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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Currently has claims that a team Rossi once was a part owner of got an "earmark gift" from the state of Washington, sourced to publicola.net. The person adding this states that a blog run by awardwinning journalists is intrinsically RS. Problem is first he said the site was "award winning" which did not pan out, and none of the journalists have recieved any awards at all for this blog. It has neither editorial controls nor fact-checking, and is not associated with any newspaper, broadcast media, or magazine, making me rather doubt that it is RS under WP policies at all, but qualifies as "self-published" at this point. [1] is the edit in question which includes claims that a single state senator "approves" a budget, that he has a "documented history of supporting earmarks" (interesting since the term is not applicable to the state of Washington budgets) and that an "earmark gift" was given to a baseball team (turns out it was money for a municipal stadium, and not a "gift" in any sense). I suggested that BLPs have a stringent definition of "reliable source" but am otherwise at a stalemate regarding a persistent editor. If the journalist is actually really notable, it is possible that his opinions, clearly marked as such, be in an article, but BLP issues regarding imputation of dishonesty seems a bit far to pull that horse. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are what matter here, and everyone must abide by them. — e. ripley\ talk 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So what do others say? RS obviously?
Merrill Stubing (
talk)
A column posted by somebody called "Morning Fizz" posted on a website that has no sign of any kind of editorial oversight and control is a thoroughly unsuitable source for allegations of financial impropriety in an article about a living person. According the founder himself, it is "a scrappy operation". [4]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and this simply does not cut it as the kind of high quality source we require per BLP. See WP:BLPSPS. -- Slp1 ( talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Creation/Evolution Journal is a publication of the National Center for Science Education, an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Frequently Asked Questions about NCSE For Transcendental Meditation we are using an article published by that journal in 1982 which was written by Robert M. Price. " Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence". At the time, the journal's editor was Fred Edwords. Is there any reason to doubt that this is a reliable source, or to treat it as "highly biased"? Will Beback talk 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
While tweaking the Holly Graf article, I noticed quite a few references to a site called MilitaryCorruption.com. Having a look at this site, it's a steaming pile of libel--for instance, it alleges a lesbian cabal called "the Sisterhood" is pulling strings in the Navy. If this is a reliable source, I'll have strychnine. Blueboy 96 02:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Is http://www.celebritymemorials.com a reliable source? It's being used as a source at Lizzie van Zyl. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is, because it is said (on their layout) "The most unique listing on the web, where you can decide whether their lives were lived for BETTER or WORSE". Probably mean that you can expand this information for the good of humanity.-- Nvlado ( talk) 23:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Does believing in Christ have any effect on say, a theological professor's reliability when used to say that the existence of Jesus is accepted generally by acedemics? Does being a Christian ever effect one's reliability on the historicity of Jesus? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To both questions, no. On the first,an academic is free to comment on the consensus status of scholarship, as well as what theories have no support within the relevant field. Furthermore, those scholars commenting on the field are backed up by non-religious scholars within the field. To the second, no. Why would it? They are academics within the field because they are trained in the tools of the field. That Jesus existed is not an argument on faith, but a judgement made on a wealth of evidence. And above, these conclusions are supported by non-religiously affiliated academics. Both questions appear to be a bad joke and the criteria (i.e. religious affiliation) has nothing to do with standard judgement of what constitutes a reliable source. -- Ari ( talk) 07:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
(remove indent) Actually if you go through the talk archives we have had long talks about the various names used for this theory: Christ Myth Theory, Jesus Myth Theory, Jesus myth hypothesis, Christ Myth, Jesus Myth, Christ Myth School, and non historical hypothesis. Everyone one of these had issues as either it wasn't common enough or you could find a source that used the term differently. This issue was also kicked around the Fringe theories Noticeboard in 2009 and we moved to "Christ Myth Theory" as that seemed to have been what most of the literature was calling this.
Going back over those archives (and at times wondering where my mind was) I have to ask is the "Christ myth theory" the denial that there was flesh and blood teacher in the 1st century called Jesus or is it denial of the Gospel Jesus as a historical person? I have seen scholars and non scholar sources that could be read as define Christ Myth theory the second way and I am wondering if that is also part of the problem with some of the editors above. The canonal Gospels are our main if not only source for details regarding the life of Jesus and if you throw those out as being no more historical than the De Vinchi Code then all you have is Paul's largely vague writings, the tampered and vague passages of Josephus, and some comment by Tacitus that may have simply him relating what the Christians believed. Suetonius is questionable, Thallus is actually Julius Africanus interpreting him and no idea on how accurate that is, and all Pliny the Younger does is tell us there were Christians in the late 1st century.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting some advise about the eligibility of using the summary of entries at the British Government National Archives as citations, the site is http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
I have been advised that original research is permitted as long as its backed up by reliable sources while presenting the information without opinion. The documents themselves are primary sources but are the national archives online summaries of the documents classed as secondary and more important can I cite them in articles on wikipedia where there is no other reliable source ? -- PL.-Snr ( talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify (I use these archives), the online summaries are summaries of the content of the document sets, and will be factually accurate, as they are subject to checking. They may include the history or origin of the document set, how significant the record is, and any omissions or issues with the set (for example, one set of records from WWI has a significant missing component as the repository was bombed during WWII). They are therefore reliable secondary sources about the primary source itself. The summaries do not usually contain interpretation of the content of the primary source. Interpretation of the content without reference to secondary sources that support that interpretation would normally be considered WP:OR. Hope this makes sense to the original enquirer. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
-- PL.-Snr ( talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see no issue with using these sources in the manner described (either by PL. -Snr or David Underdown). Where I would have an issue would be if, having cited the National or another reliable archive to support "in 1642, Mr Piglet leased the 100 Acre Wood to Mr Wol", the article went on "this comprehensively proves that 100 Acre Wood belonged to the Piglet family in the 17th century." As long as the original poster is aware of this, and the article is not wholly made up of research from primary sources, the National Archives (and other such archives) are a good source. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors are drafting revised text for Aesthetic Realism (AR), a philosophy and form of psychotherapy that is taught and practiced by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation (ARF). One editor would like to use two self-published websites published by students of AR as references for their views. [8] [9] So far as I can tell, the writers of these works are not on the board of directors of ARF, and don't hold any other official positions, though they may have served as volunteer teachers or as paid theapists. None of them are notable in their own right. For those reasons I don't they they qualify under WP:SPS. In addition, the editor would also like to use his own website. Does anyone see a way in which these sources would be usable? Will Beback talk 08:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You are both missing much here. Margot Carpenter is the freaking Executive Director of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation! [10] And Ed Green is listed on their website as faculty of the group, which is registered as a non-profit educational organization. The quotes in question in the article are about what Aesthetic Realists believe. These people don't have to be notable in their own right, they only have to be committed Aesthetic Realists, and that's exactly what they are. I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious.
One of the websites in question is published by "Friends of Aesthetic Realism", written largely by the self-described faculty of the group. Since the subject in question is Aesthetic Realism, they are unquestionably "writing about themselves". And that's the exact context in which the quotes are used.
Finally, as I've said to Will repeatedly, but which he's never specifically responded to, the SPS policy is clear that the reason SPS are avoided in the first place is that anyone can create them, so they're not reliable for validating *facts*. However, it's quite another matter to use them to show *the existence of opinion*. If someone claims there's a purple three-legged dog in Baltimore, the best evidence is to present the actual dog, not insist that the only good evidence is a third-hand report about the dog. By using the above sources about AR, we're directly showing the existence of the opinion referenced in the article. That's all the sources are used for -- to show what the Aesthetic Realists believe about Aesthetic Realism. That's exceptionally acceptable. MichaelBluejay ( talk) 04:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter Jackson, but I'm not sure I can agree that "WP isn't supposed to be about opinions", at least not as a blanket statement. For example, when someone says something controversial, that increases its notability. Take this, from Super Free: Seiichi Ota, a Japanese cabinet minister, was heavily criticized after he issued a statement regarding the case, "At least gang rapists are still vigorous. Isn't that at least a little closer to normal?" Most comments that a Japanese cabinet minister makes aren't notable, but this one sure was. And when someone is called out for saying something controversial, it's customary to report their defense. Again, from the Super Free article: He later reported that his statement was taken out of context, and that he didn't have the chance to further comment on the topic.
