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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
On three other forums these questions have come up: If the FBI does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"? If The New York Times does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"?
Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source :
I don't see anything in this which says that when the FBI does an interview of Dr. X, the FBI is the "primary source," but when the New York Times does an interview of Dr. X, Dr. X is the "primary source."
That is the claim on other discussion pages.
In response to the "too many quotations." tag. I disagree with the placement here. That specific section does not contain too many quotations, although other sections do (especially the comments from X stuff, which should be removed). I have therefore removed the tag. @Edlake, Instead of quoting somebody you can paraphrase them if needed. Yoenit ( talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Cs32en - As discussed at length, the newspaper articles I listed are brief, often totally wrong and nearly worthless as "information." The SECONDARY source, i.e., the DOJ/FBI's Summary report is the complete version that the newspaper reporters were attempting to summarize. EdLake ( talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yoenit - I'm not positive by what you mean about "X stuff," but I think you have no idea how controversial some of this stuff is. Any attempt to delete things will bring an UPROAR from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers who have dominated the postings to this article for YEARS. EdLake ( talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the discussion page for the article about the anthrax attacks, you'll see someone tried to delete the section about the "Chile letter." But it was put back. It was then deleted again, and it was put back again. It remains, even though it has NOTHING to do with the article - other than that some people think it does.
There's also a section about Dr. Philip Zack. As far as I can tell, Zack was only considered to be a "suspect" by neo-Nazis because they thought he was a Jew. (He's acually a Catholic.). Plus, the links in the section are either meaningless or they point to Dr. Assaad, not Zack. Delete it at your own risk. EdLake ( talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the web site Watts Up With That run by Anthony Watts a usable source for Watts opinion? Specificly this edit [1] which has been edited out? mark nutley ( talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Forgot to say this was discussed before and consensus at that time was it was ok to use for Watts opinion [2] mark nutley ( talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Points 1 to 3 are irrelevant here, as the source is only used to support he said something. I don't see a problem with the last two, so yes it is a reliable source for his opinion. Yoenit ( talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The link presented seems to be to a discussion about a totally different topic. Could I ask Yoenit how far his proposed principle goes - if I were to start blogging, could someone insert my opinion about any and every wikipedia article just by putting "Hipocrite blogged x" in front of all my opinions when editing them into wikipedia pages? My understanding was that blogs were not acceptable sources unless they were otherwise reliable - are they now acceptable sources if we just write "according to (random blog)" in any article? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors, per WP:SPS. I don't see any valid objections to using this source in the manner that it is. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is not even remotely about Mr. Watts. It has zero relation to Mr. Watts. He is not the author of the video, nor is he in the video. His relation to the video is that he commented on the video. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I am being quoted (or rather, quote-mined) let me clarify things: yes, WUWT is a reliable source for Watts' opinion - in a place like Anthony Watts (blogger). When the article is about Watts, his blog can be used. But it's not a "reliable source" for factual information - Watts is not an expert in this context. Guettarda ( talk) 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Can we all get a grip? The subject of this article, up for AfD, is a non-notable here today gone tomorrow Internet meme. But just say for a minute it was a published movie. Then would a review of it on a blog be RS? Probably not. We look for reviews in the mainstream outlets. The argument that an SPS is RS for someone's view comes up here fairly often, but nearly always when the SPS is written by the subject of a biography. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just confirming is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online considered a reliable and acceptable source for articles that are Roman Catholic related? [3] LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Article:
The Last Airbender
Disputed source:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Last-Airbender-Has-A-Total-Budget-Of-280-Million-19238.html
Section it is sourcing:
[4]
My problem with this reference is that it uses an LA Times article as its source for the information which is already used as a reference in the article. I consider the Cinema Blend article wholly unnecessary since it is second-hand information, which we are already obtaining directly from the original source. Apart from being pointless, using second-hand references is often considered bad form and articles are much stronger when the original sources can be used. In my view the Cinema Blend article should only be used in the case of where the LA Times article is unavailable. I would like to know your opinion on whether it is acceptable for the CB reference to remain or whether it would be better to come out. Thanks. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Much substantive content is being added to the article, and a lot of it is based upon first-person accounts, as told to, and recorded by a witness to and self-described private researcher and archivist of the event [5]. An overview from objective contributors would be welcome. JNW ( talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
After 6 years of being correctly identified in the article, User:Malik Shabazz, ( WP:COI), has decided to change the book's authorship, as he prefers Malcolm X to be listed as the author, rather than Alex Haley. I corrected the article, a second time, and inserted a reference, which Malik Shabazz promptly removed. Mk5384 ( talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for a 3rd opinion, as suggested. However, I'm concerned that it will be filled with comments like the one above. Those unfamiliar with the subject may, quite naturally, assume that, as it is an "autobiography", it only makes sense that Malcolm X wrote it. As far as a reliable source, I did provide it. Malik Shabazz promptly removed it. Mk5384 ( talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"Here's a scholarly source: [9]
Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley... Malcolm X told the story of his life to Alex Haley in a series of interviews that took place over a period of nearly two years. Malcolm read the text of the Autobiography, approving and correcting the chapters as Haley wrote them, although he did not live to see the last revisions made in the manuscript. Evidence both internal and external to the Autobiography suggests that Haley kept to the agreement he made with Malcom -- to include nothing Malcolm had not said and to say everything Malcolm wanted included.
That pretty much settles it, in my opinion. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)"
One way to resolve bibliographic problems like this is to consult a major library to see how they handle it. They are supposed to be the experts at bibliographical picky-pickies. The Library of Congress lists the author as Malcolm X. Zero talk 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the sources I see above are citing the title of the book, which includes the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley". These are not sources referring to the book as written by Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley. -- GabeMc ( talk) 01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are five scholarly sources who use the phrase "co-authored by Alex Haley":
GabeMc ( talk) 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are five scholarly sources who refer to Haley as a co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
GabeMc ( talk) 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley". [20] [21]"--Mailk Shabazz 20:13, 23 June 2010
but Malik Shabaz said this when he reverted good faith edits by GabeMc, "Amazon isn't a WP:RS" [22] GabeMc ( talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The three scholarly sources above 1 2 3 are actually foot-notes citing the title, not using the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley" in a DESCRIPTIVE sentence. They are not describing the book that way, they are including the phrase as part of the title. According to the Library of Congress the "main title" is officially "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." That is the title of the book, not the author, editor, or publisher giving credit.-- GabeMc ( talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your sources are not attributing authorship, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is PART OF THE TITLE.-- GabeMc ( talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like you have three recitations of the title while I have over 10 WP:RS referring to Haley as the co-author. -- GabeMc ( talk) 02:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are ten MORE sources that refer to Haley as the co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X-- GabeMc ( talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not a contest of who can find the most reliable sources. This discussion was started because an editor wanted to credit Haley as the main author, a position nobody seems to be defend anymore. It shifted to whether Haley should be called a "co-author" or an "assistant", which is a downright lame discussion. I have little doubt hunderds of sources are available to support both views, so linking all of those is not gonna solve anything. The best authority on the subject are probably the big libraries, which don't seem to support Haley as a co-author. I would therefore propose to keep Malcom as the author with Haley as an assistant, but include that Haley has also been called a co-author with a reliable source (preferably one that also discusses the controversy in question). Yoenit ( talk) 12:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Malik, I am curious, why are your three sources better then my 20? And one more time I will explain why I think you seem so confused, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is a phrase FROM THE TITLE OF THE BOOK so your sources are good if you want to confirm the title, nothing more. This is beginning to feel like a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." -- GabeMc ( talk) 00:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago all give Alex Haley an author credit on the Autobiography.
-- GabeMc ( talk) 03:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So far, no source has asserted that Alex Haley wrote the book and Malcolm X didn't. Ergo the article would be wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Alex Haley. At the same time, all sources assert that Alex Haley played a large part in the authorship of the book. Many even describe him as the co-author. So it would be equally wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Malcolm X. This is not a reliable source dispute, this is a content dispute about the precise form of words to be used to describe a book which was written by two people. You should go back to the content page, and decide between
If necessary, hold an RfC.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm expanding several historic browsers with User:Mabdul such as Agora (web browser) and Arena (web browser). I've contacted the original authors of the browsers via email, and they've responded with certain information that isn't in any book, nor on the web. How would I cite an email? Should I foward the email to OTRS and then cite it with the OTRS ticket? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if I were to send a list of questions to a software's original author, and they responded, would that be considered WP:OR? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting case. William Connolley is both a notable person and an editor here on Wikipedia, User:William M. Connolley. Connolley created a blog post as the result of an article dispute which he is involved in. Now that blog post is being cited (by a different editor) in the article (but for non-controversial information). His blog is obviously reliable for the opinions of Connolley, but I don't know if it's appropriate. I have some WP:CIRCULAR and WP:COI concerns, not to mention the fact that a Wikipedia editor specifically created the blog post as a response to the article. I honestly don't know enough about Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make an informed decision.
