, which lists diplomatic missions of a largely unrecognised country, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR)
User:HCPUNXKID wishes to mention that the SADR has "general delegations" to Australia, the United States and a number of European countries.
For partially recognised country or entity (where it is recognised by at least one generally recognised country) we have allowed their representative offices to be included as long as they perform a quasi-diplomatic function. This has allowed us to include for example Palestinian representative offices abroad, or de facto missions in Taipei.
HCPUNXKID is claiming article demonstrates the SADR has general delegations in several countries. I do not find this source to be convincing because:
HCPUNXKID is claiming article demonstrates the SADR has a general delegation in Australia. Australia is not even mentioned in the article.
Anybody can claim to be a "representative". It is a tall order to then say they are the "general delegation" of a self-declared country to another.
HCPUNXKID has offered to withdraw these changes if I agree to the withdraw of unreferenced diplomatic missions in all the other (200+) articles. In most cases the other articles are referenced, either through references or through links to a credible source (usually the sending country's ministry for foreign affairs). In my view the absence of a reference in one article does not justify a wholesale policy change.
The matter has been edit-warred and extensively debated:
Could you please review the discussions (and by all means, seek HCPUNXKID's side of the story), and advise if you consider his/her sources are reliable or not.
Kransky ( talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
However I don't think it is appropriate to make up facts just because you think another unrecognised state inconsistently names its missions (when there is ample evidence those general delegations do not exist). Kransky ( talk) 14:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has been going on here on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether publicly posted signs can be cited as sources. I think this is an important issue and would like to open it up to a larger pool of editors for consensus. The issue was discussed by a few editors that had consensus, and then it was archived, but the issue was raised again as an article that cites a sign is now at FAC, so I have resurrected the archived discussion and added a few comments. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."
I'd also like to add that since WP:SELFPUBOK clearly states guidelines for when self-published material can be cited in Wikipedia, the question is not about the reliability of a sign, as an entity conveying information about itself is considered reliable unless it is self-serving. The question is a matter of precedent: are signs sources or not?
Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, now that I think about it from another perspective, if an organization can spend little to no money or time to launch a website, and the information contained in that website is admissible to Wikipedia under the self published sources rule, then why would we exclude information from that same source when they've spent a lot of money to post a permanent signboard in a location viewable by the public? Quite literally, if they copied the information off the sign and slapped it onto their site, then it becomes allowable. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to direct everyone's attention to the current guidelines for acceptable use of self-published sources:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
So the question is: If a sign exists, and the material meets the criteria set forth above, is there any reason why it should not be cited in Wikipedia? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Museum placards have a procedure for citation in MLA 6th ed. (§5.8.2). If an academic procedure exists to cite signage, I think that helps put this question into perspective: it certainly isn't a new practice to scholarly writers. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
User is insistent that the following sources are reliable sources for band genres:
1.) Spirit of metal, a webzine [28] Note: has been brought up before: [29]
2.) Amazon.com [30] Note: the specific passage in question says it "was provided by the artist or their representative".
Input please 87.194.171.224 ( talk) 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies so far. Anyone else have anything to say on them, or should I go ahead and remove the spirit of metal ref (seeing that HelloAnnyong has already replaced the amazon one with one more reliable). 86.129.194.243 ( talk) 16:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Please look in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_L._Vaultonburg.
The author - auto-biographical - thinks that the references show notability; "I am confident if people who have this expertise see it they will be able to tell you these publication credits are pretty substantial."
Thanks, Chzz ► 04:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The question is about ErnestoJustiniano.org in the article Evo Morales. It is used several times in this edit.