I disagree strongly with the bar set by Fladrif for Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Green's usability. The article is about a philosophy and the organization that teaches it, and these people are respectively the executive director of the org and a faculty member who teaches the philosophy. They are being quoted in that context. The part of the article in question is about a controversial aspect of the subject, which a reliable (not self-published) source says the group is "most famous" for. What the leaders of the group say about this controversial aspect of themselves has to be fair game. MichaelBluejay ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, there shouldn't be two articles. The organization and the philosophy are inextricably connected. Our source for information about the philosophy includes, primarily, what the organization says about it. Yes, of course there are plenty of sources that say that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is *the* organization that teaches Aesthetic Realism. Incidentally, LoreMariano is a member of this group, which has been working diligently for years to censor criticism of the group from the article. They've learned how to game the system, such as by quoting policy out of context which appeals to some editors' desire to over-apply such policy. MichaelBluejay ( talk) 05:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been a constant vandalization of Novak Djokovic page, where his parents origin is being constantly removed. Anonymous user claims that the links I have provided are not reliable. First link is from Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija which was founded and continuously is published in Split since 1943, Novak Djokovic gave that interview to the reporter of Slobodna Dalmacija, Davor Burazin, on July 30, 2006. In that inteview he said; "I da mi je majka Hrvatica, iako je rođena u Beogradu, jer su svi njezini iz Vinkovaca i tamo imam puno rodbine. Tata je Crnogorac, a ja... ("And that my mother is Croatian, although she was born in Belgrade, because all of hers are from Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives. Dad is a Montenegrin, and I ......")" Second link is from another Croatian newspaper Jutarnji list which was was launched in April 1998, and in that link it says; "S obzirom na majku Hrvaticu, vjerujem da ima uvjete za hrvatsko državljanstvo. Ako se odluči na taj korak, Đoković je dobrodošao - rekao je predsjednik Hrvatskog teniskog saveza. ("With regards to his mother being a Croat, I believe he has conditions for a Croatian citizenship. If he decides to make that step, Djokovic is welcomed - said the president of Croatian Tennis Federation")". So I am asking, are those links reliable or not, because it seems to me that this thing is about constant national pest, Serbian in this issue. I am warning that the anonymous user hasn't provided not a single evidence that his father is not Montenegrin and that his mother is not Croatian, except some video where his father is saying; " On je ipak ovde rođen, ovde je živeo, i ovde su mu koreni i porodica, da je odavde poteka, a ne iz Londona ili Pariza.(" He was born here, he lived here, and here are his roots and family, he came from here, and not from London or Paris.")". That interview was given in the light of Novak leaving Serbia to play for Great Britain, this issue was hot in 2006, and that's why there is a mention of London and Paris. Anonymous user is saying that if his father is using woord roots(not to describe himself, but his son), then that means he considers himself a Serb and not Montenegrin. Help please, Thank You. With regards-- Eversman ( talk) 11:062, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Copied from WP:ELN; will notify Eversman. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Is http://boxun.us/news/publish regarded a reliable source? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 07:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
All Boxun sourced material (along with World Socialist cites) have been removed from the article. I view neither as reliable souces. Both don't survive the
I know it when I see it test,the
Duck test, and the
Elephant test --
BsBsBs (
talk) 06:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Neutral opinion needed for a website source. An editor in a FAC discussion ( here) claims that the reasoning in the prior discussion was faulty; was it? - Dank ( push to talk) 11:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This page appears to be a self-published source. What indication is there that Tony Digiulian is a "gun control systems expert"? The book provided is an autobiography by D. Gossman, published by iUniverse, a "self-publishing company" (i.e. vanity press), so it's not clear why his opinion would carry any weight. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent Tony an email (we've been in contact before). Let's see what he has to say and if he knows of any books that (a) have cited him and (b) we have missed. Regards, — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
...[an] advantage that this gives me over the casual reader of well-known reference works is that I have the background and knowledge that allows me spot errors, conflicts, omissions or lack of clarity in these sources so as to be able to meld all the available data together in order to present as accurate a datapage as possible to my readers. This is something that makes my datapages much more than just a random collection of facts.
Hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I consider Blueboar to be the expert par excellence in SPS issues and I've invited him to weigh in here. I have to admit that I drifted off to sleep somewhere around the 100th wiki-wide argument over the meaning of SPS. It would be a shame if Wikipedia's policies were to forbid the use of an irreplaceable source that's widely acknowledged as accurate in the most reliable sources in the subject matter. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we are all missing the point here. We need information that we know can meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V. Like it or not, navweapons does provide technical information on a scale that you would be hard pressed to find, and as an internet source, everybody with a modem and a computer is in a position to access the site. We must check our figures against other sources, why should this source be any different from our other sources? I fully intend to continue to rely on navweapons regardless of whether this panel rules against the site or not; since the issue seems to be with WP:SPS (no one has yet managed to produce on piece of evidence that the site fails WP:RS or WP:V; the best anyone has come up with so far is human error in translations which are not, strictly speaking, grounds for disqualification of the site) may I suggest that when citing navweapons we adopt a position that a double cite is required to confirm that at least one other source has the same material so as to avoid any issues with SPS in the future. Our navweapons doubters would then have proof the site and a secondary source agree with each other, our navweapons believers would be able to use the site to check figures and confirm information discovered through other means, and wikipedia as a whole would come out ahead by having more citations than necessary for the information present. To me, that's a full victory for all parties involved in this discussion, which goes a long way toward improving moral and productivity on site. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
When I first saw Navweaps during a GA review, I have to admit I thought it had a touch of the amateurish about it, and lets face it; it does. Clearly the author isn’t an expert on the latest trends of web design, but that isn’t something to hold against him or something to use to argue against his ability to condense information presented in other sources. It can be incredibly difficult to reconcile wp:verify with wp:rs sometimes and this looks like one of those cases, but the fact that the website’s data is directly referenced in so many offline sources satisfies me. It is very verifiable (because other reliable sources use it) and I personally think that makes the site as a whole useable. Ranger Steve ( talk) 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the Sinodefence.com website meet WP:RS? Mjroots2 ( talk) 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless we know that Sinodefence.com is run by the CIA, MI-6 or the Chinese military-industrial complex, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. It looks like a well put together site, run by people who seem to be interested in the Chinese military.
That they sell books should not disqualify them. Many non-profits run an Amazon bookstore to defray some of the costs. Jane’s sells very expensive books and reports.
The selection of the books appears to be balanced (they have everything vaguely connected with the topic.)
The reporting appears balanced also. Check the comments on the “Hot Spots” and you won’t find the shrill demagoguery from other sources.
Where a server is located doesn’t matter. This is Europe, a free market.
Sinodefence.com is not blocked from China. Apparently, the Chinese government has no issues with them.-- BsBsBs ( talk) 12:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, even if we dropped DOD reports, there are still hundreds of other academic research papers on PLA that uses material from Sinodefence. I'm not saying the source is 100% reliable given the entire PLA study is based on guessing game, but it is fundamental enough in PLA study that it cannot just be ignored. Without context of the citation, all I can say is that use this source should be usable with caution unless better source comes by.
Jim101 (
talk) 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm conceding to the point that Sinodefence is not RS, but I'm very disappointed that in this case it only served to increase
systemic bias within the project. Furthermore, I urge everyone to develop a workable citation tracking method on identifying reliable sources, which is a valid method in academic research writing but fails to work here. It is somewhat unsettling to see an established and the only English source within an underrepresented topic fail WP:RS due to red tapes.
Jim101 (
talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
SinoDefense.com is cited by Reuters [18], Associated Press [19] and The Telegraph. [20] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Folks, this discussion is getting ridiculous, and it's soon approaching WP:LAME candidate status. Disclaimer: I have no dog in this hunt. I know nothing about the Chinese military. I never edited an article about the Chinese military. Disclosure: I live in Beijing, and I like it. Someone explain this to me: The founder of Sinodefence is a special correspondent of Jane's. The Pentagon sees sinodefence worthy of note, so do Reuters, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, and, if the above is true, just about any research paper on the PLA. However, due to some twisted logic, a Wikipedia article is not allowed to cite sinodefence? It must wait until some scribe at Reuters or Bloomberg picks something from sinodefence, then it becomes anointed and quotable? If these harsh requirements would be applied to all WP articles, then we could close WP. I'm a journalist by training. One thing was drummed into me: Go straight to the source. As it's unlikely that the General Staff of the PLA will give us details (and per the above wicked logic, they would not be a reliable source, after all, all governments lie, they would be a primary source, and asking for the launch codes would amount to the dreaded Original Research) Sinodefence is the best we've got. FYI, someone thinks Sinodefence is the PLA. sinodefence redirects to People's Liberation Army. While hairs were split, nobody bothered to look THAT up. Someone better head right over to People's Liberation Army and delete the following sentence: "SinoDefence.com: Leading online source of information and news on China's military power and defence industry, including weapon systems, organisations, doctrines, etc." Come on guys, don't we have better things to do? Or is this an exercise to take the "leading online source" out of the game, so that all articles on the topic can wallow in supposition and mediocrity? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: I have read WP:RS with great interest. I have learned that the only really reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications, but even those come with warnings. I learned that “Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors.” I was about to delete about 90 percent of Wikipedia, when I also learned that this is a guideline only, and that I should apply common sense. I read the last sentence with a great amount of relief, because I dreaded seeing so many good articles go. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The current sourcing dispute on Chengdu J-10 over Sinodefence has been resolved by replacing the source with Jane's Information Group. So I presume the discussion is resolved here as well? Jim101 ( talk) 03:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try a real case scenario, the article PF-98 to frame this debate somewhat....
Currently I can find on other RS to confirm the fact that this weapon exists, this weapon is widely used by PLA, and this weapon is capable of defeating all western main battle tanks. Now in order to make this article more complete, I need the weapon's design history, the weapon's functionality, the weapon's performance statistics, and how this weapon is deployed among PLA infantry units. However, given that this weapon did not see any combat, and not important enough for any other sources to pay attention due to the fact it is just a RPG as oppose to a nuke/plane/ship, there are current no information on this weapon from other RS. Now the question is, can I use Sinodefence, which is a notable weapon database on Chinese weapons, to fill the information gap? Jim101 ( talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've been away from this for a few days and this is one of the more bizarre arguments I've seen at RSN. From what I can tell,
Squidfryerchef ( talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked this over and this is kind of an odd situation. Unless we get something out of the Seaforth book or a specialist publication we haven't seen yet, the site is anonymously run. On the other hand, there are many books, news articles, and other reports that cite Sinodefence for fact.
In the articles Oralno doba and Marko Živić Show, authored Serbian media sources are being used for citations.