William M. Connolley on his personal blog said of the video, "It wasn't funny, it was dull."
Can we have some uninvolved editors weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
In Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island) a reference to a review in what seems to be a reliable source ( Baltic Astronomy) of an unreliable source ( New England Antiquities Research Association Journal). Does a review in a reliable source suddenly turn that article into a reliable source? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. This looks odd. Why is a peer-reviewed astronomy journal reprinting an article that appeared earlier in NEASA? Has BA previously published any articles in archeoastronomy? Or are they simply picking something up because it looks interesting? Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been redirecting non-notable stubs about Space Invaders sequels and spin-offs to List of Space Invaders video games. One of the last ones on my list is Space Invaders Trilogy. However, I've hit a snag looking for a reliable source to add it to the list. The article currently doesn't provide any link that I think would meet WP:RS. About the only good source I found is this page on TechRepublic, which is owned by CBS Interactive. I've never used TechRepublic before and would like to know if this qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
A question has arisen about Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog for use in Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please review this diff, this source and Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#The_Gaggle and provide assistance. It would be nice if the climate change standard parties would not respond here, thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Given all of this, is it then the opinion of the uninvolved editors here that Newsweek's "The Gaggle" blog is a reliable source in this context? Hipocrite ( talk) 10:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::I agree that it is a reliable source. I do not agree that the attribution should be to Newsweek as it is in (at least) the first diff, ie articles should not say 'Newsweek' says, but the atribution should be to the author of the blog, adding that it is in Newsweek. WP:NEWSBLOG makes this clear: "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe this New York Observer article settles the question definitively, as it describes the editorial regime for "The Gaggle": [45] It's edited by Newsweek's senior editors. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Is sho-shin a reliable source? How about the Nihonto Club; is it a reliable source? For instance this text. I'd also like to make use of other texts on swordsmiths/swords (for instance to connect the signature with the name of a smith and his province) which can be accessed through the meisearch for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords). However I'd like to know if it can be considered reliable before I delve into it. bamse ( talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious, would http://www.nbadraft.net be considered a reliable source? It contains some good mock drafts and scouting notes on future NBA players. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
At Manchester United F.C.'s recent archived FAC, one thing that came up was that apparently some of our sources were unreliable. The sources in question were: unitedkits.co.uk, historicalkits.co.uk and prideofmanchester.co.uk. All of these sources are essentially fansites, but are excellently maintained and THE place to go to find out information on kits. They were used to reference manchester united's past kits. Anyway, I have been down to the Manchester United museum to check that the information is correct. So my question is, shall I just replace all the sources, or use the manchester united museum as an additional source and if so, how should I do this? Just add a footnote explaining that the sources have been checked at the Manchester United museum or add additional inline citation wherever one of these sites was used? Thanks, Tom 81.159.216.106 ( talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Mining Meaning from Wikipedia [56] Any idea of if this is a Reliable source for Wikipedia Related info? Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In 2003-2005 "Finese and Runway" formed, gaining notoriety as an Avant-Garde Perfromance art band. The members consisted of Dino "Runway" Felipe, Melba "Finesse" Payes, Jenny-Tambourines and Conceptual Visual/Performance Artist Belaxis Buil( www.BelaxisBuil-PerformanceArt.com). The trio was known for provocative and invasive shows that pushed boundaries as " visceral work"( http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2004-09-23/music/hott-people&page=1). Dino Felipe and Melba Payes later went to perform in Paris. Belaxis Buil continued to develop her own work which has gained international recognition. Rumors of upcoming albums and performances hold fans in suspense...as it is part of the concept with " Finese and Runway"
I would like to add football player profiles from www.transfermarkt.co.uk to the external links section of footballers wikipedia profiles.
Example: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/frank-lampard/profil/spieler_3163.html
The transfermarkt database is used by many scouts, player agents and managers all over the world as a source for performance data of all sorts of players. (It covers over 80 leagues worldwide with dynamic (statistical) match reports)
It has detailed information about pretty much every player in professional football.
I have been referred to the reliable sources section to have this site considered a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius ( talk • contribs) 11:46, June 30, 2010
Ah ok, I didn´t know that. How would I provide this evidence? I see soccerbase links to almost all player profiles - they are similar, but (in my opinion) not as detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius ( talk • contribs) 12:34, June 30, 2010
The following sources are being used in the info box demonym field for Northern Ireland:
Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.
Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster.
The sources are used as follows:
In particular:
A related question that may invite comment here is whether any of these sources are suitabile to support "British" as demonym for Northern Ireland. --RA ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) / Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(Additional info: my own view is that all of these sources are reliable, I sourced each of them. However the question is being raised persistently and a number of editor have suggested taking it here for a 3rd opinion. --RA ( talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
I added in a new source above, number 4, and gave the reason why i was told it wasn't relelvant or acceptable despite the same people allowing a source that went against the reasons they gave me; it didn't state demonymn, despite the fact its a poll on how people identify themselves as, which technically is what a demonymn is suppossed to be. Whilst it is only a poll of 1,000 people, it does show a considerable percentage of people identifying themselves as "British" above "Northern Irish". This shows that in the real world people identify as British as well as Northern Irish and Irish. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There are allegations on the web that the Joyce Foundation (a well known anti gun group with deep pockets) essentially bought an issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review in order to publish material favorable to its position. The Law Review was required to use an outside editor (Carl Bogus) with close ties to the Joyce Foundation who was responsible for accepting what articles went into that issue. The authors were also paid $5,000 each when normally a law review can't afford to pay authors for articles. They tend to be shoe string operation.
Now the question: Would this issue be considered "self-published" as the content was under the full control of Joyce and not the normal law review staff? The issue is used in the Second Amendment article as a "reliable source"
Below are comments found on the web on this issue of the Review.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/
In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php
Why would I say Joyce is at it again? Well, in 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review issued a similar symposium issue. A bit of inquiry found ... well, let me give you background first. Law reviews are run on a shoestring. They're edited by students themselves, and very proud of that tradition. Editors get paid a pittance (I got $600 a year back in 1975), and authors of articles never, never, get paid.
A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722
But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.
“No effort was made to include the individual right point of view,” its organizer, Carl T. Bogus, a Roger Williams University School of Law professor, wrote in one of several law review articles stemming from the symposium. “Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium. Sometimes one point of view requires greater illumination.”
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1112820316.shtml
Was Chicago-Kent at Fault for Publishing This Symposium? Here I think the answer is probably yes. Chicago-Kent, and the journal it publishes, purports to be an academic institution committed to the pursuit of truth. It is not an advocacy group, and it publishes an academic law review that benefits from the perception that it is not an advocacy journal. By mounting a deliberately one-sided symposia it did a disservice to its readers, its academic community, and most especially to its students who were free to attend what was a deliberately one-sided conference.
I also think that accepting funds from a foundation that limits the participants to those holding a particular view is in conflict with its mission as an academic institution. If the Joyce Foundation limited participation to one side of this academic dispute, or if Chicago-Kent did not bother to know that this money could only be spent to fund one side of the dispute, then it made a serious mistake. There are indications that the Joyce Foundation refuses to have any dissenting voices included in its programs. Indeed, it is reported to have protested the appearance at Chicago-Kent of a pro-individual rights speaker within a few weeks of its symposium. The Joyce Foundation also supports the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State. When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its academic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain separate funding to permit that to happen. I took that as an indication that Joyce does put strings on its funding. (David Hardy quotes and links to the mission statement of the Joyce Foundation here.)