My Spanish is not really good enough for me to judge the reliability of this source, but it didn't appear to me to be an established news organization with a defined editorial process. I could not find sources that testified to its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, but, the language barrier prevents me from making a definitive judgment. What say you? Dlabtot ( talk) 06:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Discussion on Encubed was brought up at Visual novels task force and is a borderline case. It has been listed by Anime News Network (which is a news lexicon site) twice in their news section for non-press related info and have had interviews with staff at some visual novel companies at E3 and Anime Expo, both of which are invite-only conventions. This suggests that they also have industry contacts which suggests they aren't some random website or blog. List of interviews:
Bottom line is would they be a RS for information on User:Jinnai/Edelweiss, a visual novel? 陣 内 Jinnai 04:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
It would be great to have more sources on Russian ships, but I don't read Russian and don't know if this qualifies (although they give handy flag icons that will invoke a Google translation). Discussion is at User talk:Omeganian. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
SaiyanIsland, it seems more like a fan site to me with users making opinionated guesses on upcoming information. An example of a page a user used to site information [31]. DragonZero ( talk · contribs) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
In an article on the iPad, the use of The Morning Star as a source is being challenged on the basis that it is affiliated to the Communist Party and thus unreliable. The use is confirmatory of text derived from fully reliable sources such as the Financial Times, commenting on events in a factory in a country governed by the Communist Party; material sourced to Chinese national newspapers controlled by the Communist Party does not seem to be a problem, so I am unclear why this is a problem in using a similar source in the UK, and why political affiliation is a reason for discounting a source. Discussion is here: Talk:IPad#section break for Morning_Star. Mish ( talk) 13:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
leaksallday.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.leaksallday.com
Although I am already inclined to blacklist this without this discussion, since there has been some significant refspamming of leaksallday.com; see:
It is still used here and there as a source for more extended statements (though it is generally used to attribute the sentence 'the album leaked onto the internet on DD/MM/YYYY.(ref)'). I have a strong feeling this is not exactly a reliable source, but I'd like some second thoughts on it. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello All. I am the editor of leaksallday.com. I noticed that there have been some questions as to the reliability of the information posted. I would like to ensure you that I do all of the research myself through a variety of forum threads and private bit torrent trackers. I actually listen to each album that is "leaked" before posting news. I am not sure what else could be done to make a site like this more valid as a source. Is there anything that comes to mind? Also, I respect your right to edit wikipedia content as you see fit. I noticed the reference was added again to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(album): 19:35, 3 June 2010 Ldud (talk | contribs) (1,566 bytes) (Undid revision 365170430 by Beetstra (talk) Important piece of information had been removed.) (undo)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.243.180 ( talk • contribs)
What would make it a reliable source? -- User:silencexx 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I am an expert on leaked albums, but that term seems unverifiable. Don't you agree? -- User:silencexx 15:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This web site IMRA (and this link in particular) is being used on the Gaza flotilla clash article. I can't see how the site in general meets WP:RS -- it seems to me like a web site run by one guy ("Dr Aaron Lerner") to write basically whatever he wants. He re-posts articles from other sources, hence the notion that it is a "digest". But in general I think this one is no better than a blog, particular in relation to instances like the link above. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to describing details of events that happened on FB is allfacebook.com considered reliable? Alatari ( talk) 01:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
So I can spy on the page and use it to track down his sources but not use his application growth stats. Alatari ( talk) 01:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
During peer review of MacBook Air, the reviewers have found referencing from AppleInsider and MacRumors (rumor sites) strewn across the artical. Would these sources be reliable in any way, like if they were reporting on tech specs or an Apple announcement? -- mono 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Link in question: [33]
Article used in: Tree shaping
Text supported:
Other names for tree shaping include:
Talk Page Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Tree_shaping&action=edit§ion=19
Consensus was to move our Alternate names section out of the mainspace into the Talkpage as on the main page it may have been being used to establish and push a non-neutral POV, surrounding the renaming or not of the page; whether or not certain names or any or all names are aka's for the page name (which has undergone contentious change and remains unresolved with an open discussion as to whether the page name should be returned to its original name or some other neutral name, as Tree shaping has turned out to not be so neutral after all); and thus whether and which of the names should even be included as other names, and also whether the other names should appear in the lead or be buried at the end of the article. That tedious discussion continues as part of an even more tedious systematic process of re-evaluating all of the citations (about 100) (including those left stationary for the time being on the main page) for drivel and unreliable sources, of which there have been found many unreliable sources so far. We need to know regarding this source, whether that list of names on the top left of the customized google map, presumably edited by the map's creator, is a reliable source for establishing secondary/tertiary uses of these other names, which all are purported to be aka's, not brand names, for Tree shaping. An involved editor insists that it is, and has turned out to be one of the members on the googlemaps page as a contributor.