For Oralno doba:
For Marko Živić Show:
While yes, the limitations of Google Translate are to be acknowledged, the content of the citations and the wide use of them in Serbia suggests to me that they are suitable, however I request that a determination be made as to whether or not the Serbian language sources Press Magazin, Blic (newspaper), Kurir, and Politik might be considered reliable enough for citing these articles on Serbian television shows, as English language sources are unavailable. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Plastic Shaman heavily relies on the following source: Armbuster, J.; Beacham, D.; et al. (2005) They Call Us Indians. Göteborg, Sweden. The World in Our Hands ISBN 9789163155185. A search on the ISBN [ [29]] shows up a completely different book. A search on the title and authors names in google books shows no result. One of the only references I found to it here [ [30]] seem to indicate that it is self-published. Is there any reason to accept it as a reliable source? especially where it is being used to make broad general statements about the New Age vs. Indigenous Peoples in the "terminology section", which I would expect to have cited to someone from a more central Cultural Studies position. Thanks for any views or more information about the book and it's reliability. Davémon ( talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
General comment, no relation to the book at hand: "Self published" appears to be a popular hammer used to slam a source. We need to exercise caution, and we will need to exercise more. The following is based on more than 30 years in the business:
1.) It may come as a shock that many established publishing houses engage in "vanity printing" - for a price. That price is getting lower as established publishing houses get in trouble. However, it has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, I started writing books as a ghostwriter for famous industry figures. Their books were published with very reputable publishing houses. They went on sale. But large numbers were bought by the company. Unless you know about it, you'll never know.
2.) It seems like ebooks might finally be here. This significantly lowers the monetary threshold for publishing, but does not necessarily lower their quality. Expect increasing numbers of "self published" books.
3.) The trust in the "editorial oversight" of major publishing houses and media outlets is touching, but often undeserved. The lack of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that there is none. Likewise, the existence of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that it is observed. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll repost it if you tell me where. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edited for brevity and relisted, as no conclusive comments were provided at the recent prior listing)
Is this source, at page 6 therein and titled Arbor Sculpture: If you like I'll Grow You a Mirror, reliable for use to support these 5 statements cited in Tree shaping, currently at citation [38]?
"Richard Reames is an American arborsculptor[38] based in Williams, Oregon, where he manages a nursery, botanical garden, and design studio collectively named Arborsmith Studios.[38]"
(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.[11]) "Since then, this word has been used around the world to refer to the craft in general,[38] to the works of various live woody plant artisans, and to the artisans themselves, including Christopher Cattle,[38]]..."
"Dr. Christopher Cattle is a retired furniture design professor from England.[38]"
"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][38]"
This source is also one of many cited as uses of the terms arborsculpture/arborsculptor as generic terms for the craft and the craftspersons who practice it. Is it also one reliable source for establishing that generic usage?
" Other names for tree shaping include:
arborsculpture[38][43][45][7][8][61][62][10][63][64][41][65][66][67][44]"
Pertinent discussion on the talk page is: Talk:Tree Shaping#Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter, where one user felt that it was not a reliable source. Duff ( talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Are the following sources reliable? Articles include Son of God and Cleopatra VII.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm also dubious about how this Tyndale House is related to the Cambridge site. While tyndalehouse.com does redirect to the college, tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ leads to a description page by Chris Bennett and some FAQs where Mr. Bennett says that he has no qualifications in the area, "except that I'm interested in it, am able to research and to reason for myself, have a reasonable ability to read French, a marginal ability to read German, and can struggle through some Italian and Latin". He also mentions that some of his results contradict published sources. On the other hand, a Chris Bennett has published a scholarly article a similar subject here.-- Slp1 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[40] states "We also provide mirrored space for significant projects from outside Tyndale House:" and includes the Ptolomy dynastic information as one of the significant projects from outside Tyndale House. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see that. Do we care who Chris Bennett is then? The point being we might want to attribute an opinion to him. Dougweller ( talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was directed here by editors at WT:HOCKEY ( this was the discussion). www.hockey-reference.com is a website that's used in many hockey FLs and other hockey articles. I used it for my FLC, List of Washington Capitals seasons, where I was told that it might not be a reliable source. Per discussion at WT:HOCKEY, I decided to check with all of you to see what you could come up with. Thanks for the help. -- Nomader ( Talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
On the pages concerning aspartame, editor Verbal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) objects to the WebMD site's reporting of the funding for a study that exonerates the chemical of all blame [43]. According to Verbal, WebMD is not RS for wikipedia, even though our wikipedia article calls it "the leading health portal in the United States". Can anyone comment please? TickleMeister ( talk) 13:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The source, a reliable one as everyone agrees here now, was used to specify that the study was funded by industry (which it was). Here it is again [ [44] This has absolutely nothing to do with NPOV or FRINGE. TickleMeister ( talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at the Gaza flotilla raid article, about whether or not the flotilla's cargo can be described as "humanitarian aid". The sentence in question in the lead used to say "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), was attempting deliver humanitarian aid and building supplies to the Gaza Strip..." (section in question underlined) The sentence now says "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) was carrying cargo destined for the Gaza Strip..."
The relevant discussion can be found here. In that discussion, another editor wrote that "It is POV to make the statement that the flotilla was bringing in humanitarian aid... I have read them all and do not see a RS that explicitly states the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid." I replied with the following list of source, which I consider to be reliable sources that describe the flotilla as carrying humanitarian aid:
Another editor then chimed in, changing the term to "cargo", and arguing that we shouldn't describe the flotilla as carrying humanitarian aid because "there are plenty of equivalent sources that describe what the ships were carrying and do not describe it as 'humanitarian aid'".
My question: Are any of these reliable sources for the statement that the Gaza flotilla was carrying "humanitarian aid" to the Gaza Strip? Thank you. ← George talk 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the book published by Dr Joseph Mercola a RS for some historical facts about the approval of aspartame? The text sourced is "However, in 1977 a report by the FDA's Jerome Bressler showed that one study, which had led to the approval of the product, had critical scientific flaws." and the the citation is:<ref name="mercola">{{cite book |title=Sweet deception: why Splenda®, Nutrasweet®, and the FDA may be hazardous to your health |pages=p. 40 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=Kd5BH5NNY_gC&lpg=PA262&dq=bressler%20aspartame&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=bressler |author=Joseph Mercola |coauthors=Kendra Degen Pearsall |isbn=0785221794 |year=2006 |publisher=Thomas Nelson Inc}}</ref>
Follow this link [64] to read the citation.
Thanks. This is not a question about the general believability of all Mercola's theories. TickleMeister ( talk) 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
On this book, I think it may count as a primary source, a salvo launched in this controversy. It may still be OK to refer to it with attribution, but we should in preference use sources that stand outside the conflict and describe it. Was the book's appearance reported in the mainstream press? Are there reviews?
Itsmejudith (
talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The book is not a reliable source. If you are looking for "historical facts about the approval of aspartame", try this book, The clinical evaluation of a food additive: assessment of aspartame, CRC Press (1996), a collection of academic articles. TFD ( talk) 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sticking to my view expressed above: that the book is a primary source. We're not necessarily looking for scientific sources in this article, but we are looking for accounts of the controversy that aren't written by the protagonists. An overview in a science journal, for example, or a feature article in a leading publication for the food industry. If there aren't enough sources to explain how the controversy unfolded, then this article should be merged into aspartame. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Use the book, and attribute clear opinions to the person expressing them, just like any other article. There is no point of view (such as WP:SPOV) which has special precedence because people WP:KNOW something is "fringe." Collect ( talk) 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Some editors have expressed concerns over Stephen Neill's work A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707. They are particularly concerned over its discussion of a figure named Ahatallah (see Talk:Ahatallah), which evidently conflicts with their own understanding of the subject. In my mind the book is very clearly a reliable source. Stephen Neill was a professor at the University of Cambridge who had spent many years of his life in India as an Anglican clergyman. A History of Christianity in India, published in two volumes in 1984-1985, is widely considered his magnum opus and is regularly cited in other works on the subject. I found some reviews on JSTOR: one by South Asia scholar Robert Eric Frykenberg in the Journal of Asiatic Studies ( here), and another from the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London ( here). Obviously the publisher, University of Cambridge Press, is reliable. This is clear cut to my mind, but considering that there has been so much resistance on the talk page I reckon it's best to get some more opinions on it.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor at 2010 China Labour unrest tries to make the point that Chinese state media only initially covered the strikes, and is now suppressing coverage. As missing coverage is hard to prove, the claim is unreferenced. The assertion is also not true, so I strike “initially”. To bolster the argument, I source a Google search that looks for “strike” in the Chinese state media outlets "People's Daily", "China Daily" and "Global Times". The results are self-evident. The editor deletes the reference, saying a Google search is not a reference. My position: It is, if wide coverage or notoriety are to be proven. Alternatively, I could cite a long list of articles from state media, but the Google search is more dynamic. Comments? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 18:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, China Daily and People's Daily's English sites are hardly representative of what goes on with Chinese media on a day-to-day basis. Many stories published in English never make its way to the Chinese sites. No matter how many references you end up stuffing after that sentence, there are reliable sources that say otherwise. Maybe you will then argue that "Western media" is biased against China? Well, all of this is fully backed up by independent U.S.-based Chinese-language news site Duowei. Need I say more? Colipon+( Talk) 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Just so everyone here is aware, the section in question currently reads:
I hope that puts things in context. I have tried reverting this user before, but he edit wars. So I've stopped. Hopefully someone else could lend a mediating hand. Colipon+( Talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
User BsBsBs also contends this revision, even though it is well-sourced to the Guardian, saying that the original People's Daily article must be referenced. Colipon+( Talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is one thing I will never understand. If I find seven articles about the strike that appeared last Friday alone in China Daily, then it's original research. If I find a quote in People's Daily that talks about "widely-reported mass labor strikes," then it's ok. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I know. And I'm glad to help out. However, it still strikes me as odd that three annual reports (which must be submitted to the SEC) would not be admitted as a reliable source to correct a blatant lie. Which, by the way, still is on the Guardian, uncorrected. No need to cite the rules, I've read them. Just Sunday musings .... -- BsBsBs ( talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Search results are not reliable sources and drawing conclusions from them is original research. Dlabtot ( talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
User bsbsbs, if you are concerned about the basics of Wikipedia policy and would like to criticize it, then please go do it at the appropriate venue. This noticeboard is not for that. This noticeboard is for verifying whether or not the Wikipedia community agrees that a source is reliable and can be used to substantiate article content. Now that you've gotten (unanimous) replies from a wide range of users about what the policy is here, I suggest you drop this crusade. Meanwhile, please stop making edits such as this one; more original research, even if it's true. Colipon+( Talk) 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot is exactly right; "Search results are not reliable sources and drawing conclusions from them is original research". Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The famous Indian Newspaper The Hindu (see The_Hindu) is called non reliable by anonymous IP in this discussion: [69]. It is clear for anyone that TheHindu is a reliable source, but the IP war-edit on some articles where I mention a controversy reported in this journal (and others). The IP calls TheHindu:"The al-Qaeda monthly", "toilet paper news sources", "pure junk", "stinking pile of goat-feces" etc.