But there is a big difference between the work product of an individual scholar, and the collective work product represented by a symposium sponsored by an academic institution like Chicago-Kent. This issue not only is weaker intellectually than it might have been, but it falsely suggests a uniformity of opinion on the subject it examines. Since the symposium was open to Chicago-Kent students, I wonder if they were informed that the program was deliberately designed to be one-sided. Aren't students (or readers of the law review) entitled to know that they are being provided a deliberately biased stream of information? Here I think the fault and discredit lies entirely with the academic institution. 71.184.184.238 ( talk) 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your time and effort. Assuming my last comment above won't change any views, I placed snippets of the above on the Second Amendment talk page. Please check and make any additional comments if you believe those snippets don't cover the above faithfully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Chicago_Kent_problem_issue 71.184.184.238 ( talk) 20:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Im looking for opinions on if this chart should be included or not or if it has been previously discussed with a verdict reached. The main article is this; Crowley Broadcast Analysis. It was created today and i got into somewhat of an edit war with an editor who created the article claiming it has passed and/or is allowed but no reference was provided. Anywho what is you take on it. The only Brazilian Chart im aware of that is allowed in articles is the Singles with a specific magazine as a reference. Crowley Broadcast Analysis isnt discussed at WP:GOODCHARTS or WP:BADCHARTS. (CK)Lakeshade✽ talk2me 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
These recent edits to the article Noley Thornton by 219.78.50.246 ( talk · contribs) are only cited to the IMDb. I'm given to understand that, as a user-submitted resource (akin to Wikipedia itself) it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, I can't find any corroboration of these films (and their association with Ms. Thornton) at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, nor can Google find anything immediately reliable ( [58], [59], [60], and [61]). Given the unreliability and uncorroboration of this information, I'm inclined to revert the IP, but I'd like to check myself first before doing so. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The article section I'm composing is a fact, but I can't find a much more reliable source... Can this link be a good reference for Nina Girado#Voice??? - http://www.casttv.com/video/rxgk561/how-other-artists-describe-the-asia-s-soul-siren-nina-asap-sessionistas-at-the-araneta-video Kristelzorina ( talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not resolved, Atmoz i request you self revert mark nutley ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC) S Citizen and Stoat Both are blogs by William Connolley and are used to rebutt statements about Roger A. Pielke criticisms on the IPCC seen here [65] I had tagged them as unreliable but WMC reverted the tags out, i put them back but Count Iblis has now reverted them out, and has not bothered to go to the talk section, [66] so i figure i`d ask here mark nutley ( talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Stoat is a blog. Scitizen isn't.
Not also that the RP stuff being rebutted is... from exactly the same source: scitizen [In [[blog]] posts, [[Roger A. Pielke]] contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned global warming.<ref name="PielkeIPCC">{{cite web|last=Pielke (sr.)|first=Roger A.|title=The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest|url=http://scitizen.com/climate-change/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest_a-13-1108.html|publisher=Scitizen|accessdate=30 June 2010}} (also see links therein)</ref>]. I've pointed the inconsistency of this to MN, but he won't listen. Note also MN's attempts fake this as a BLP issue: the comments are not on RP but on RP's comments William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is half the article a lengthy quote from a blog post? That's the real question here. Using SPSs to answer other SPSs is an appropriate use for them. But the real question is why? If Pielke hasn't bothered to convert this into a real publication in the last two years, why is it so notable that it dominates his bio? Guettarda ( talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, this mirror could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. Ukabia... tark 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Is a blog post by William Connolley [67] a reliable source for statements about Roger A. Pielke. It is used here [68] Sorry to have to ask this again but the above discussion was closed before the issue with this blog was resolved mark nutley ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't link William's blog here. Incidentally, amidst all the concern for blogs and BLP, can anyone tell me why we should link Roger Pielke's blog in the same paragraph? After all, Pielke's blog post is used to disparage the integrity of individuals on the IPCC panel, which is also BLP material. I'd suggest removing the entire paragraph - both that sourced to Pielke's blog and that sourced to William's blog. MastCell Talk 03:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Or it the whole thing a house of cards? -- Lexein ( talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just following the guidelines here. WP:RS states -- Twitter, facebook. myspace "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." can be used., which is the case here. Countless celebs are quoted from their twitter here such as Courtney Love
based on information from her Twitter account. I reverted, but the IP editor says that WP:RS says that information from self-published material can be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? It was always my understanding that primary sources were not considered reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an important issue that is going to recur so can we please have more opinions. Summary:
My opinion is that such "by the way" Twitter posts should not be regarded as reliable because there is no way to judge whether the author is making some joke, or speaking in some metaphorical sense ( "I am a Berliner"). Further, the statement could be simply wrong and might have been corrected a month later (for example, many celebrities would have a staffer write at least some of their public statements, and a stand-in staffer might have been confused). Also, if a fact can only be sourced to a tweet, that fact is probably not very significant and has no place in an encyclopedia. (BTW, the "WP:TWITTER" shortcut was recently removed, although the redirect is still there.) Johnuniq ( talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the reference to Twitter with this article. However, this was reverted (back to the pre-Armenian text), stating that "web articles using twitter as source material are not reliable sources either." Can someone enlighten me as to why that article isn't reliable? I checked the about us part of their website, and they have writers and an editor, and I can't find anything to suggest they have a poor reputation. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have contributed text to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition page but have had one of the contributed arguments for prohibition removed here on the basis that it does not, in the view of another editor, quote from a reliable source. I am hereby looking for advice on the source.
Obviously debates regarding ‘Arguments for and against drug prohibition’ will not be found in peer-reviewed journals because such a debate is not scientific research as such, although it will rely on surveys that are done by reputable organizations. However this debate is found mainly in the political realm as well as between opposing drug advocacy organizations, particularly between drug prevention organizations and drug legalization organizations.
I have added an argument which appears on Australia’s official drug debate website, which is the ‘Drugtalk’ e-mail listserver operated by the peak body representing almost all Australian drug and alcohol organizations, ADCA. The listserver claims 350 participants (see http://ndsis.adca.org.au/e_list.php) who contribute to ongoing debates about national and international drug policy. This debate listserver has its own administrator and is fully archived, accessible via password from the Drugtalk administrator. I therefore would argue that the text I have contributed to this Wikipedia page is from a reliable source, from an appropriate organization that is constantly involved in the drug prevention advocacy area, and which is accessible on the internet as per Wikipedia policy.
I have cited the argument below, which is contributed by the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose name appears under this argument on the Drugtalk listserver. The text reads:
Interested in other observations on this one. Minphie ( talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am contemplating adding a small amount of text to the Safe injection site page which refers to important correspondence which is in the public domain between the Medical Director of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) and the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose critique of the MSIC's evaluations has chiefly driven the Parliamentary debate in Australia. One of the two major political parties in that country claim they will close the facility if voted into power at the 2011 election. The NSW Liberal party has relied heavily on the Drug Free Australia critique of the injecting room, which was done in 2007 by a team from Drug Free Australia which included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine specialist and social researchers who have between them been published in more than 20 top peer-reviewed medical journals on related drug or medical foci.
This correspondence between the two organizations, which is reproduced in full, is sourced from the bulletin board run by the peak body for drug and alcohol organizations in Australia, ADCA which links 1,000 professionals from those organizations within Australia. Called the 'Update' bulletin board, it is administered by an ADCA Adminstrator and is fully archived and accessible via password from the Administrator. The correspondence was posted on the bulletin board because it was of national and indeed international importance.
The correspondence is important because it is the only known source for a claim, by the injecting room's Medical Director, that their own 2003 injecting room evaluators had overstated the number of heroin users in the area surrounding the injecting room. While this argument is cited somewhat obtusely by Parliamentarians in a parliamentary debate about the injecting room, the accuracy of the statement can be better evaluated via a short quote directly from this public domain correspondence from that national bulletin board.