(listed thrice, by products). It's pretty sticky and we are trying to diplomatically overcome a suspected WP:Promotion situation as fairly and even-handedly as possible by first establishing which of the other names is legit, as supported (or not properly supported) by the multiple citations attached to them. Thanks for your help on this one. Duff ( talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the consult. Duff ( talk) 18:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu is using a source I find questionable. The source [34] is a reprint of a letter that was supposedly published in a magazine. The reprint is posted on a discussion forum (a site whose wikipedia article was recently deleted) by a member. I tagged the sources with a dubious tag and it has been removed by User:Wgungfu, who says that the letters can't be found anymore, but he's seen them himself. I replaced the tag and it was removed again, without any discussion....so here I am. I felt that just tagging it as dubious and leaving it in place was the least disruptive way to go, but since we are at this point, the question now is should the link stand as a RS, or be removed altogether? Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There's some gross misscharacterizations of my stance here, which I do not appreciate. First and foremost I want to state that I was in no way claiming a discussion forum to be a reliable source. Rather, I was stating that the letter being reprinted was from Inside Kung Fu (itself a notable and reliable source) and was a formal statement sent by the Ving Tsun Athletic Organization" to that and other magazines regarding the controversy in question at the time. The VTAA is a major governing body in Wing Chun/Ving Tsun/Wing Tsun, founded by Yip Man's students to govern his branch of the art (which William is a part of as a student of Yip Man's). At the time it was headed by his fellow peers, including Yip Man's two sons. Likewise, I did not state the letters can't be found anymore - I actually have an archive of back issues in storage I can get out and look up the exact issue numbers. I simply stated the letters/statements can't be found anywhere else online, i.e. "can't be "directly linked to". William Cheung is a controversial figure in this martial art, as is his brand of the art (the article topic) hence the section. Likewise, the very existence and marketing of his "traditional wing chun" is based on the controversial concept that only he teaches the "traditional" version (hence the name) and that everyone else teaches a "modified" version. That only he was taught a "special" version and everyone else something less. It's not Wikipedia's place to promote judgement (nor is it my intention to state some sort of judgement). But it is Wikipedia's place to denote this as being controversial, and to provide a referenced counterpoint to maintain neutrality. Addressing a point and counterpoint will not violate BLP if worded in a neutral manner. Other controversial topics, including valid criticism, are routinely discussed on Wikipedia. -- Marty Goldberg ( talk) 01:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec):::::::*And now you're going to lecture me, at length, about the BLP policy? And yes, I do find the whole coincidence interesting. Verifying the source info when it becomes available will probably be interesting too. Again, you've spent all this time and space talking about this when the tag, which was proper from the beginning, could have simply been left in place until you did your digging. But you want to act like I did you wrong somehow. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec)*When you start talking about how point-counterpoint is allowed.....yeah, you're acting like I never heard that. And your request to move on.....was edited in while I was posting my reply, hence the edit conflict that I noted. Yeah, let's move on, we should have never had to be hear in the first place. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I am writing a wiki page off line. Because I do not want it getting deleted again until I am done. Alot of the Ref's are to an online paper that has won many journalist awards...infact they just beat out CNN in a catagory last month . I just don't want it to be questioned as a non reliable source. http://www.newhavenindependent.org/ I did notice that the City of New haven used a few of their articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Haven,_Connecticut and Yale Hospital did as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_%E2%80%93_New_Haven_Hospital as well as others as seen in this search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_%E2%80%93_New_Haven_Hospital
NHI has been recording this groups history. So it will be a large part of my Ref's....
I just want to make sure I dot all my I am check and make sure this is not going to be an issue -- Happypixie ( talk) 03:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A user has continually been inserting biased material which is either not supported by the given citations, or is cited with websites. This is attested to in the diff above (it represents the re-insertion of often-deleted material). I would greatly appreciate some guidance from fellow editors as to whether this material is flagrantly in breach of WP:NOR and WP:RS, or whether I am in fact totally insane for being sure that this is so. I stand ready to call a psychiatrist or revert the article depending on your answer. BillMasen ( talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The source isn't used so much to validate specific statements, but to support the article's existence. I'm not familiar with Russia Today, so I don't think I have a good grounding on whether it is a reliable source or not. I know when I did a google search yesterday on this person (I believe with an alternate spelling, the article creator has been doing multiple versions) I only found links to Wikipedia and to Russia Today. Anyone who can give advice? Syrthiss ( talk) 11:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any guidance on the use of such websites as cites in the English language Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiuserNI ( talk • contribs) 20:49, June 4, 2010
There is a lengthy history section in New Madrid County, Missouri, which appears to be lifted, from this site.
See, for example:
padding |
This letter produced upon Gov. Miro the effect desired by Wilkinson. On May 20, 1789, Miro wrote the Spainish concerning the policy of the conditions of the concession to Morgan and the extent of it. He denominated it an Imperium in Imperio and protested against it. He also wrote to Morgan, stating how he had been deceived in regard to the conditions and extent of the concession, and declared that it was entirely inadmissible |
and
padding |
This letter produced upon Gov. Miro the effect desired by Wilkinson. On the 20th of May 1789, Miro wrote the Spain concerning the impolicy of the conditions of the concession to Morgan, and the extent of it. He denominated it an Imperium in Imperio and protested against it. He also wrote to Morgan, stating how he had been deceived in regard to the conditions and extent of the concession, and declared that it was entirely inadmissable. |
(Interestingly, not a straight copy-and-paste, as one spelling error was corrected, but another introduced in an attempt to correct a wrong word choice.)