I'm getting tired of these IPs (probably sockpuppets of indef banned user Hkelkar) who have made some articles blocked by war-editing.
Thanks
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Let us be clear here. The Times reporting that Ginger Activists claim David Cameron is a closet gingerist can only be a reliable source for the statement "Ginger Activists claim the UK Prime Minister has an anti-ginger bias". It cannot be a reliable source for the statement "The UK Prime Minister has been shown to have gingerist tendencies." Show us the source that you want to use, and the text you want to source to it, and we can give an opinion. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
OK: I was editing some articles related to
Hemant Karkare and 2008 Mumbai attacks, mentionning the well-known controversy about his death that is developping in India. The above IP, 117.194.198.217 with another sockpuppet 59.160.210.68 then began editwarring by blanking the controversy saying it was irrelevant. I just mentionned the fact that TheHindu was mentionning it again, and then went here for reliability of the source. Now that the source is relaible, which is quite obvious, I will put it in the artivles when they are unblocked. By the way, any sysop to have an eye on these IPS ? The clearly evade 3RR (and are probably sockpuppets of banned user Hkelkar), thanks. -
TwoHorned
User_talk:TwoHorned 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | These controversies are found in a 2009 book written by S.M. Mushrif, former IG of Maharashtra and collaborator to Karkare: Who killed Karkare ? [19] and are reinforced by the opening of official investigations in 2010.These controversies take place in India in a general setting, where doubts raise about the incentives behind the exploitation of "communal riots" between hindus and muslims, as there is suspiscion that these riots may find their roots (as well as financial support) in political extremism and agenda coming from outside India. These interrogations raise the suspiscion of active israeli extremism and intelligence backing up some of the triggering of communal riots in India. | ” |
“ | A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. | ” |
[72].
Based purely on what is written in this section (without checking anything), I have to say that 117.194.198.21 is making a lot of sense. In the wonderful 21st Century, one can find a book to promote any crackpot idea, and before asserting the aliens did it we should digest WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@ First Light: there are a lot of such articles, both in the Hindu and elsewhere; for instance: [74] - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Am from India, and a regular reader of the Hindu and their magazine Frontline. The Hindu group of publications are pro-leftists(communists) and most of their articles are pro china and anti India. I do not know with regard to which context you are debating, but understood, whther Hindu is reliable source or not. Communists and the Hindutva parties like BJP are arch rivals, and The Hindu, and Frontline, is mostly made of anti India, anti BJP articles. They came up with a article of bashing the Tibetans and India, and supporting china some 7 years back. Get hold of some articles from Frontline, so people could make judgement on their own. 27.57.5.2 ( talk)
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305054023AA1GxZJ Fyodor7 ( talk)
“ | Just where untamed emotion can take a vulnerable people ready to believe the worst was demonstrated after the Mumbai terror attacks when Union Minister Abdur Rahman Antulay alleged a Hindutva terror plot behind the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and fellow officers Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. The terror attacks had played out live on 24-hour television; the government had in its possession compelling evidence to establish the Pakistani identity of the assassins. But for Mr. Antulay, the fact that Karkare and his fellow officers were found in the same spot bespoke of a conspiracy. He voiced his suspicions in the Lok Sabha: Who was the mysterious caller who directed them to the Cama hospital when the action was at the Taj Mahal hotel?
Soon Mr. Antulay was joined by others. The Urdu press bought the story wholesale as did Muslim community leaders and politicians. The campaign seemed about to spiral out of control when the government acted with uncharacteristic speed and intelligence. It fielded Home Minister P. Chidambaram to present its case. Which Mr. Chidambaram did — without melodrama or emotion. His minute-by-minute account of the whereabouts of the three officers, complete with details of who called whom, silenced Mr. Antulay and the swelling numbers of sceptics. Had the government not done this, the Hindutva theory would have been echoing in seminar rooms and political rallies, leading to a potentially explosive situation. |
” |
59.160.210.68 ( talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, since most of your section was footnoted to it, that's more to the point. I'd say not, but it might be notable if it has had a mainstream impact. Paul B ( talk) 12:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone tell me if the following are suitable as sources for use in Mass killings under Communist regimes
I ask as some edits using these sources have been reverted out with the edit summary, rv poorly sourced and disagrees with reliable sources mark nutley ( talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This is akin to every single political article on WP -- the Black Book is RS for opinions, as all political articles are founded in opinion. For statements of fact, I have seen no one show that facts are mis-stated in it. It is no less RS than other such sources. The non-profit foundation is RS also for opinions about communism. It amuses me to see some say that books which agree with what they WP:KNOW are RS, while any which disagree are, perforce, not RS <g>. Collect ( talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism is clearly a reliable source. Anybody who challenges it multiple times, even after it has been discussed here multiple times, should take a wikibreak. As Wikipedia:RSEX#History advises websites from non-professional historians should be used with caution. But given that the Victims of Communism organization was set up by the US government its hard to say they have a non-mainstream view. They have a POV and I believe it should be heard as one of several. BTW Wikipedia:RSEX#History gives advice in an essay and is not policy, so it should also be used with caution. Smallbones ( talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I was going on the Harvard univ. press publisher, but since reviewers have said that the quality of chapters varies then each chapter should be judged on its merits, i.e. the qualifications and academic standing of the author. Not on any perception of the political stance, unless an argument is put that the writing is "extremist" in the sense we use here. Some wise things were said by some knowledgeable editors on the previous occasion that this source was discussed, worth consulting the archive. Still waiting for Collect to clarify that s/he was not accusing me of making judgements for political reasons. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm soliciting input on the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. The primary question here is whether it can serve as a reliable source from which to insert economic criticisms into an article. Specifically, the book is currently being used to characterize "the banking system" (through it's criticisms of banks such as the Bank of England). The article currently holds this assertion:
G. Edward Griffin has written that a fractional-reserve based banking system is inherently destructive and inevitably generates debasement of the currency, extreme inequality or periodic crises; Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island, Fourth edition, Chapter 9, "The Secret Science", pp. 171-184. American Media, 2002. ISBN 978-0-912986-39-5
More generally, it might good to ask a second question. Can this book can serve as a reliable source broadly ... whether it is likely useful for supporting any characterizations that have relevance to parties outside of the author himself?
A previous AfD may hold some helpful insight here, as well. Not to overly bias the discussion, but here's one discussion of the book's content -- [78] BigK HeX ( talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the OPUS first citation enough credibility to get the notice alerts off of the page? MythMe23 ( talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The first news source - here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPUS_Archives_and_Research_Center The cred alert on the page - can it be deleted now? MythMe23 ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If an article says something to the effect of "Respectable academic X has made statement Y in fancy academic context Z", would a YouTube video of X saying Y in Z qualify as a reliable source? Eugene ( talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone grabbed a clip from the Foo Show and put it on Youtube, a copyright violation is perpetrated. However, that copyright violation is between the violator and the holder of the copyright. As long as its a true copy, the copyright violation does not denigrate the source. If you make a photocopy of a page of a book ( I know, fair use, maybe ..) you can cite it. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Youtube videos are generally not reliable, and should be avoided. They are also, as appears to be the case here, primary sources, which raises a whole set of other issues (e.g. WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE). Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any good reason for this not to be an RS. If it was an official transcript of a conference there would be no issue, and a video is equally as authentic. However, for other reasons, I don't think it is suitable for use in the article. As has been said above, it is a matter of common courtesy for the chair of a panel like this to say nice things about the invited speakers. It is not, therefore, a notable opinion. It fails WP:N and is also WP:SELFPUB, because the statement is really made on behelf of the conference the speaker is representing, as is likely to be self-serving. You wouldn't expect her to say: "To be honest, he was the fourth person we asked and he's not a great speaker, but please give him a chance". -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:09, 23 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
Currently has claims that a team Rossi once was a part owner of got an "earmark gift" from the state of Washington, sourced to publicola.net. The person adding this states that a blog run by awardwinning journalists is intrinsically RS. Problem is first he said the site was "award winning" which did not pan out, and none of the journalists have recieved any awards at all for this blog. It has neither editorial controls nor fact-checking, and is not associated with any newspaper, broadcast media, or magazine, making me rather doubt that it is RS under WP policies at all, but qualifies as "self-published" at this point. [1] is the edit in question which includes claims that a single state senator "approves" a budget, that he has a "documented history of supporting earmarks" (interesting since the term is not applicable to the state of Washington budgets) and that an "earmark gift" was given to a baseball team (turns out it was money for a municipal stadium, and not a "gift" in any sense). I suggested that BLPs have a stringent definition of "reliable source" but am otherwise at a stalemate regarding a persistent editor. If the journalist is actually really notable, it is possible that his opinions, clearly marked as such, be in an article, but BLP issues regarding imputation of dishonesty seems a bit far to pull that horse. Thanks! Collect ( talk) 20:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies are what matter here, and everyone must abide by them. — e. ripley\ talk 16:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
So what do others say? RS obviously?