I would like advice on the appropriateness of this source. Minphie ( talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I've previously raised the issue of pifeedback.com not being a reliable source here in May. [69] However, the single response I got has been challenged by another editor who thinks it merits wider discussion, [70] so here we are again. The pifeedback.com internet forums are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites, [71] [72] [73] and there are currently 283 links to the site from multiple articles. Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source to me. Comments would be greatly appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
From: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes
Do you mind me asking a simple question: What is BEST for the articles on Wikipedia in these situations, in your opinion? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- I wish I could give a simple answer. I'd never really looked into tvbythenumbers until relatively recently and had let additions to articles slide by. Since there's no definite consensus you can probably use tvbythenumbers but expect the information to be challenged and, if there's a better source available, use it. Pifeedback is definately out though. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- My point is that there are no better sources other than these two, whether reliable or not. Particularly for Ghost Whisperer here, we have no other sources. What would be best for wikipedia in this case would be to keep the sourced ratings, whether reliable or not. Using this method would therefore allow different perspectives of both sources be challenged by the reader only. Presenting the source for them to click on to directly lead to where we have taken the information from can allow the reader to determine if they think it is reliable. In this situation, it is not neccesary for Wikipedia to interfere with the judgements of its readers. Sourcing the information in no different manner than usual, meaning in no special way, or a neutral way, we do not impose whether they should or should not endorse the source where we have gotten the information from. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- If you're going to cite WP:IAR as a reason for ignoring core policies such as WP:V then you should make sure that you follow the links in its single sentence. The first of these, " improving" states, "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". -- AussieLegend ( talk) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The precise wording of WP:V is: "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". It would be best to use common sense and allow good contributions; being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings, therefore not improving the article in any way. We are not misleading the user in anyway when we predent the pifeedback.com source because the information is clearly there. But that is my opinion, which obviously differs from an averae Wikipedia user. Because of this, we should allow the source and have the reader be able to determine if it is reliable or not, therefore ignoring WP:V and making a dangerous assumption. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Improving wikipedia would be to provide the ratings. And the only sources for them are these two. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- I'm not sure what words of that are yours and what are quotes but, regarding "being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings", ratings aren't sourced if the source is not reliable. If the only sources you have are not reliable, then the information shouldn't be in the article and if you put it in, it can be removed. If you persist in restoring information that has been removed because it's poorly sourced you might end up blocked. You really need to think about whether it's worth losing your editing rights. People have been blocked for far less. I really have to take issue with claims that the ratings are only available from two unreliable sources. Where are they getting them from? They must be available from somewhere. If they're not, then the claims aren't credible. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- He does claim to get them somewhere. But I try to search on Google, Bing, Dogpile, exc. for them, but I don't find anything. The point I am tryign to make is: If it is reliable or not, leave it. When someone wants to see where we got the information from, they click the link and decide for themselves if the sources are reliable. Its simple and resolves the dispute over this issue by Ignoring the rules. And, by the way, since season 2 and 3? is not sourced at all (before your edits and now), we should remov them completely, unless you disagree? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- Sorry, I thought I'd already replied but I got side-tracked with another discussion and some vandal fighting. After much research, I can accept the tvbythenumbers refs, only because there is no consensus as to its status as a reliable source. However, in the discussions that I've initiated at WP:RSN, there is absolutely no support for pifeedback.com and, as it's a forum, it clearly falls into the category of WP:SPS, meaning the information from there can't be included in the article. We don't add information assuming that readers will be able to follow links so they can decide whether or not a source is reliable. If it's not reliable, it doesn't go in. As Wikipedia:Editing policy says, "a lack of information is better than misleading or false information— Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." As for the uncited information from season 2 & 3, yes, that should be gone. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the discussion you initiated, there is only you, some other guy, and me. Honestly, that isn't a consensus. As WP:IAR, doing what is best for Wikipedia, is what is right for Wikipedia. In oder to be fair(er?) I will quote some materal from you and I here at the discussion you have started. I'll also ask some people to ontribute to the discussion (without telling them to side with me or you). I'll just give them the link and kindly ask for any feedback they would like to give. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I did notice that LA Times do line up with Pifeedback also. And here, I agree with Betty Logan, using the LA times in most cases where we know for a fact that is a reliable source and then using Pifeedback's for the rest with a citation flag sounds fair to me. I do agree with Delarious about people not checking ratings once its published in an article. Many articles state "This show had 5.5 million viewers" one day, the following week there is a more precise number such as 5.48. Its a matter of whether or not you are using prose to explain the ratings or if you have an episode table, in which case the later would be better fit with the precise number. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop. I was pointed at this discussion from my talkpage. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
As a response to Hipocrite, this is being discussed because WP:IAR states to do what is best for WIkipedia. In this case, we should use the source and allow the reader to determine themselves if the Pifeedback source is reliable or not, after using the LA Times article where possible. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
(Comment requested by ChaosMaster16) There is ABC Medianet, they get there ratings directly from Nielsen and is owned by ABC a trustworthy outlet. But there listings are often incomplete, hard to find, a week after the fact and lacks a bunch of channels. TV by the Numbers gets there ratings sometimes from Nielsen but other posts from Travis Yanan in which they link to his blog and his twitter account as source. His twitter account often links to his post on Pitfeedback, so that would confirm the user. If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback. The best I found from on Nielsen's website is the last week top 10 which is very limited and doesn't seem to have backlog, which would make citing this useless. Nielsen Wire doesn't seem to put concise ratings on the website, with exception of the once in a while top 10 of the month. I frankly don't understand why Nielsen Media Research doesn't just put the ratings on there website like BARB does in the UK. If they do I haven't found it and no-one on wikipedia seems to have either since I haven't seen a single citation to a website from Nielsen for a rating. Currently ABC Medianet is accepted and used for back-in-the-day-shows, TV by the Numbers for recent shows. If TV by the Numbers is globally used and accepted as a good source and it uses Travis Yanan as a source then Pitfeedback should be considered just as good as a source. Does Nielsen post the ratings somewhere users can find them? If so I find it weird that they would be used pretty much nowhere over third party sources such as TV by the Numbers, Pitfeedback, etc. where does the LA Times post the ratings? Deliriousandlost names nielsenmedia.com but that website doesn't load for me. Xeworlebi ( talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: Can someone link to this magical LA Times that keeps getting mentioned? Or another source that is considered reliable? I for one have only seen three sources for episodic ratings, TV by the Numbers (most for recent shows), ABC Medianet (most for pre 2007), Pitfeedback (few). I did a search and the last article with an actual list of shows and the ratings was from March. I see no problem waiting a week until final and reliable ratings are in but these ratings appear to be nowhere (except TVbtN/Pfb) except the sporadically averages. Xeworlebi ( talk) 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million [82] and 8.29 million [83]. Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan ( talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The rest of the discussion is above (below the first quote box). ChaosMaster Chat 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Whats your take on none of the entertainment sites bein reliable? ChaosMaster Chat 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A FAQ from visionsofjoy.com ( [85]) has been repeatedly reinserted at Bates Method (e.g. [86]). Given an incipient edit war, I'd like to solicit outside input on whether this is a suitable encyclopedic source. I am of the opinion that it is not, that the material being inserted is not particularly encyclopedic or relevant (if it were, we'd have better sources), and that the inserted text is both contrived and promotional. MastCell Talk 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I happened to notice an editor removing a ton of references from articles [87], and while I have no doubt they're acting in good faith I'm questioning whether this really is not a reliable source. From appearances, it looks like a fairly run of the mill entertainment industry magazine that also has a website [88]. Here's their URL [http://www.iaemagazine.com]. Opinions? Burpelson AFB ( talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see any substantive resolution to 75.2.209.226's question on the subject prior to its archiving, so I'd like to pose the following followup questions in response to the defense presented for these sources:
For the record, I'm not arguing that either "side" in the previous discussion was right or wrong about which nontraditional sources should be accepted as if they were reliable. I'm saying neither should be, absent a logical rationale. And for that matter, I would accept CPRR as a reliable source in a heartbeat for most questions on the Central Pacific Railroad, assuming a dearth of other reliable sources on a field that's mostly of interest only to collectors and buffs. But I don't understand why the website's owner wants to use it as a reliable source on Stephen Ambrose. 76.22.25.102 ( talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...Regarding CCRP, their About page [92] says that this is a "family run" web site. I don't seem to see an editorial policy, or any credentials of the authors. However, it does seem to enjoy some sort of following within education circles. According to the National Education Association, Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum "features more than 10,000 files with a terrific online library of more than 2000 19th century pictures, maps and descriptions of railroad construction and travel. It tells the story of the Pacific Railroad in human terms with lots of exhibits and first person accounts. It also has a simulation game for elementary students called The Great Railroad Race." [93] History.com lists it as additional resource in this student handout. [94] PBS recommends it as further reading. [95] The Library of Congress says it has an "Extensive collection of photographs related to building the Central Pacific Railroad, as well as its early years of operation. Includes some now (1997) and then (1868) comparison photos." [96] I don't know. My initial thought is that it is probably an informative web site, but doesn't quite live up to the standards set forth by WP:RS. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
To answer the question "Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose?" I see that another editor said "The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR." If this is true (and it appears to be) then shouldn't the scrutiny be on the authors of the content? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There's clear consensus to use CPRR as a reliable source in this case, and no hard feelings. However, part of my question still stands - is warchronicle also a reliable source in this case? 76.22.25.102 ( talk) 13:20, 2 July 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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
On three other forums these questions have come up: If the FBI does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"? If The New York Times does an interview with Dr. X, who is the "primary source" and who is the "secondary source"?
Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source :
I don't see anything in this which says that when the FBI does an interview of Dr. X, the FBI is the "primary source," but when the New York Times does an interview of Dr. X, Dr. X is the "primary source."
That is the claim on other discussion pages.
In response to the "too many quotations." tag. I disagree with the placement here. That specific section does not contain too many quotations, although other sections do (especially the comments from X stuff, which should be removed). I have therefore removed the tag. @Edlake, Instead of quoting somebody you can paraphrase them if needed. Yoenit ( talk) 18:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Cs32en - As discussed at length, the newspaper articles I listed are brief, often totally wrong and nearly worthless as "information." The SECONDARY source, i.e., the DOJ/FBI's Summary report is the complete version that the newspaper reporters were attempting to summarize. EdLake ( talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yoenit - I'm not positive by what you mean about "X stuff," but I think you have no idea how controversial some of this stuff is. Any attempt to delete things will bring an UPROAR from the conspiracy theorists and True Believers who have dominated the postings to this article for YEARS. EdLake ( talk) 19:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the discussion page for the article about the anthrax attacks, you'll see someone tried to delete the section about the "Chile letter." But it was put back. It was then deleted again, and it was put back again. It remains, even though it has NOTHING to do with the article - other than that some people think it does.
There's also a section about Dr. Philip Zack. As far as I can tell, Zack was only considered to be a "suspect" by neo-Nazis because they thought he was a Jew. (He's acually a Catholic.). Plus, the links in the section are either meaningless or they point to Dr. Assaad, not Zack. Delete it at your own risk. EdLake ( talk) 19:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Is the web site Watts Up With That run by Anthony Watts a usable source for Watts opinion? Specificly this edit [1] which has been edited out? mark nutley ( talk) 08:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Forgot to say this was discussed before and consensus at that time was it was ok to use for Watts opinion [2] mark nutley ( talk) 13:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Points 1 to 3 are irrelevant here, as the source is only used to support he said something. I don't see a problem with the last two, so yes it is a reliable source for his opinion. Yoenit ( talk) 13:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The link presented seems to be to a discussion about a totally different topic. Could I ask Yoenit how far his proposed principle goes - if I were to start blogging, could someone insert my opinion about any and every wikipedia article just by putting "Hipocrite blogged x" in front of all my opinions when editing them into wikipedia pages? My understanding was that blogs were not acceptable sources unless they were otherwise reliable - are they now acceptable sources if we just write "according to (random blog)" in any article? Thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Blogs are absolutely reliable for the opinions of their authors, per WP:SPS. I don't see any valid objections to using this source in the manner that it is. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is not even remotely about Mr. Watts. It has zero relation to Mr. Watts. He is not the author of the video, nor is he in the video. His relation to the video is that he commented on the video. Hipocrite ( talk) 16:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I am being quoted (or rather, quote-mined) let me clarify things: yes, WUWT is a reliable source for Watts' opinion - in a place like Anthony Watts (blogger). When the article is about Watts, his blog can be used. But it's not a "reliable source" for factual information - Watts is not an expert in this context. Guettarda ( talk) 15:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Can we all get a grip? The subject of this article, up for AfD, is a non-notable here today gone tomorrow Internet meme. But just say for a minute it was a published movie. Then would a review of it on a blog be RS? Probably not. We look for reviews in the mainstream outlets. The argument that an SPS is RS for someone's view comes up here fairly often, but nearly always when the SPS is written by the subject of a biography. Itsmejudith ( talk) 21:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Just confirming is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia online considered a reliable and acceptable source for articles that are Roman Catholic related? [3] LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Article:
The Last Airbender
Disputed source:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Last-Airbender-Has-A-Total-Budget-Of-280-Million-19238.html
Section it is sourcing:
[4]
My problem with this reference is that it uses an LA Times article as its source for the information which is already used as a reference in the article. I consider the Cinema Blend article wholly unnecessary since it is second-hand information, which we are already obtaining directly from the original source. Apart from being pointless, using second-hand references is often considered bad form and articles are much stronger when the original sources can be used. In my view the Cinema Blend article should only be used in the case of where the LA Times article is unavailable. I would like to know your opinion on whether it is acceptable for the CB reference to remain or whether it would be better to come out. Thanks. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Much substantive content is being added to the article, and a lot of it is based upon first-person accounts, as told to, and recorded by a witness to and self-described private researcher and archivist of the event [5]. An overview from objective contributors would be welcome. JNW ( talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
After 6 years of being correctly identified in the article, User:Malik Shabazz, ( WP:COI), has decided to change the book's authorship, as he prefers Malcolm X to be listed as the author, rather than Alex Haley. I corrected the article, a second time, and inserted a reference, which Malik Shabazz promptly removed. Mk5384 ( talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have asked for a 3rd opinion, as suggested. However, I'm concerned that it will be filled with comments like the one above. Those unfamiliar with the subject may, quite naturally, assume that, as it is an "autobiography", it only makes sense that Malcolm X wrote it. As far as a reliable source, I did provide it. Malik Shabazz promptly removed it. Mk5384 ( talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
"Here's a scholarly source: [9]
Malcolm X, with the assistance of Alex Haley... Malcolm X told the story of his life to Alex Haley in a series of interviews that took place over a period of nearly two years. Malcolm read the text of the Autobiography, approving and correcting the chapters as Haley wrote them, although he did not live to see the last revisions made in the manuscript. Evidence both internal and external to the Autobiography suggests that Haley kept to the agreement he made with Malcom -- to include nothing Malcolm had not said and to say everything Malcolm wanted included.
That pretty much settles it, in my opinion. -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)"
One way to resolve bibliographic problems like this is to consult a major library to see how they handle it. They are supposed to be the experts at bibliographical picky-pickies. The Library of Congress lists the author as Malcolm X. Zero talk 00:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the sources I see above are citing the title of the book, which includes the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley". These are not sources referring to the book as written by Malcolm X with the assistance of Alex Haley. -- GabeMc ( talk) 01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are five scholarly sources who use the phrase "co-authored by Alex Haley":
GabeMc ( talk) 01:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are five scholarly sources who refer to Haley as a co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
GabeMc ( talk) 01:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure why this is here, since it's not a question of WP:RS. In any event, I showed Mk5384 two editions of the book (actually three, because Amazon has photos of two editions) that show the book's authorship "with the assistance of Alex Haley". [20] [21]"--Mailk Shabazz 20:13, 23 June 2010
but Malik Shabaz said this when he reverted good faith edits by GabeMc, "Amazon isn't a WP:RS" [22] GabeMc ( talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The three scholarly sources above 1 2 3 are actually foot-notes citing the title, not using the phrase "with the assistance of Alex Haley" in a DESCRIPTIVE sentence. They are not describing the book that way, they are including the phrase as part of the title. According to the Library of Congress the "main title" is officially "The autobiography of Malcolm X / with the assistance of Alex Haley ; introduction by M.S. Handler ; epilogue by Alex Haley." That is the title of the book, not the author, editor, or publisher giving credit.-- GabeMc ( talk) 02:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Your sources are not attributing authorship, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is PART OF THE TITLE.-- GabeMc ( talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like you have three recitations of the title while I have over 10 WP:RS referring to Haley as the co-author. -- GabeMc ( talk) 02:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are ten MORE sources that refer to Haley as the co-author of The Autobiography of Malcolm X-- GabeMc ( talk) 03:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not a contest of who can find the most reliable sources. This discussion was started because an editor wanted to credit Haley as the main author, a position nobody seems to be defend anymore. It shifted to whether Haley should be called a "co-author" or an "assistant", which is a downright lame discussion. I have little doubt hunderds of sources are available to support both views, so linking all of those is not gonna solve anything. The best authority on the subject are probably the big libraries, which don't seem to support Haley as a co-author. I would therefore propose to keep Malcom as the author with Haley as an assistant, but include that Haley has also been called a co-author with a reliable source (preferably one that also discusses the controversy in question). Yoenit ( talk) 12:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Malik, I am curious, why are your three sources better then my 20? And one more time I will explain why I think you seem so confused, "with the assistance of Alex Haley" is a phrase FROM THE TITLE OF THE BOOK so your sources are good if you want to confirm the title, nothing more. This is beginning to feel like a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. "All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article." -- GabeMc ( talk) 00:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
UCLA, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Oxford University, and The University of Chicago all give Alex Haley an author credit on the Autobiography.