There are attribution questions, copyright questions and reliable source questions. Attribution is easy if the other two can be resolved.
I'm bringing the reliable source question here, because I doubt it will be considered a reliable source. The project sounds like an admirable one, but I have no familiarity with it, and my brief review doesn't identify the attention to sourcing we would require. If it turns out to be reliable, I'll turn to the copyright question, but I'd like to determine whether it passes this hurdle first.-- SPhilbrick T 11:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A series of recent edits made to Kashmir and related articles sought to use these websites as sources for the claims made therein. I visited the websites, and they seemed to project a suspiciously POV version of the history of events they seek to document. I'm not very well-versed with either the scholarship on this topic or the reliability of the sources that make these claims, but I've never seen them being made in any of the reliable sources that I've been through, nor do these sites appear to be scholastic prima facie, so I seek help and consensus in determining whether these sites can be used as reliable sources. The pages in question are available here and here). Regards, SBC-YPR ( talk) 05:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
User:79.72.128.246 is repeatedly reinserting content into
Isang Lakas about claims that certain actors and certain characters will be part of the show.
The edit summaries claim that the articles show that actors are portraying certain characters in an upcoming television series "Isang Lakas" or originally "Sanglakas".
There is clear evidence that the following will be part of the program
But the IP is insisting on inserting additional content.
I have searched each of these articles several times and found no mention of the series, let alone support that the actor will be appearing or what role the actor will be playing or a detailed description of the character. The IP has been asked to provide information about where these sources confirm the claims and the only response has been the edit summary "It says so in every article, most of these articles have it in different language and on second pages" which would put it in the forum posts, not reliable sources. I have attempted to communicate on the article talk page
[37] and the IP talk page
[38], but no additional response as to why the IP thinks these sources can be used to confirm any of the additional actors being cast for this program in the articles.
Can someone help?
Active Banana (
talk) 14:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Withdrawn from here, conveted to RfC on talk page
Talk:Isang_Lakas#Request_for_Comment_-_Do_the_sources_reliably_verify_the_claims_made_regarding_casting_and_characters.3F
Active Banana (
talk) 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this particular site would be considered reliable to source a supposed internet rumor regarding the "Monroe gets raped" episode of the series Too Close for Comfort. IMO, the site looks to be a joke fansite of some kind that doesn't support the content I initially removed to begin with (it has since been restored because the link contains "primary content" hence this thread). I can't get the movie to play for some reason so perhaps that is the part that supports the content? Either way, I'd like some additional opinions as I believe the source and the content is shaky at best. Pinkadelica ♣ 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
DISCLOSURE for the purpose of context] I have been making a few minor edits here and there, but never engaged extensively in Wikipedia mainly because I do not have the time, not for lack of appreciation. Recently I thought that content from the site http://thepatientacapacitor.com/ would be useful and carry value to Wikipedia so I edited a few entries and inserted reference links. For the record these were;
"Perspective (graphical)"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/
"Perspective (visual)"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/
"Inertia Coupling"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2010/01/the-physics-of-moving-about/
"Alexander Abian"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/
"Gravitational Binding Energy"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/
"Fermi Paradox"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/why-would-extraterrestrial-aliens-contact-us/
"Carl Sagan"
http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/10/carl-sagans-indigo-children/
The author of these posts identifies himself in the /author/ page as a physicist by training with PL Monteiro as his real name, the whois for the owner of the domain says Paulo L Monteiro owns the site, and a search in Linkedin will turn up http://www.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro . A technicality important for the everything are rules and regulations people, is if the site is a blog or a start-up online publication. From the information in Linkedin, I would say the owner considers the latter should apply. In any case this distinction may be artificial given the arguments I am going to produce.
As to the links and referenced articles, I would say that at least in the "Alexander Abian" and "Inertia Coupling," the links I have added are of great relevance. In "Alexander Abian" the post linked examines in detail the facts of figures of the matter; in "Inertia Coupling" the post linked to allows a huge leap in understanding of what Inertia Coupling really is. In these two as in all the others it seems to me, my editing and insertion of links, should be read by the usefulness and value to the readers of Wikipedia. That's the consideration I made when making the edits, but I do admit this may be just my own personal opinion, and other editors may dispute it.