Merrill Stubing (
talk)
A column posted by somebody called "Morning Fizz" posted on a website that has no sign of any kind of editorial oversight and control is a thoroughly unsuitable source for allegations of financial impropriety in an article about a living person. According the founder himself, it is "a scrappy operation". [4]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and this simply does not cut it as the kind of high quality source we require per BLP. See WP:BLPSPS. -- Slp1 ( talk) 15:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Creation/Evolution Journal is a publication of the National Center for Science Education, an affiliate of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Frequently Asked Questions about NCSE For Transcendental Meditation we are using an article published by that journal in 1982 which was written by Robert M. Price. " Scientific Creationism and the Science of Creative Intelligence". At the time, the journal's editor was Fred Edwords. Is there any reason to doubt that this is a reliable source, or to treat it as "highly biased"? Will Beback talk 01:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
While tweaking the Holly Graf article, I noticed quite a few references to a site called MilitaryCorruption.com. Having a look at this site, it's a steaming pile of libel--for instance, it alleges a lesbian cabal called "the Sisterhood" is pulling strings in the Navy. If this is a reliable source, I'll have strychnine. Blueboy 96 02:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Is http://www.celebritymemorials.com a reliable source? It's being used as a source at Lizzie van Zyl. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 22:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is, because it is said (on their layout) "The most unique listing on the web, where you can decide whether their lives were lived for BETTER or WORSE". Probably mean that you can expand this information for the good of humanity.-- Nvlado ( talk) 23:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Does believing in Christ have any effect on say, a theological professor's reliability when used to say that the existence of Jesus is accepted generally by acedemics? Does being a Christian ever effect one's reliability on the historicity of Jesus? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 02:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
To both questions, no. On the first,an academic is free to comment on the consensus status of scholarship, as well as what theories have no support within the relevant field. Furthermore, those scholars commenting on the field are backed up by non-religious scholars within the field. To the second, no. Why would it? They are academics within the field because they are trained in the tools of the field. That Jesus existed is not an argument on faith, but a judgement made on a wealth of evidence. And above, these conclusions are supported by non-religiously affiliated academics. Both questions appear to be a bad joke and the criteria (i.e. religious affiliation) has nothing to do with standard judgement of what constitutes a reliable source. -- Ari ( talk) 07:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
(remove indent) Actually if you go through the talk archives we have had long talks about the various names used for this theory: Christ Myth Theory, Jesus Myth Theory, Jesus myth hypothesis, Christ Myth, Jesus Myth, Christ Myth School, and non historical hypothesis. Everyone one of these had issues as either it wasn't common enough or you could find a source that used the term differently. This issue was also kicked around the Fringe theories Noticeboard in 2009 and we moved to "Christ Myth Theory" as that seemed to have been what most of the literature was calling this.
Going back over those archives (and at times wondering where my mind was) I have to ask is the "Christ myth theory" the denial that there was flesh and blood teacher in the 1st century called Jesus or is it denial of the Gospel Jesus as a historical person? I have seen scholars and non scholar sources that could be read as define Christ Myth theory the second way and I am wondering if that is also part of the problem with some of the editors above. The canonal Gospels are our main if not only source for details regarding the life of Jesus and if you throw those out as being no more historical than the De Vinchi Code then all you have is Paul's largely vague writings, the tampered and vague passages of Josephus, and some comment by Tacitus that may have simply him relating what the Christians believed. Suetonius is questionable, Thallus is actually Julius Africanus interpreting him and no idea on how accurate that is, and all Pliny the Younger does is tell us there were Christians in the late 1st century.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting some advise about the eligibility of using the summary of entries at the British Government National Archives as citations, the site is http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
I have been advised that original research is permitted as long as its backed up by reliable sources while presenting the information without opinion. The documents themselves are primary sources but are the national archives online summaries of the documents classed as secondary and more important can I cite them in articles on wikipedia where there is no other reliable source ? -- PL.-Snr ( talk) 02:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify (I use these archives), the online summaries are summaries of the content of the document sets, and will be factually accurate, as they are subject to checking. They may include the history or origin of the document set, how significant the record is, and any omissions or issues with the set (for example, one set of records from WWI has a significant missing component as the repository was bombed during WWII). They are therefore reliable secondary sources about the primary source itself. The summaries do not usually contain interpretation of the content of the primary source. Interpretation of the content without reference to secondary sources that support that interpretation would normally be considered WP:OR. Hope this makes sense to the original enquirer. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
-- PL.-Snr ( talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see no issue with using these sources in the manner described (either by PL. -Snr or David Underdown). Where I would have an issue would be if, having cited the National or another reliable archive to support "in 1642, Mr Piglet leased the 100 Acre Wood to Mr Wol", the article went on "this comprehensively proves that 100 Acre Wood belonged to the Piglet family in the 17th century." As long as the original poster is aware of this, and the article is not wholly made up of research from primary sources, the National Archives (and other such archives) are a good source. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors are drafting revised text for Aesthetic Realism (AR), a philosophy and form of psychotherapy that is taught and practiced by the Aesthetic Realism Foundation (ARF). One editor would like to use two self-published websites published by students of AR as references for their views. [8] [9] So far as I can tell, the writers of these works are not on the board of directors of ARF, and don't hold any other official positions, though they may have served as volunteer teachers or as paid theapists. None of them are notable in their own right. For those reasons I don't they they qualify under WP:SPS. In addition, the editor would also like to use his own website. Does anyone see a way in which these sources would be usable? Will Beback talk 08:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You are both missing much here. Margot Carpenter is the freaking Executive Director of the Aesthetic Realism Foundation! [10] And Ed Green is listed on their website as faculty of the group, which is registered as a non-profit educational organization. The quotes in question in the article are about what Aesthetic Realists believe. These people don't have to be notable in their own right, they only have to be committed Aesthetic Realists, and that's exactly what they are. I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious.
One of the websites in question is published by "Friends of Aesthetic Realism", written largely by the self-described faculty of the group. Since the subject in question is Aesthetic Realism, they are unquestionably "writing about themselves". And that's the exact context in which the quotes are used.
Finally, as I've said to Will repeatedly, but which he's never specifically responded to, the SPS policy is clear that the reason SPS are avoided in the first place is that anyone can create them, so they're not reliable for validating *facts*. However, it's quite another matter to use them to show *the existence of opinion*. If someone claims there's a purple three-legged dog in Baltimore, the best evidence is to present the actual dog, not insist that the only good evidence is a third-hand report about the dog. By using the above sources about AR, we're directly showing the existence of the opinion referenced in the article. That's all the sources are used for -- to show what the Aesthetic Realists believe about Aesthetic Realism. That's exceptionally acceptable. MichaelBluejay ( talk) 04:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Peter Jackson, but I'm not sure I can agree that "WP isn't supposed to be about opinions", at least not as a blanket statement. For example, when someone says something controversial, that increases its notability. Take this, from Super Free: Seiichi Ota, a Japanese cabinet minister, was heavily criticized after he issued a statement regarding the case, "At least gang rapists are still vigorous. Isn't that at least a little closer to normal?" Most comments that a Japanese cabinet minister makes aren't notable, but this one sure was. And when someone is called out for saying something controversial, it's customary to report their defense. Again, from the Super Free article: He later reported that his statement was taken out of context, and that he didn't have the chance to further comment on the topic.