-- GabeMc ( talk) 03:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
So far, no source has asserted that Alex Haley wrote the book and Malcolm X didn't. Ergo the article would be wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Alex Haley. At the same time, all sources assert that Alex Haley played a large part in the authorship of the book. Many even describe him as the co-author. So it would be equally wrong to cite the book as The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Malcolm X. This is not a reliable source dispute, this is a content dispute about the precise form of words to be used to describe a book which was written by two people. You should go back to the content page, and decide between
If necessary, hold an RfC.-- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 11:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm expanding several historic browsers with User:Mabdul such as Agora (web browser) and Arena (web browser). I've contacted the original authors of the browsers via email, and they've responded with certain information that isn't in any book, nor on the web. How would I cite an email? Should I foward the email to OTRS and then cite it with the OTRS ticket? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if I were to send a list of questions to a software's original author, and they responded, would that be considered WP:OR? Smallman12q ( talk) 01:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an interesting case. William Connolley is both a notable person and an editor here on Wikipedia, User:William M. Connolley. Connolley created a blog post as the result of an article dispute which he is involved in. Now that blog post is being cited (by a different editor) in the article (but for non-controversial information). His blog is obviously reliable for the opinions of Connolley, but I don't know if it's appropriate. I have some WP:CIRCULAR and WP:COI concerns, not to mention the fact that a Wikipedia editor specifically created the blog post as a response to the article. I honestly don't know enough about Wikipedia policies and guidelines to make an informed decision.
William M. Connolley on his personal blog said of the video, "It wasn't funny, it was dull."
Can we have some uninvolved editors weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
In Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island) a reference to a review in what seems to be a reliable source ( Baltic Astronomy) of an unreliable source ( New England Antiquities Research Association Journal). Does a review in a reliable source suddenly turn that article into a reliable source? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. This looks odd. Why is a peer-reviewed astronomy journal reprinting an article that appeared earlier in NEASA? Has BA previously published any articles in archeoastronomy? Or are they simply picking something up because it looks interesting? Itsmejudith ( talk) 19:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I have been redirecting non-notable stubs about Space Invaders sequels and spin-offs to List of Space Invaders video games. One of the last ones on my list is Space Invaders Trilogy. However, I've hit a snag looking for a reliable source to add it to the list. The article currently doesn't provide any link that I think would meet WP:RS. About the only good source I found is this page on TechRepublic, which is owned by CBS Interactive. I've never used TechRepublic before and would like to know if this qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks. ( Guyinblack25 talk 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC))
A question has arisen about Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog for use in Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Please review this diff, this source and Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#The_Gaggle and provide assistance. It would be nice if the climate change standard parties would not respond here, thanks. Hipocrite ( talk) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Given all of this, is it then the opinion of the uninvolved editors here that Newsweek's "The Gaggle" blog is a reliable source in this context? Hipocrite ( talk) 10:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::I agree that it is a reliable source. I do not agree that the attribution should be to Newsweek as it is in (at least) the first diff, ie articles should not say 'Newsweek' says, but the atribution should be to the author of the blog, adding that it is in Newsweek. WP:NEWSBLOG makes this clear: "Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece, the writer should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested...")" Dougweller ( talk) 10:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe this New York Observer article settles the question definitively, as it describes the editorial regime for "The Gaggle": [45] It's edited by Newsweek's senior editors. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Is sho-shin a reliable source? How about the Nihonto Club; is it a reliable source? For instance this text. I'd also like to make use of other texts on swordsmiths/swords (for instance to connect the signature with the name of a smith and his province) which can be accessed through the meisearch for List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts-swords). However I'd like to know if it can be considered reliable before I delve into it. bamse ( talk) 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious, would http://www.nbadraft.net be considered a reliable source? It contains some good mock drafts and scouting notes on future NBA players. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 19:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
At Manchester United F.C.'s recent archived FAC, one thing that came up was that apparently some of our sources were unreliable. The sources in question were: unitedkits.co.uk, historicalkits.co.uk and prideofmanchester.co.uk. All of these sources are essentially fansites, but are excellently maintained and THE place to go to find out information on kits. They were used to reference manchester united's past kits. Anyway, I have been down to the Manchester United museum to check that the information is correct. So my question is, shall I just replace all the sources, or use the manchester united museum as an additional source and if so, how should I do this? Just add a footnote explaining that the sources have been checked at the Manchester United museum or add additional inline citation wherever one of these sites was used? Thanks, Tom 81.159.216.106 ( talk) 16:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Mining Meaning from Wikipedia [56] Any idea of if this is a Reliable source for Wikipedia Related info? Weaponbb7 ( talk) 23:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
In 2003-2005 "Finese and Runway" formed, gaining notoriety as an Avant-Garde Perfromance art band. The members consisted of Dino "Runway" Felipe, Melba "Finesse" Payes, Jenny-Tambourines and Conceptual Visual/Performance Artist Belaxis Buil( www.BelaxisBuil-PerformanceArt.com). The trio was known for provocative and invasive shows that pushed boundaries as " visceral work"( http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2004-09-23/music/hott-people&page=1). Dino Felipe and Melba Payes later went to perform in Paris. Belaxis Buil continued to develop her own work which has gained international recognition. Rumors of upcoming albums and performances hold fans in suspense...as it is part of the concept with " Finese and Runway"
I would like to add football player profiles from www.transfermarkt.co.uk to the external links section of footballers wikipedia profiles.
Example: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/frank-lampard/profil/spieler_3163.html
The transfermarkt database is used by many scouts, player agents and managers all over the world as a source for performance data of all sorts of players. (It covers over 80 leagues worldwide with dynamic (statistical) match reports)
It has detailed information about pretty much every player in professional football.
I have been referred to the reliable sources section to have this site considered a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius ( talk • contribs) 11:46, June 30, 2010
Ah ok, I didn´t know that. How would I provide this evidence? I see soccerbase links to almost all player profiles - they are similar, but (in my opinion) not as detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klattius ( talk • contribs) 12:34, June 30, 2010
The following sources are being used in the info box demonym field for Northern Ireland:
Northern Ireland: Northern Irishman and Northern Irishwoman, or the collective Irish and Northern Irish
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)The United Kingdom is made up of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. While all of the people of the UK are known as British, the people of Wales are also known as Welsh, in Scotland as Scottish, in England as English, and in Northern Ireland as Irish.
Ulsterman (or Ulsterwoman): a native or inhabitant of Northern Ireland or Ulster.
The sources are used as follows:
In particular:
A related question that may invite comment here is whether any of these sources are suitabile to support "British" as demonym for Northern Ireland. --RA ( talk) 18:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC) / Mabuska (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
(Additional info: my own view is that all of these sources are reliable, I sourced each of them. However the question is being raised persistently and a number of editor have suggested taking it here for a 3rd opinion. --RA ( talk) 18:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC))
I added in a new source above, number 4, and gave the reason why i was told it wasn't relelvant or acceptable despite the same people allowing a source that went against the reasons they gave me; it didn't state demonymn, despite the fact its a poll on how people identify themselves as, which technically is what a demonymn is suppossed to be. Whilst it is only a poll of 1,000 people, it does show a considerable percentage of people identifying themselves as "British" above "Northern Irish". This shows that in the real world people identify as British as well as Northern Irish and Irish. Mabuska (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
There are allegations on the web that the Joyce Foundation (a well known anti gun group with deep pockets) essentially bought an issue of the Chicago Kent Law Review in order to publish material favorable to its position. The Law Review was required to use an outside editor (Carl Bogus) with close ties to the Joyce Foundation who was responsible for accepting what articles went into that issue. The authors were also paid $5,000 each when normally a law review can't afford to pay authors for articles. They tend to be shoe string operation.
Now the question: Would this issue be considered "self-published" as the content was under the full control of Joyce and not the normal law review staff? The issue is used in the Second Amendment article as a "reliable source"
Below are comments found on the web on this issue of the Review.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-and-the-attempt-to-destroy-the-second-amendment/
In a breach of law review custom, Chicago-Kent let an “outsider” serve as editor; he was Carl Bogus, a faculty member of a different law school. Bogus had a unique distinction: he had been a director of Handgun Control Inc. (today’s Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/joyce_foundatio.php
Why would I say Joyce is at it again? Well, in 2000 Chicago-Kent Law Review issued a similar symposium issue. A bit of inquiry found ... well, let me give you background first. Law reviews are run on a shoestring. They're edited by students themselves, and very proud of that tradition. Editors get paid a pittance (I got $600 a year back in 1975), and authors of articles never, never, get paid.