To finish with context:] There was a legitimacy challenge in the "Fermi Paradox" that the editor making it dropped after a brief exchange. The statement there rounds off the whole discussion in the entry, which I think is appropriate to the head summary, and links to a post that is an allegory, conveying in this way points hard to make in other ways. More recently the legitimacy of the source was challenged in the "Carl Sagan" page, but in this case even the refutation of false claims that would undermine the credibility of the source, refutations whose acceptance would allow reaching an editorial agreement, were not ackowledged, the editor challenging the source sticking categorically to his interpretation of Wikipedia directives and rules, in the process raising ethical concerns I cannot simply pretend I didn't notice. If you are examining this issue, you may want to review the discussion there Talk:Carl_Sagan#Carl_Sagan.E2.80.99s_Indigo_Children. The issue boiled down to what a Reliable Source is and if the thepatientcapacitor.com is one.
THE ETHICAL ISSUES:] In the Sagan talk page I laid three different common sense challenges that could be made to the statement and link I inserted. These were 1) Is the statement appropriate and does it enrich Wikipedia? 2) Does the source validate the statement in ways that enrich Wikipedia? 3) Is the source reliable? The people debating me decided not to take the first two, instead focusing on the last, the only one that raises ethical concerns. In these I stated: "The fact is that it is ethically improper from me and from Wikipedia to declare that the (you call it blog) site is not a reliable source here, but then find that the links and statements [elsewhere] are significant enriching contributions to the users of Wikipedia, and the sourced site is reliable there." And additionally: "It would be highly objectionable from Wikipedia to keep those links unchallenged for the time being, and when someone gets [...] to rewriting [around] the original material in the specific blog posts, the links will be trashed out." So it becomes this: if the patientacapacitor.com becomes an unreliable source to Wikipedia, none of its original content, data, results, mathematical proofs, ideas can ever be used by Wikipedia in any way. This includes a rewrite of the content. Even if there are no laws against rewrite of, say, a mathematical proof, doing this would be to refuse to source the creator of the original content, while at the same time accepting it from someone else who in fact stole the ideas. These are the matters of principle.
Assumptions:] At this point I would like to clarify that this analysis in not about thepatientcapacitor, or not only about the patientcapacitor. I will assume in what follows that that particular site satisfies criteria I will be writing about, but to consider that fact, will continue to rest on Wikipedia editors agreeing with such criteria, and ascertaining thepatientcapacitor satisfies them. Additionally and from the outset, I would like to make a distinction about what common sense and pragmatic rules of thumb say is a Reliable Source as Commonly Understood and what Wikipedia editors interpret as a Reliable Source By The Rules. Notice that in the latter, the essence of the matter is not what Wikipedia directives say, but instead what editors think they mean.
Reliable Source as Commonly Understood] So what would be a Reliable Source to me, the rules of thumb, the criteria I think a source should have for me to consider it worthy of reference and belief? In general reliable sources have these characteristics 1) They are well written and care with detail was taken; 2) They are well researched, 3) The author articulates ideas that are intelligible and cogent; 4) There are no obvious flaws in reasoning or fact; 5) There is no intention to deceive or mislead; 6) Most, if not all, assumptions can be verified (either by our knowledge of the subject or independently in a different reference); 7) Generally information for verification purposes is supplied. To this, as a group of characteristics, I have to add a few words of alert to preconceived ideas we may have, to cloud our judgment in assessing a source: 1) You may not like the style. The writer is informal when you would prefer formal, or writes formal and you prefer informal. This depends on who the writer thinks s/he is addressing with the writing and something to be published in the Physical Review Letters for sure is inappropriate if trying to entice scientific curiosity in young people. 2) You may not like the content having a lot of colorful pictures. You would prefer dry graphs. Again who is the author writing to? 3) You just took a quick look and jumped to unpleasant conclusions. Is that fair if you really did not examine at all the source? 4) You may never have heard of the author. Well, authorities and experts sometimes go wrong, the author may actually be the best world expert in the very narrow field s/he is writing about but it just happens s/he never appeared in the cover of People Magazine, and talent, knowledge and understanding are not the exclusive domain of Ivy League, CalTech or MIT professionals. But the really important argument here begins by noticing that a mathematical proof, articulating ideas to a conclusion, may be incidentally made with different details by different people, but the fact of it does not depend on who made it. Would a proof of a geometrical theorem be valid if done by Michio Kaku, but invalid, being done the exact same way, by Joe The Carpenter? Of course there are different expectations in this: if receiving the proof from Kaku, you would think he thought about it, and he is qualified to make it. But that does not change the fact that getting that same proof from Joe, you can check and see if the proof does do what it is supposed to prove. The end result of shutting yourself out to any Reliable Source as Commonly Understood is that you'll only know, think and believe what comes from some authority, and I dare predict that in those circumstances in all likelihood you'll find yourself belonging to the group of people that know nothing, think nothing and do not understand anything of what they believe in.