I disagree strongly with the bar set by Fladrif for Ms. Carpenter and Mr. Green's usability. The article is about a philosophy and the organization that teaches it, and these people are respectively the executive director of the org and a faculty member who teaches the philosophy. They are being quoted in that context. The part of the article in question is about a controversial aspect of the subject, which a reliable (not self-published) source says the group is "most famous" for. What the leaders of the group say about this controversial aspect of themselves has to be fair game. MichaelBluejay ( talk) 03:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, there shouldn't be two articles. The organization and the philosophy are inextricably connected. Our source for information about the philosophy includes, primarily, what the organization says about it. Yes, of course there are plenty of sources that say that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation is *the* organization that teaches Aesthetic Realism. Incidentally, LoreMariano is a member of this group, which has been working diligently for years to censor criticism of the group from the article. They've learned how to game the system, such as by quoting policy out of context which appeals to some editors' desire to over-apply such policy. MichaelBluejay ( talk) 05:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
There has been a constant vandalization of Novak Djokovic page, where his parents origin is being constantly removed. Anonymous user claims that the links I have provided are not reliable. First link is from Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija which was founded and continuously is published in Split since 1943, Novak Djokovic gave that interview to the reporter of Slobodna Dalmacija, Davor Burazin, on July 30, 2006. In that inteview he said; "I da mi je majka Hrvatica, iako je rođena u Beogradu, jer su svi njezini iz Vinkovaca i tamo imam puno rodbine. Tata je Crnogorac, a ja... ("And that my mother is Croatian, although she was born in Belgrade, because all of hers are from Vinkovci and there I have a lot of relatives. Dad is a Montenegrin, and I ......")" Second link is from another Croatian newspaper Jutarnji list which was was launched in April 1998, and in that link it says; "S obzirom na majku Hrvaticu, vjerujem da ima uvjete za hrvatsko državljanstvo. Ako se odluči na taj korak, Đoković je dobrodošao - rekao je predsjednik Hrvatskog teniskog saveza. ("With regards to his mother being a Croat, I believe he has conditions for a Croatian citizenship. If he decides to make that step, Djokovic is welcomed - said the president of Croatian Tennis Federation")". So I am asking, are those links reliable or not, because it seems to me that this thing is about constant national pest, Serbian in this issue. I am warning that the anonymous user hasn't provided not a single evidence that his father is not Montenegrin and that his mother is not Croatian, except some video where his father is saying; " On je ipak ovde rođen, ovde je živeo, i ovde su mu koreni i porodica, da je odavde poteka, a ne iz Londona ili Pariza.(" He was born here, he lived here, and here are his roots and family, he came from here, and not from London or Paris.")". That interview was given in the light of Novak leaving Serbia to play for Great Britain, this issue was hot in 2006, and that's why there is a mention of London and Paris. Anonymous user is saying that if his father is using woord roots(not to describe himself, but his son), then that means he considers himself a Serb and not Montenegrin. Help please, Thank You. With regards-- Eversman ( talk) 11:062, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Copied from WP:ELN; will notify Eversman. Johnuniq ( talk) 08:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Is http://boxun.us/news/publish regarded a reliable source? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 07:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
All Boxun sourced material (along with World Socialist cites) have been removed from the article. I view neither as reliable souces. Both don't survive the
I know it when I see it test,the
Duck test, and the
Elephant test --
BsBsBs (
talk) 06:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Neutral opinion needed for a website source. An editor in a FAC discussion ( here) claims that the reasoning in the prior discussion was faulty; was it? - Dank ( push to talk) 11:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
This page appears to be a self-published source. What indication is there that Tony Digiulian is a "gun control systems expert"? The book provided is an autobiography by D. Gossman, published by iUniverse, a "self-publishing company" (i.e. vanity press), so it's not clear why his opinion would carry any weight. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent Tony an email (we've been in contact before). Let's see what he has to say and if he knows of any books that (a) have cited him and (b) we have missed. Regards, — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
...[an] advantage that this gives me over the casual reader of well-known reference works is that I have the background and knowledge that allows me spot errors, conflicts, omissions or lack of clarity in these sources so as to be able to meld all the available data together in order to present as accurate a datapage as possible to my readers. This is something that makes my datapages much more than just a random collection of facts.
Hope this isn't considered canvassing, but I consider Blueboar to be the expert par excellence in SPS issues and I've invited him to weigh in here. I have to admit that I drifted off to sleep somewhere around the 100th wiki-wide argument over the meaning of SPS. It would be a shame if Wikipedia's policies were to forbid the use of an irreplaceable source that's widely acknowledged as accurate in the most reliable sources in the subject matter. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we are all missing the point here. We need information that we know can meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:V. Like it or not, navweapons does provide technical information on a scale that you would be hard pressed to find, and as an internet source, everybody with a modem and a computer is in a position to access the site. We must check our figures against other sources, why should this source be any different from our other sources? I fully intend to continue to rely on navweapons regardless of whether this panel rules against the site or not; since the issue seems to be with WP:SPS (no one has yet managed to produce on piece of evidence that the site fails WP:RS or WP:V; the best anyone has come up with so far is human error in translations which are not, strictly speaking, grounds for disqualification of the site) may I suggest that when citing navweapons we adopt a position that a double cite is required to confirm that at least one other source has the same material so as to avoid any issues with SPS in the future. Our navweapons doubters would then have proof the site and a secondary source agree with each other, our navweapons believers would be able to use the site to check figures and confirm information discovered through other means, and wikipedia as a whole would come out ahead by having more citations than necessary for the information present. To me, that's a full victory for all parties involved in this discussion, which goes a long way toward improving moral and productivity on site. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
When I first saw Navweaps during a GA review, I have to admit I thought it had a touch of the amateurish about it, and lets face it; it does. Clearly the author isn’t an expert on the latest trends of web design, but that isn’t something to hold against him or something to use to argue against his ability to condense information presented in other sources. It can be incredibly difficult to reconcile wp:verify with wp:rs sometimes and this looks like one of those cases, but the fact that the website’s data is directly referenced in so many offline sources satisfies me. It is very verifiable (because other reliable sources use it) and I personally think that makes the site as a whole useable. Ranger Steve ( talk) 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Does the Sinodefence.com website meet WP:RS? Mjroots2 ( talk) 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless we know that Sinodefence.com is run by the CIA, MI-6 or the Chinese military-industrial complex, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. It looks like a well put together site, run by people who seem to be interested in the Chinese military.
That they sell books should not disqualify them. Many non-profits run an Amazon bookstore to defray some of the costs. Jane’s sells very expensive books and reports.
The selection of the books appears to be balanced (they have everything vaguely connected with the topic.)
The reporting appears balanced also. Check the comments on the “Hot Spots” and you won’t find the shrill demagoguery from other sources.
Where a server is located doesn’t matter. This is Europe, a free market.
Sinodefence.com is not blocked from China. Apparently, the Chinese government has no issues with them.-- BsBsBs ( talk) 12:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, even if we dropped DOD reports, there are still hundreds of other academic research papers on PLA that uses material from Sinodefence. I'm not saying the source is 100% reliable given the entire PLA study is based on guessing game, but it is fundamental enough in PLA study that it cannot just be ignored. Without context of the citation, all I can say is that use this source should be usable with caution unless better source comes by.
Jim101 (
talk) 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm conceding to the point that Sinodefence is not RS, but I'm very disappointed that in this case it only served to increase
systemic bias within the project. Furthermore, I urge everyone to develop a workable citation tracking method on identifying reliable sources, which is a valid method in academic research writing but fails to work here. It is somewhat unsettling to see an established and the only English source within an underrepresented topic fail WP:RS due to red tapes.
Jim101 (
talk) 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
SinoDefense.com is cited by Reuters [18], Associated Press [19] and The Telegraph. [20] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Folks, this discussion is getting ridiculous, and it's soon approaching WP:LAME candidate status. Disclaimer: I have no dog in this hunt. I know nothing about the Chinese military. I never edited an article about the Chinese military. Disclosure: I live in Beijing, and I like it. Someone explain this to me: The founder of Sinodefence is a special correspondent of Jane's. The Pentagon sees sinodefence worthy of note, so do Reuters, The Telegraph, Bloomberg, and, if the above is true, just about any research paper on the PLA. However, due to some twisted logic, a Wikipedia article is not allowed to cite sinodefence? It must wait until some scribe at Reuters or Bloomberg picks something from sinodefence, then it becomes anointed and quotable? If these harsh requirements would be applied to all WP articles, then we could close WP. I'm a journalist by training. One thing was drummed into me: Go straight to the source. As it's unlikely that the General Staff of the PLA will give us details (and per the above wicked logic, they would not be a reliable source, after all, all governments lie, they would be a primary source, and asking for the launch codes would amount to the dreaded Original Research) Sinodefence is the best we've got. FYI, someone thinks Sinodefence is the PLA. sinodefence redirects to People's Liberation Army. While hairs were split, nobody bothered to look THAT up. Someone better head right over to People's Liberation Army and delete the following sentence: "SinoDefence.com: Leading online source of information and news on China's military power and defence industry, including weapon systems, organisations, doctrines, etc." Come on guys, don't we have better things to do? Or is this an exercise to take the "leading online source" out of the game, so that all articles on the topic can wallow in supposition and mediocrity? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: I have read WP:RS with great interest. I have learned that the only really reliable sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications, but even those come with warnings. I learned that “Mainstream news sources, especially those at the high-quality end of the market, are considered to be generally reliable. However, it is understood that even the most reputable news outlets occasionally contain errors.” I was about to delete about 90 percent of Wikipedia, when I also learned that this is a guideline only, and that I should apply common sense. I read the last sentence with a great amount of relief, because I dreaded seeing so many good articles go. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The current sourcing dispute on Chengdu J-10 over Sinodefence has been resolved by replacing the source with Jane's Information Group. So I presume the discussion is resolved here as well? Jim101 ( talk) 03:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try a real case scenario, the article PF-98 to frame this debate somewhat....
Currently I can find on other RS to confirm the fact that this weapon exists, this weapon is widely used by PLA, and this weapon is capable of defeating all western main battle tanks. Now in order to make this article more complete, I need the weapon's design history, the weapon's functionality, the weapon's performance statistics, and how this weapon is deployed among PLA infantry units. However, given that this weapon did not see any combat, and not important enough for any other sources to pay attention due to the fact it is just a RPG as oppose to a nuke/plane/ship, there are current no information on this weapon from other RS. Now the question is, can I use Sinodefence, which is a notable weapon database on Chinese weapons, to fill the information gap? Jim101 ( talk) 03:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've been away from this for a few days and this is one of the more bizarre arguments I've seen at RSN. From what I can tell,
Squidfryerchef ( talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked this over and this is kind of an odd situation. Unless we get something out of the Seaforth book or a specialist publication we haven't seen yet, the site is anonymously run. On the other hand, there are many books, news articles, and other reports that cite Sinodefence for fact.
In the articles Oralno doba and Marko Živić Show, authored Serbian media sources are being used for citations.