A bit of inquiry showed that Joyce had done some serious bankrolling. The law review consented to having an outside editor for that issue, who surprisingly was anti-Second Amendment. (And when pro-Second Amendment law professors volunteered to write, he refused to allow it). He got paid $30,000. Authors of the articles in it got $5,000 each for their time. The rest of the grant went for buying a load of reprints to be sent to judges. So Joyce had essentially bought a issue of the review, stacked the deck of authors, and then mailed a load of copies to judges.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080419/pl_politico/9722
But the Joyce Foundation in 1999 awarded $84,000 to the Chicago-Kent College of Law for a symposium on the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to bear arms, but rather only a state’s right to arm its militia.
“No effort was made to include the individual right point of view,” its organizer, Carl T. Bogus, a Roger Williams University School of Law professor, wrote in one of several law review articles stemming from the symposium. “Full and robust public debate is not always best served by having all viewpoints represented in every symposium. Sometimes one point of view requires greater illumination.”
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1112820316.shtml
Was Chicago-Kent at Fault for Publishing This Symposium? Here I think the answer is probably yes. Chicago-Kent, and the journal it publishes, purports to be an academic institution committed to the pursuit of truth. It is not an advocacy group, and it publishes an academic law review that benefits from the perception that it is not an advocacy journal. By mounting a deliberately one-sided symposia it did a disservice to its readers, its academic community, and most especially to its students who were free to attend what was a deliberately one-sided conference.
I also think that accepting funds from a foundation that limits the participants to those holding a particular view is in conflict with its mission as an academic institution. If the Joyce Foundation limited participation to one side of this academic dispute, or if Chicago-Kent did not bother to know that this money could only be spent to fund one side of the dispute, then it made a serious mistake. There are indications that the Joyce Foundation refuses to have any dissenting voices included in its programs. Indeed, it is reported to have protested the appearance at Chicago-Kent of a pro-individual rights speaker within a few weeks of its symposium. The Joyce Foundation also supports the Second Amendment Research Center at Ohio State. When I asked its director, Saul Cornell, in an email exchange if any participants in its academic programs could advocate the individual rights position, he responded that he would obtain separate funding to permit that to happen. I took that as an indication that Joyce does put strings on its funding. (David Hardy quotes and links to the mission statement of the Joyce Foundation here.)
But there is a big difference between the work product of an individual scholar, and the collective work product represented by a symposium sponsored by an academic institution like Chicago-Kent. This issue not only is weaker intellectually than it might have been, but it falsely suggests a uniformity of opinion on the subject it examines. Since the symposium was open to Chicago-Kent students, I wonder if they were informed that the program was deliberately designed to be one-sided. Aren't students (or readers of the law review) entitled to know that they are being provided a deliberately biased stream of information? Here I think the fault and discredit lies entirely with the academic institution. 71.184.184.238 ( talk) 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for your time and effort. Assuming my last comment above won't change any views, I placed snippets of the above on the Second Amendment talk page. Please check and make any additional comments if you believe those snippets don't cover the above faithfully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Chicago_Kent_problem_issue 71.184.184.238 ( talk) 20:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Im looking for opinions on if this chart should be included or not or if it has been previously discussed with a verdict reached. The main article is this; Crowley Broadcast Analysis. It was created today and i got into somewhat of an edit war with an editor who created the article claiming it has passed and/or is allowed but no reference was provided. Anywho what is you take on it. The only Brazilian Chart im aware of that is allowed in articles is the Singles with a specific magazine as a reference. Crowley Broadcast Analysis isnt discussed at WP:GOODCHARTS or WP:BADCHARTS. (CK)Lakeshade✽ talk2me 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
These recent edits to the article Noley Thornton by 219.78.50.246 ( talk · contribs) are only cited to the IMDb. I'm given to understand that, as a user-submitted resource (akin to Wikipedia itself) it's not a reliable source. Furthermore, I can't find any corroboration of these films (and their association with Ms. Thornton) at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, nor can Google find anything immediately reliable ( [58], [59], [60], and [61]). Given the unreliability and uncorroboration of this information, I'm inclined to revert the IP, but I'd like to check myself first before doing so. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The article section I'm composing is a fact, but I can't find a much more reliable source... Can this link be a good reference for Nina Girado#Voice??? - http://www.casttv.com/video/rxgk561/how-other-artists-describe-the-asia-s-soul-siren-nina-asap-sessionistas-at-the-araneta-video Kristelzorina ( talk) 13:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not resolved, Atmoz i request you self revert mark nutley ( talk) 17:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC) S Citizen and Stoat Both are blogs by William Connolley and are used to rebutt statements about Roger A. Pielke criticisms on the IPCC seen here [65] I had tagged them as unreliable but WMC reverted the tags out, i put them back but Count Iblis has now reverted them out, and has not bothered to go to the talk section, [66] so i figure i`d ask here mark nutley ( talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Stoat is a blog. Scitizen isn't.
Not also that the RP stuff being rebutted is... from exactly the same source: scitizen [In [[blog]] posts, [[Roger A. Pielke]] contends that the IPCC distorted the evidence by not including scientific results that questioned global warming.<ref name="PielkeIPCC">{{cite web|last=Pielke (sr.)|first=Roger A.|title=The 2007 IPCC Assessment Process - Its Obvious Conflict of Interest|url=http://scitizen.com/climate-change/the-2007-ipcc-assessment-process-its-obvious-conflict-of-interest_a-13-1108.html|publisher=Scitizen|accessdate=30 June 2010}} (also see links therein)</ref>]. I've pointed the inconsistency of this to MN, but he won't listen. Note also MN's attempts fake this as a BLP issue: the comments are not on RP but on RP's comments William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Why is half the article a lengthy quote from a blog post? That's the real question here. Using SPSs to answer other SPSs is an appropriate use for them. But the real question is why? If Pielke hasn't bothered to convert this into a real publication in the last two years, why is it so notable that it dominates his bio? Guettarda ( talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, this mirror could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. Ukabia... tark 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Is a blog post by William Connolley [67] a reliable source for statements about Roger A. Pielke. It is used here [68] Sorry to have to ask this again but the above discussion was closed before the issue with this blog was resolved mark nutley ( talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't link William's blog here. Incidentally, amidst all the concern for blogs and BLP, can anyone tell me why we should link Roger Pielke's blog in the same paragraph? After all, Pielke's blog post is used to disparage the integrity of individuals on the IPCC panel, which is also BLP material. I'd suggest removing the entire paragraph - both that sourced to Pielke's blog and that sourced to William's blog. MastCell Talk 03:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Or it the whole thing a house of cards? -- Lexein ( talk) 08:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I am just following the guidelines here. WP:RS states -- Twitter, facebook. myspace "unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." can be used., which is the case here. Countless celebs are quoted from their twitter here such as Courtney Love
based on information from her Twitter account. I reverted, but the IP editor says that WP:RS says that information from self-published material can be used as a reliable source. Is this correct? It was always my understanding that primary sources were not considered reliable sources. Everard Proudfoot ( talk) 20:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an important issue that is going to recur so can we please have more opinions. Summary:
My opinion is that such "by the way" Twitter posts should not be regarded as reliable because there is no way to judge whether the author is making some joke, or speaking in some metaphorical sense ( "I am a Berliner"). Further, the statement could be simply wrong and might have been corrected a month later (for example, many celebrities would have a staffer write at least some of their public statements, and a stand-in staffer might have been confused). Also, if a fact can only be sourced to a tweet, that fact is probably not very significant and has no place in an encyclopedia. (BTW, the "WP:TWITTER" shortcut was recently removed, although the redirect is still there.) Johnuniq ( talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the reference to Twitter with this article. However, this was reverted (back to the pre-Armenian text), stating that "web articles using twitter as source material are not reliable sources either." Can someone enlighten me as to why that article isn't reliable? I checked the about us part of their website, and they have writers and an editor, and I can't find anything to suggest they have a poor reputation. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 13:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have contributed text to the Arguments for and against drug prohibition page but have had one of the contributed arguments for prohibition removed here on the basis that it does not, in the view of another editor, quote from a reliable source. I am hereby looking for advice on the source.
Obviously debates regarding ‘Arguments for and against drug prohibition’ will not be found in peer-reviewed journals because such a debate is not scientific research as such, although it will rely on surveys that are done by reputable organizations. However this debate is found mainly in the political realm as well as between opposing drug advocacy organizations, particularly between drug prevention organizations and drug legalization organizations.