Of course there's a line to be drawn in this and the argument of authority sometimes is the only one we can have. Michio Kaku worked extensively in String Theory, of which I do not know anything in any depth, so if Kaku says something about it, I'll believe him. I would not say the same about Joe. The crux of the matter here is that I do not really know or understand String Theory in any technical depth. However Michio Kaku can examine Joe The Carpenter statements about String Theory, and see if there's anything to them.
[CONTINUES BELOW] Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 05:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Article: Carl Sagan
Statement: "He remains a respected figure for many people in the generation growing up in the late 1970s and early 1980s"
Talk page discussion: Talk:Carl_Sagan#Carl_Sagan.E2.80.99s_Indigo_Children
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]
At this point I wrote down a group of specific criteria to ascertain if a source is reliable, under an empiric pragmatic assessment anyone should be able to make. I did point out however that the editor making the check should be equipped with a minimum of the background knowledge and understanding required to read through the source, or trash it out for evident ignorance from the author.
A FLAW WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT] (topics: public education; perspective, interpretation and insight) I may not be completing this, for the time it would require, no proper place to do it, and the affront to common sense DVdm seems to want to make this issue to go through. See below. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I respectfully request that WP:RS be overruled in the specific list of links above, to thepatientcapacitor.com, under the WP:IAR policy. The reasons to do so, are explained above. Do these links improve Wikipedia? That has always been my point. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. —George Pólya, quoted from WP:WIARM. Deep Atlantic Blue ( talk) 06:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Original section title was: The Cutting Edge: Victorian Woodworkers Association Newsletter as evidence of common usage of arborsculpture to name the craft, supporting usage as a generic term and possibly supporting a page move back to its original name.
1. [49] p.6 Arbor Sculpture: If you like I'll Grow You a Mirror 2. Tree shaping
Richard Reames is an American arborsculptor[39] based in Williams, Oregon, where he manages a nursery, botanical garden, and design studio collectively named Arborsmith Studios.[39]
(In 1995, he wrote and published his first book, How to Grow a Chair: The Art of Tree Trunk Topiary.) In it he coined the word arborsculpture[4] and since then this word has been used around the world to refer to the craft in general,[39] to the works of various live woody plant artisans, and to the artisans themselves as arborsculptors, including Christopher Cattle,[39]...
Dr. Christopher Cattle is a retired furniture design professor from England.[39]
According to Cattle, he developed an idea to train and graft trees to grow into shapes, which came to him in the late 1970s, in response to questions from students asking how to build furniture using less energy.[52][53][39]
Current editors at Tree Shaping are sorting through a raft of alternate names, and questionable sources for both the synonymity and neutrality of those names, all of which were presented and used to establish the neutrality of the current title Tree shaping and to sink all other names, including the original page title, out of the lead (except if used as trade names, oddly) and into a final section of the article. Tree shaping and shaped trees as neutral terms have turned out to be not so neutral after all, as they are strongly associated with a pair of the article's covered artists, who are well documented as soon-to-publish their own book entitled Pooktre knowledge to grow shaped trees, and who also continue to edit forcefully on the page.
This source is one of many that use arborsculpture/arborsculptor as generic terms for the craft and the craftspersons who practice it.
The bullet points are the five instances in the article, of citation to the named source, and for which the analysis is requested. A more pointed link to the pertinent discussion on the talk page is: Talk:Tree Shaping#Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter Duff ( talk) 00:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
It is no doubt that HipHopDX has information that is reliable and is credible. But recently, they have started a new weekly post called "Wednesday Rap Release Dates". Now, many users are using this to justify information and one page is purely sourced by HipHopDX (this page is of course 2010 in hip hop music#References), 99% of those release dates are sourced with the same multiple links of HipHopDX. The list of release dates on HipHopDX does not cite any of their knowledge of the release date. They could say Detox will be out next week and it could be sourced on Wikipedia.