For Oralno doba:
For Marko Živić Show:
While yes, the limitations of Google Translate are to be acknowledged, the content of the citations and the wide use of them in Serbia suggests to me that they are suitable, however I request that a determination be made as to whether or not the Serbian language sources Press Magazin, Blic (newspaper), Kurir, and Politik might be considered reliable enough for citing these articles on Serbian television shows, as English language sources are unavailable. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Plastic Shaman heavily relies on the following source: Armbuster, J.; Beacham, D.; et al. (2005) They Call Us Indians. Göteborg, Sweden. The World in Our Hands ISBN 9789163155185. A search on the ISBN [ [29]] shows up a completely different book. A search on the title and authors names in google books shows no result. One of the only references I found to it here [ [30]] seem to indicate that it is self-published. Is there any reason to accept it as a reliable source? especially where it is being used to make broad general statements about the New Age vs. Indigenous Peoples in the "terminology section", which I would expect to have cited to someone from a more central Cultural Studies position. Thanks for any views or more information about the book and it's reliability. Davémon ( talk) 20:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
General comment, no relation to the book at hand: "Self published" appears to be a popular hammer used to slam a source. We need to exercise caution, and we will need to exercise more. The following is based on more than 30 years in the business:
1.) It may come as a shock that many established publishing houses engage in "vanity printing" - for a price. That price is getting lower as established publishing houses get in trouble. However, it has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, I started writing books as a ghostwriter for famous industry figures. Their books were published with very reputable publishing houses. They went on sale. But large numbers were bought by the company. Unless you know about it, you'll never know.
2.) It seems like ebooks might finally be here. This significantly lowers the monetary threshold for publishing, but does not necessarily lower their quality. Expect increasing numbers of "self published" books.
3.) The trust in the "editorial oversight" of major publishing houses and media outlets is touching, but often undeserved. The lack of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that there is none. Likewise, the existence of a published "editorial oversight" policy doesn't mean that it is observed. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 12:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll repost it if you tell me where. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 15:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
(Edited for brevity and relisted, as no conclusive comments were provided at the recent prior listing)
Is this source, at page 6 therein and titled Arbor Sculpture: If you like I'll Grow You a Mirror, reliable for use to support these 5 statements cited in Tree shaping, currently at citation [38]?
"Richard Reames is an American arborsculptor[38] based in Williams, Oregon, where he manages a nursery, botanical garden, and design studio collectively named Arborsmith Studios.[38]"
(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.[11]) "Since then, this word has been used around the world to refer to the craft in general,[38] to the works of various live woody plant artisans, and to the artisans themselves, including Christopher Cattle,[38]]..."
"Dr. Christopher Cattle is a retired furniture design professor from England.[38]"
"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][38]"
This source is also one of many cited as uses of the terms arborsculpture/arborsculptor as generic terms for the craft and the craftspersons who practice it. Is it also one reliable source for establishing that generic usage?
" Other names for tree shaping include:
arborsculpture[38][43][45][7][8][61][62][10][63][64][41][65][66][67][44]"
Pertinent discussion on the talk page is: Talk:Tree Shaping#Cutting Edge: VWA Newsletter, where one user felt that it was not a reliable source. Duff ( talk) 16:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Are the following sources reliable? Articles include Son of God and Cleopatra VII.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm also dubious about how this Tyndale House is related to the Cambridge site. While tyndalehouse.com does redirect to the college, tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ leads to a description page by Chris Bennett and some FAQs where Mr. Bennett says that he has no qualifications in the area, "except that I'm interested in it, am able to research and to reason for myself, have a reasonable ability to read French, a marginal ability to read German, and can struggle through some Italian and Latin". He also mentions that some of his results contradict published sources. On the other hand, a Chris Bennett has published a scholarly article a similar subject here.-- Slp1 ( talk) 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[40] states "We also provide mirrored space for significant projects from outside Tyndale House:" and includes the Ptolomy dynastic information as one of the significant projects from outside Tyndale House. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't see that. Do we care who Chris Bennett is then? The point being we might want to attribute an opinion to him. Dougweller ( talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I was directed here by editors at WT:HOCKEY ( this was the discussion). www.hockey-reference.com is a website that's used in many hockey FLs and other hockey articles. I used it for my FLC, List of Washington Capitals seasons, where I was told that it might not be a reliable source. Per discussion at WT:HOCKEY, I decided to check with all of you to see what you could come up with. Thanks for the help. -- Nomader ( Talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
On the pages concerning aspartame, editor Verbal ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) objects to the WebMD site's reporting of the funding for a study that exonerates the chemical of all blame [43]. According to Verbal, WebMD is not RS for wikipedia, even though our wikipedia article calls it "the leading health portal in the United States". Can anyone comment please? TickleMeister ( talk) 13:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The source, a reliable one as everyone agrees here now, was used to specify that the study was funded by industry (which it was). Here it is again [ [44] This has absolutely nothing to do with NPOV or FRINGE. TickleMeister ( talk) 14:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at the Gaza flotilla raid article, about whether or not the flotilla's cargo can be described as "humanitarian aid". The sentence in question in the lead used to say "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), was attempting deliver humanitarian aid and building supplies to the Gaza Strip..." (section in question underlined) The sentence now says "The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) was carrying cargo destined for the Gaza Strip..."
The relevant discussion can be found here. In that discussion, another editor wrote that "It is POV to make the statement that the flotilla was bringing in humanitarian aid... I have read them all and do not see a RS that explicitly states the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid." I replied with the following list of source, which I consider to be reliable sources that describe the flotilla as carrying humanitarian aid:
Another editor then chimed in, changing the term to "cargo", and arguing that we shouldn't describe the flotilla as carrying humanitarian aid because "there are plenty of equivalent sources that describe what the ships were carrying and do not describe it as 'humanitarian aid'".
My question: Are any of these reliable sources for the statement that the Gaza flotilla was carrying "humanitarian aid" to the Gaza Strip? Thank you. ← George talk 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the book published by Dr Joseph Mercola a RS for some historical facts about the approval of aspartame? The text sourced is "However, in 1977 a report by the FDA's Jerome Bressler showed that one study, which had led to the approval of the product, had critical scientific flaws." and the the citation is:<ref name="mercola">{{cite book |title=Sweet deception: why Splenda®, Nutrasweet®, and the FDA may be hazardous to your health |pages=p. 40 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=Kd5BH5NNY_gC&lpg=PA262&dq=bressler%20aspartame&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=bressler |author=Joseph Mercola |coauthors=Kendra Degen Pearsall |isbn=0785221794 |year=2006 |publisher=Thomas Nelson Inc}}</ref>
Follow this link [64] to read the citation.
Thanks. This is not a question about the general believability of all Mercola's theories. TickleMeister ( talk) 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
On this book, I think it may count as a primary source, a salvo launched in this controversy. It may still be OK to refer to it with attribution, but we should in preference use sources that stand outside the conflict and describe it. Was the book's appearance reported in the mainstream press? Are there reviews?
Itsmejudith (
talk) 21:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The book is not a reliable source. If you are looking for "historical facts about the approval of aspartame", try this book, The clinical evaluation of a food additive: assessment of aspartame, CRC Press (1996), a collection of academic articles. TFD ( talk) 22:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sticking to my view expressed above: that the book is a primary source. We're not necessarily looking for scientific sources in this article, but we are looking for accounts of the controversy that aren't written by the protagonists. An overview in a science journal, for example, or a feature article in a leading publication for the food industry. If there aren't enough sources to explain how the controversy unfolded, then this article should be merged into aspartame. Itsmejudith ( talk) 07:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Use the book, and attribute clear opinions to the person expressing them, just like any other article. There is no point of view (such as WP:SPOV) which has special precedence because people WP:KNOW something is "fringe." Collect ( talk) 13:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Some editors have expressed concerns over Stephen Neill's work A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707. They are particularly concerned over its discussion of a figure named Ahatallah (see Talk:Ahatallah), which evidently conflicts with their own understanding of the subject. In my mind the book is very clearly a reliable source. Stephen Neill was a professor at the University of Cambridge who had spent many years of his life in India as an Anglican clergyman. A History of Christianity in India, published in two volumes in 1984-1985, is widely considered his magnum opus and is regularly cited in other works on the subject. I found some reviews on JSTOR: one by South Asia scholar Robert Eric Frykenberg in the Journal of Asiatic Studies ( here), and another from the Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London ( here). Obviously the publisher, University of Cambridge Press, is reliable. This is clear cut to my mind, but considering that there has been so much resistance on the talk page I reckon it's best to get some more opinions on it.-- Cúchullain t/ c 13:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
An editor at 2010 China Labour unrest tries to make the point that Chinese state media only initially covered the strikes, and is now suppressing coverage. As missing coverage is hard to prove, the claim is unreferenced. The assertion is also not true, so I strike “initially”. To bolster the argument, I source a Google search that looks for “strike” in the Chinese state media outlets "People's Daily", "China Daily" and "Global Times". The results are self-evident. The editor deletes the reference, saying a Google search is not a reference. My position: It is, if wide coverage or notoriety are to be proven. Alternatively, I could cite a long list of articles from state media, but the Google search is more dynamic. Comments? -- BsBsBs ( talk) 18:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, China Daily and People's Daily's English sites are hardly representative of what goes on with Chinese media on a day-to-day basis. Many stories published in English never make its way to the Chinese sites. No matter how many references you end up stuffing after that sentence, there are reliable sources that say otherwise. Maybe you will then argue that "Western media" is biased against China? Well, all of this is fully backed up by independent U.S.-based Chinese-language news site Duowei. Need I say more? Colipon+( Talk) 21:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Just so everyone here is aware, the section in question currently reads:
I hope that puts things in context. I have tried reverting this user before, but he edit wars. So I've stopped. Hopefully someone else could lend a mediating hand. Colipon+( Talk) 21:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
User BsBsBs also contends this revision, even though it is well-sourced to the Guardian, saying that the original People's Daily article must be referenced. Colipon+( Talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is one thing I will never understand. If I find seven articles about the strike that appeared last Friday alone in China Daily, then it's original research. If I find a quote in People's Daily that talks about "widely-reported mass labor strikes," then it's ok. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 23:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I know. And I'm glad to help out. However, it still strikes me as odd that three annual reports (which must be submitted to the SEC) would not be admitted as a reliable source to correct a blatant lie. Which, by the way, still is on the Guardian, uncorrected. No need to cite the rules, I've read them. Just Sunday musings .... -- BsBsBs ( talk) 09:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Search results are not reliable sources and drawing conclusions from them is original research. Dlabtot ( talk) 13:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
User bsbsbs, if you are concerned about the basics of Wikipedia policy and would like to criticize it, then please go do it at the appropriate venue. This noticeboard is not for that. This noticeboard is for verifying whether or not the Wikipedia community agrees that a source is reliable and can be used to substantiate article content. Now that you've gotten (unanimous) replies from a wide range of users about what the policy is here, I suggest you drop this crusade. Meanwhile, please stop making edits such as this one; more original research, even if it's true. Colipon+( Talk) 16:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot is exactly right; "Search results are not reliable sources and drawing conclusions from them is original research". Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The famous Indian Newspaper The Hindu (see The_Hindu) is called non reliable by anonymous IP in this discussion: [69]. It is clear for anyone that TheHindu is a reliable source, but the IP war-edit on some articles where I mention a controversy reported in this journal (and others). The IP calls TheHindu:"The al-Qaeda monthly", "toilet paper news sources", "pure junk", "stinking pile of goat-feces" etc.