I am just wondering if information should be purely based on this weekly post, release dates should be backed up by more reliable sources (such as artist pages, record labels, Billboard, XXL, MTV, etc.) like it used to be. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 06:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well they are all dates released by the record companies. Fyi that post "Wedsday Rap Release Dates" has been up and going since 2009 so don't state it as "new." As you said "HipHopDX is reliable and is credible" they have been right about dozenes of Rap Release dates and were also the first to report them. They would not be dumb enough to say "Detox" would come out next week. If there date is wrong then it's not their falut its the record companies false info. STAT -Verse 00:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've checked the archives and can't seem to find anything discussing allmovie.com in the context of biogrpahical info. I know NYTimes mirrors their info in some cases (movie credits). I know they have paid writers and an editorial staff, but I don't know that they work on biographical data. Specifically, we're looking for a solid source for a birthdate for the late Michelle Thomas. The obits we've found disagree on her age when she died, so her birthdate might not be solidly established anywhere. In any case, Allmovie gives a birthdate. Is this a reliable source? - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
(Exdent) FYI... this will most likely soon be a moot point as there is now a question about Michelle's DOB on Phynjuar Thomas' Facebook tribute page. [50] FWIW, her mother added this picture to the Facebook page [51] in which the years are 1968-1998. Erikeltic ( Talk) 17:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
A little bit off topic, but claims that the mother's personal site is an "ultimate authority" are not valid. There are many many reasons why a person may "fudge" the birthdate of their child. Self published sites can be used as sources for non-controversial material about the subject, but if they are in conflict about data covered in reliable sources, than the content from the self published site must be taken with a grian (or more) of salt. Active Banana ( talk) 20:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay I know blogs are not realy a RS. But he is the problem The source we have show fax for new icarly episodes adds them but then a few weeks later or so takes the new episodes down. I was just wondering could we use http://iicarlyy.blogspot.com/. I know it is a blog site but here is the thing. the person who runs the site and the victoious site gets the episodes off show fax and puts them on there. the new episodes would be under the section upcoming episodes on the bottom of the page. Now if this is fine, How would I use this without it getting takien down when I put the new episodes up. Also What is the difference between http://danwarp.blogspot.com/ wich is used for the main icarly pages and dan's other shows. danwarp is the creator of the show. With episodes up on show fax Dan also shows fans pics during the filming of that episode. The ones that are already confirmed. are iHave a hot Room and iDo. They will be deleted form show fax any time soon. I also don't realy know how to use the other type of back tracking. I say it is kind of Reliable since the person that gets the episodes and up them on the site gets them off show fax. I would like to start creating the season 4 section for the show. Checker Fred ( talk) 20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This is also on the Michelle Thomas article (see above). Are otherwise reliable sources archived at High Beam Research reliable? Specifically, an editor is questioning a Bay State Banner article and one from [ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-22424893.html the LA Sentinel. My impression was that they were legit electronic archives of a whole raft of media outlets, and I've seen them used before. However, I cannot seem to find out much about the site itself. Opinions? - SummerPhD ( talk) 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
After the HighBeam issue (above), we have the question of www.dsrct.com, a site about desmoplastic small round cell tumor. I don't know much about who runs the site, other than the notice at the bottom of many of the pages: "I am not a medical or health professional. Information in this site has been gathered from numerous sources and is for research purposes only. I do not guarantee the accuracy of any information in this site." Another editor at Michelle Thomas wishes to use two articles copied at the site]. One says it is from "CBS Website, Dec. 1998", the other "AP wired reports, Spring 1999". Are these reliable archives of articles from (presumably) cbsnews.com and the AP wire? - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Is anyone willing to give an outside opinion on the use of material published by "Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research" ( website), please? Specifically:
Thanks for any help you can give. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Need third party opinions on highly divisive Balkans related history. Particularly in reference to sourcing. Savonneux ( talk) 00:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Main article Massacre of Kodra, talk page: Talk:Massacre_of_Kodra, deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Massacre_of_Hormova. The article and talk page have been deleted but I still want feedback on sources. -- Savonneux ( talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
It is the contention of Users Athenean ( talk · contribs), Alexikoua ( talk · contribs), and that the sources listed below fail WP:V and WP:RS. Users also maintain that the authors are essentially pro Albanian (it's on the talk page, I'm terrible at diffs).
Newspapers in English:
US Congressional Record:
United States Senate, 66th Congress, First Session (1919). "Albania: Statement by C.A. Dako". Congressional Serial Set, Treaty of Peace with Germany, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations.
http://books.google.com/books?id=z0FUAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1005#v=onepage&q&f=false: G.P.O. pp. 1006–1010. {{
cite book}}
: External link in
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
|location=
Books:
Source material in Dutch:
I asked generally if anyone involved would like to bring it to this notice board was ignored (dif deleted). So I made this. I never edited the article (dif deleted you'll have to take this on good faith now) it only came to my attention because it was nommed for deletion and most of my contributions are on AFD. -- Savonneux ( talk) 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (Updated -- Savonneux ( talk) 00:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC))
Have a journal article now that someone was kind enough to download for me, it covers the political situation more than anything else but confirms the names of the Dutch officers involved and that there was Greek activity: "However, the nascent Albanian gendarmerie and small army proved too weak to defend Albania against Greek insurgents in the south..."