I'm getting tired of these IPs (probably sockpuppets of indef banned user Hkelkar) who have made some articles blocked by war-editing.
Thanks
- TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 17:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Let us be clear here. The Times reporting that Ginger Activists claim David Cameron is a closet gingerist can only be a reliable source for the statement "Ginger Activists claim the UK Prime Minister has an anti-ginger bias". It cannot be a reliable source for the statement "The UK Prime Minister has been shown to have gingerist tendencies." Show us the source that you want to use, and the text you want to source to it, and we can give an opinion. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
OK: I was editing some articles related to
Hemant Karkare and 2008 Mumbai attacks, mentionning the well-known controversy about his death that is developping in India. The above IP, 117.194.198.217 with another sockpuppet 59.160.210.68 then began editwarring by blanking the controversy saying it was irrelevant. I just mentionned the fact that TheHindu was mentionning it again, and then went here for reliability of the source. Now that the source is relaible, which is quite obvious, I will put it in the artivles when they are unblocked. By the way, any sysop to have an eye on these IPS ? The clearly evade 3RR (and are probably sockpuppets of banned user Hkelkar), thanks. -
TwoHorned
User_talk:TwoHorned 22:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
“ | These controversies are found in a 2009 book written by S.M. Mushrif, former IG of Maharashtra and collaborator to Karkare: Who killed Karkare ? [19] and are reinforced by the opening of official investigations in 2010.These controversies take place in India in a general setting, where doubts raise about the incentives behind the exploitation of "communal riots" between hindus and muslims, as there is suspiscion that these riots may find their roots (as well as financial support) in political extremism and agenda coming from outside India. These interrogations raise the suspiscion of active israeli extremism and intelligence backing up some of the triggering of communal riots in India. | ” |
“ | A new book curiously titled Who Killed Karkare? says a nationwide network of Hindutva terror that has its tentacles spread up to Nepal and Israel is out to destroy the India most Indians have known for ages and to remould it into some kind of Afghanistan under the Taliban. | ” |
[72].
Based purely on what is written in this section (without checking anything), I have to say that 117.194.198.21 is making a lot of sense. In the wonderful 21st Century, one can find a book to promote any crackpot idea, and before asserting the aliens did it we should digest WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
@ First Light: there are a lot of such articles, both in the Hindu and elsewhere; for instance: [74] - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Am from India, and a regular reader of the Hindu and their magazine Frontline. The Hindu group of publications are pro-leftists(communists) and most of their articles are pro china and anti India. I do not know with regard to which context you are debating, but understood, whther Hindu is reliable source or not. Communists and the Hindutva parties like BJP are arch rivals, and The Hindu, and Frontline, is mostly made of anti India, anti BJP articles. They came up with a article of bashing the Tibetans and India, and supporting china some 7 years back. Get hold of some articles from Frontline, so people could make judgement on their own. 27.57.5.2 ( talk)
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070305054023AA1GxZJ Fyodor7 ( talk)
“ | Just where untamed emotion can take a vulnerable people ready to believe the worst was demonstrated after the Mumbai terror attacks when Union Minister Abdur Rahman Antulay alleged a Hindutva terror plot behind the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and fellow officers Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. The terror attacks had played out live on 24-hour television; the government had in its possession compelling evidence to establish the Pakistani identity of the assassins. But for Mr. Antulay, the fact that Karkare and his fellow officers were found in the same spot bespoke of a conspiracy. He voiced his suspicions in the Lok Sabha: Who was the mysterious caller who directed them to the Cama hospital when the action was at the Taj Mahal hotel?
Soon Mr. Antulay was joined by others. The Urdu press bought the story wholesale as did Muslim community leaders and politicians. The campaign seemed about to spiral out of control when the government acted with uncharacteristic speed and intelligence. It fielded Home Minister P. Chidambaram to present its case. Which Mr. Chidambaram did — without melodrama or emotion. His minute-by-minute account of the whereabouts of the three officers, complete with details of who called whom, silenced Mr. Antulay and the swelling numbers of sceptics. Had the government not done this, the Hindutva theory would have been echoing in seminar rooms and political rallies, leading to a potentially explosive situation. |
” |
59.160.210.68 ( talk) 10:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, since most of your section was footnoted to it, that's more to the point. I'd say not, but it might be notable if it has had a mainstream impact. Paul B ( talk) 12:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone tell me if the following are suitable as sources for use in Mass killings under Communist regimes
I ask as some edits using these sources have been reverted out with the edit summary, rv poorly sourced and disagrees with reliable sources mark nutley ( talk) 14:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
This is akin to every single political article on WP -- the Black Book is RS for opinions, as all political articles are founded in opinion. For statements of fact, I have seen no one show that facts are mis-stated in it. It is no less RS than other such sources. The non-profit foundation is RS also for opinions about communism. It amuses me to see some say that books which agree with what they WP:KNOW are RS, while any which disagree are, perforce, not RS <g>. Collect ( talk) 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The Black Book of Communism is clearly a reliable source. Anybody who challenges it multiple times, even after it has been discussed here multiple times, should take a wikibreak. As Wikipedia:RSEX#History advises websites from non-professional historians should be used with caution. But given that the Victims of Communism organization was set up by the US government its hard to say they have a non-mainstream view. They have a POV and I believe it should be heard as one of several. BTW Wikipedia:RSEX#History gives advice in an essay and is not policy, so it should also be used with caution. Smallbones ( talk) 01:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I was going on the Harvard univ. press publisher, but since reviewers have said that the quality of chapters varies then each chapter should be judged on its merits, i.e. the qualifications and academic standing of the author. Not on any perception of the political stance, unless an argument is put that the writing is "extremist" in the sense we use here. Some wise things were said by some knowledgeable editors on the previous occasion that this source was discussed, worth consulting the archive. Still waiting for Collect to clarify that s/he was not accusing me of making judgements for political reasons. Itsmejudith ( talk) 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm soliciting input on the book, The Creature from Jekyll Island. The primary question here is whether it can serve as a reliable source from which to insert economic criticisms into an article. Specifically, the book is currently being used to characterize "the banking system" (through it's criticisms of banks such as the Bank of England). The article currently holds this assertion:
G. Edward Griffin has written that a fractional-reserve based banking system is inherently destructive and inevitably generates debasement of the currency, extreme inequality or periodic crises; Griffin, G. Edward. The Creature from Jekyll Island, Fourth edition, Chapter 9, "The Secret Science", pp. 171-184. American Media, 2002. ISBN 978-0-912986-39-5
More generally, it might good to ask a second question. Can this book can serve as a reliable source broadly ... whether it is likely useful for supporting any characterizations that have relevance to parties outside of the author himself?
A previous AfD may hold some helpful insight here, as well. Not to overly bias the discussion, but here's one discussion of the book's content -- [78] BigK HeX ( talk) 22:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the OPUS first citation enough credibility to get the notice alerts off of the page? MythMe23 ( talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The first news source - here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPUS_Archives_and_Research_Center The cred alert on the page - can it be deleted now? MythMe23 ( talk) 23:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If an article says something to the effect of "Respectable academic X has made statement Y in fancy academic context Z", would a YouTube video of X saying Y in Z qualify as a reliable source? Eugene ( talk) 18:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If someone grabbed a clip from the Foo Show and put it on Youtube, a copyright violation is perpetrated. However, that copyright violation is between the violator and the holder of the copyright. As long as its a true copy, the copyright violation does not denigrate the source. If you make a photocopy of a page of a book ( I know, fair use, maybe ..) you can cite it. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Youtube videos are generally not reliable, and should be avoided. They are also, as appears to be the case here, primary sources, which raises a whole set of other issues (e.g. WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE). Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any good reason for this not to be an RS. If it was an official transcript of a conference there would be no issue, and a video is equally as authentic. However, for other reasons, I don't think it is suitable for use in the article. As has been said above, it is a matter of common courtesy for the chair of a panel like this to say nice things about the invited speakers. It is not, therefore, a notable opinion. It fails WP:N and is also WP:SELFPUB, because the statement is really made on behelf of the conference the speaker is representing, as is likely to be self-serving. You wouldn't expect her to say: "To be honest, he was the fourth person we asked and he's not a great speaker, but please give him a chance". -- FormerIP ( talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)