With a reference to
Which is completely unavailable to me. -- Savonneux ( talk) 03:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Alexikoua it seems like you said that you would need further secondary sources. The even is from 1914. However now it seems that we have further three (3) reliable secondary sources, and the event has not been notable for a determinate period of time, but for a larger frame. In fact we have the following secondary sources:
(The first two are declared partisan by the Greek side, but I'm sure that are many more in the History of Albania, however I am far from a library). When Fabius is brought here, I really think we should go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion. -- Sulmues Let's talk 13:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
[63].-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Explanation and the material at siger.org is very interesting. British MP claimed that he had photos of the massacre and he presented them to the House (apparently these are part of his photos). Also the source says that people were taken from Hormova village and were massacred at Kodra (that explains different references, Hormova massacre since they were from Hormova or Kodra massacre since they were massacred in Kodra). More interesting is that even in the article it is written that "Forty men were said to have been locked in a church and shot by men firing through the roof and the windows" so this was the first rumor, but then the investigation commission found "Approximately 200 partially mutilated corpses " clearly a massacre and also "In the church, investigators found traces of blood and bullet holes; spent small-arms cartridges were found on the roof" clearly confirming what was said about the church. Aigest ( talk) 12:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ermenji, Abas (1968). Vendi që zë Skënderbeu në Historinë e Shqipërisë (Albanian Edition). Di Lauro. Can also be read online here It's a book of Abas Ermenji, that now can be found online, published in Rome Italy in 1968. Mentions the burning of 314 Muslim villages and in particular the massacre of Hormova where Muslim Albanians were killed inside of a church from the Zographos paramilitary bands. -- Sulmues Let's talk 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been photographing,tasting and documenting Malaysian flora, especially uncommon fruit species for the past 5 years. Now, I have decided to put up an advertisement free Google site to bring people of the same research field together. I'm also organizing two Google groups one in Malay and another one in English to help the exchange of info. All the photos are watermarked "Sample" it doesn't mean that I'm selling them it simple means "Copyrighted". Is this site considered a reliable source? If not, what do I have to do to make it one?
Thanks,
Frank Frugivore ( talk) 07:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry I've forgotten to give the address of the site
http://sites.google.com/site/malaysianedibleflora
Thanks,
Frugivore ( talk) 07:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I am seeking advice on the use of a source which says fairly much the same as the text I have entered into the Harm reduction#Heroin maintenance programs page. I have entered a criticism of heroin maintenance (now removed) to add some balance to the subject. It reads:
My main cited source is a statement by a drug prevention organization called Drug Free Australia, which is resisting a push for heroin maintenance in Australia. Its statement is found on the 'Update' official bulletin board listserver of the peak Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) organization in Australia called ADCA. ADCA's Update bulletin board provides AOD information and news to more than 1,000 AOD professionals in that country and has no comparable communication mechanism for this field in that country. Their guidelines are at http://www.adca.org.au/ndsis/uploaded_files/fck/Update%20Guidelines%202009.pdf . Subscribers to Update are required to post anything which is acceptable under the guidelines under their AOD organization's name, not under a private name only. The Drug Free Australia criticism, under the name and title of its Secretary, reads thus:
I have considered this a reliable and verifiable source (despite the Update archive being password protected the administrator can provide the post on request), adequate to the argument mounted by Drug Free Australia. It has been under discussion at Talk:Harm reduction#Harm reduction and Sweden from 6 June until now. But needing a second opinion. Minphie ( talk) 11:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
We're attempting to start gathering more reliable sources for Research Fellow. This article will describe what the job of a "research fellow" is, employment conditions, etc. Will job postings--that is, offers of employment posted by employers advertising for Research Fellows--count as Reliable Sources? My initial opinion is no, since at best each one refers only one, single, specific position, and that to use the material we'd have to engage in WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, I'd be afraid that, since each company/institution posted there own info, there's nothing reliable about that information. But as this is a new field for me, I wonder if there is any precedent either way. Qwyrxian ( talk) 06:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not exactly right. They can be reliable, but you can't extrapolate from them to generalizations about a job. That's OR. There are lots of things they could be reliable for, though. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)