I have added an argument which appears on Australia’s official drug debate website, which is the ‘Drugtalk’ e-mail listserver operated by the peak body representing almost all Australian drug and alcohol organizations, ADCA. The listserver claims 350 participants (see http://ndsis.adca.org.au/e_list.php) who contribute to ongoing debates about national and international drug policy. This debate listserver has its own administrator and is fully archived, accessible via password from the Drugtalk administrator. I therefore would argue that the text I have contributed to this Wikipedia page is from a reliable source, from an appropriate organization that is constantly involved in the drug prevention advocacy area, and which is accessible on the internet as per Wikipedia policy.
I have cited the argument below, which is contributed by the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose name appears under this argument on the Drugtalk listserver. The text reads:
Interested in other observations on this one. Minphie ( talk) 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I am contemplating adding a small amount of text to the Safe injection site page which refers to important correspondence which is in the public domain between the Medical Director of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) and the drug prevention organization, Drug Free Australia, whose critique of the MSIC's evaluations has chiefly driven the Parliamentary debate in Australia. One of the two major political parties in that country claim they will close the facility if voted into power at the 2011 election. The NSW Liberal party has relied heavily on the Drug Free Australia critique of the injecting room, which was done in 2007 by a team from Drug Free Australia which included an epidemiologist, an addiction medicine specialist and social researchers who have between them been published in more than 20 top peer-reviewed medical journals on related drug or medical foci.
This correspondence between the two organizations, which is reproduced in full, is sourced from the bulletin board run by the peak body for drug and alcohol organizations in Australia, ADCA which links 1,000 professionals from those organizations within Australia. Called the 'Update' bulletin board, it is administered by an ADCA Adminstrator and is fully archived and accessible via password from the Administrator. The correspondence was posted on the bulletin board because it was of national and indeed international importance.
The correspondence is important because it is the only known source for a claim, by the injecting room's Medical Director, that their own 2003 injecting room evaluators had overstated the number of heroin users in the area surrounding the injecting room. While this argument is cited somewhat obtusely by Parliamentarians in a parliamentary debate about the injecting room, the accuracy of the statement can be better evaluated via a short quote directly from this public domain correspondence from that national bulletin board.
I would like advice on the appropriateness of this source. Minphie ( talk) 01:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I've previously raised the issue of pifeedback.com not being a reliable source here in May. [69] However, the single response I got has been challenged by another editor who thinks it merits wider discussion, [70] so here we are again. The pifeedback.com internet forums are used as a source for TV ratings on multiple pages. The ratings at this site are typically reposts from other sites, [71] [72] [73] and there are currently 283 links to the site from multiple articles. Since apparently anyone can post to the site, it doesn't seem to qualify as a reliable source to me. Comments would be greatly appreciated. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
From: Talk:List of Ghost Whisperer episodes
Do you mind me asking a simple question: What is BEST for the articles on Wikipedia in these situations, in your opinion? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 05:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- I wish I could give a simple answer. I'd never really looked into tvbythenumbers until relatively recently and had let additions to articles slide by. Since there's no definite consensus you can probably use tvbythenumbers but expect the information to be challenged and, if there's a better source available, use it. Pifeedback is definately out though. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 05:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- My point is that there are no better sources other than these two, whether reliable or not. Particularly for Ghost Whisperer here, we have no other sources. What would be best for wikipedia in this case would be to keep the sourced ratings, whether reliable or not. Using this method would therefore allow different perspectives of both sources be challenged by the reader only. Presenting the source for them to click on to directly lead to where we have taken the information from can allow the reader to determine if they think it is reliable. In this situation, it is not neccesary for Wikipedia to interfere with the judgements of its readers. Sourcing the information in no different manner than usual, meaning in no special way, or a neutral way, we do not impose whether they should or should not endorse the source where we have gotten the information from. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 09:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- If you're going to cite WP:IAR as a reason for ignoring core policies such as WP:V then you should make sure that you follow the links in its single sentence. The first of these, " improving" states, "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". -- AussieLegend ( talk) 10:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." The precise wording of WP:V is: "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Please show that information is verifiable and not original research by referencing reliable sources. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed, because on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". It would be best to use common sense and allow good contributions; being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings, therefore not improving the article in any way. We are not misleading the user in anyway when we predent the pifeedback.com source because the information is clearly there. But that is my opinion, which obviously differs from an averae Wikipedia user. Because of this, we should allow the source and have the reader be able to determine if it is reliable or not, therefore ignoring WP:V and making a dangerous assumption. "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Improving wikipedia would be to provide the ratings. And the only sources for them are these two. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 11:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- I'm not sure what words of that are yours and what are quotes but, regarding "being too wrapped up in WP:V is only going to cause the removal of sourced ratings", ratings aren't sourced if the source is not reliable. If the only sources you have are not reliable, then the information shouldn't be in the article and if you put it in, it can be removed. If you persist in restoring information that has been removed because it's poorly sourced you might end up blocked. You really need to think about whether it's worth losing your editing rights. People have been blocked for far less. I really have to take issue with claims that the ratings are only available from two unreliable sources. Where are they getting them from? They must be available from somewhere. If they're not, then the claims aren't credible. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 11:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- He does claim to get them somewhere. But I try to search on Google, Bing, Dogpile, exc. for them, but I don't find anything. The point I am tryign to make is: If it is reliable or not, leave it. When someone wants to see where we got the information from, they click the link and decide for themselves if the sources are reliable. Its simple and resolves the dispute over this issue by Ignoring the rules. And, by the way, since season 2 and 3? is not sourced at all (before your edits and now), we should remov them completely, unless you disagree? ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
- Sorry, I thought I'd already replied but I got side-tracked with another discussion and some vandal fighting. After much research, I can accept the tvbythenumbers refs, only because there is no consensus as to its status as a reliable source. However, in the discussions that I've initiated at WP:RSN, there is absolutely no support for pifeedback.com and, as it's a forum, it clearly falls into the category of WP:SPS, meaning the information from there can't be included in the article. We don't add information assuming that readers will be able to follow links so they can decide whether or not a source is reliable. If it's not reliable, it doesn't go in. As Wikipedia:Editing policy says, "a lack of information is better than misleading or false information— Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." As for the uncited information from season 2 & 3, yes, that should be gone. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- In the discussion you initiated, there is only you, some other guy, and me. Honestly, that isn't a consensus. As WP:IAR, doing what is best for Wikipedia, is what is right for Wikipedia. In oder to be fair(er?) I will quote some materal from you and I here at the discussion you have started. I'll also ask some people to ontribute to the discussion (without telling them to side with me or you). I'll just give them the link and kindly ask for any feedback they would like to give. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
I did notice that LA Times do line up with Pifeedback also. And here, I agree with Betty Logan, using the LA times in most cases where we know for a fact that is a reliable source and then using Pifeedback's for the rest with a citation flag sounds fair to me. I do agree with Delarious about people not checking ratings once its published in an article. Many articles state "This show had 5.5 million viewers" one day, the following week there is a more precise number such as 5.48. Its a matter of whether or not you are using prose to explain the ratings or if you have an episode table, in which case the later would be better fit with the precise number. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 16:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
Why is this even being discussed, at this point? Open access forums are not reliable sources, fullstop. Use the ratings as published by Nielsen/LATimes, fullstop. I was pointed at this discussion from my talkpage. Hipocrite ( talk) 13:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
As a response to Hipocrite, this is being discussed because WP:IAR states to do what is best for WIkipedia. In this case, we should use the source and allow the reader to determine themselves if the Pifeedback source is reliable or not, after using the LA Times article where possible. ChaosMaster16 ( talk) 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16
(Comment requested by ChaosMaster16) There is ABC Medianet, they get there ratings directly from Nielsen and is owned by ABC a trustworthy outlet. But there listings are often incomplete, hard to find, a week after the fact and lacks a bunch of channels. TV by the Numbers gets there ratings sometimes from Nielsen but other posts from Travis Yanan in which they link to his blog and his twitter account as source. His twitter account often links to his post on Pitfeedback, so that would confirm the user. If those posts on TV by the Numbers are accepted so should the ones on Pitfeedback. The best I found from on Nielsen's website is the last week top 10 which is very limited and doesn't seem to have backlog, which would make citing this useless. Nielsen Wire doesn't seem to put concise ratings on the website, with exception of the once in a while top 10 of the month. I frankly don't understand why Nielsen Media Research doesn't just put the ratings on there website like BARB does in the UK. If they do I haven't found it and no-one on wikipedia seems to have either since I haven't seen a single citation to a website from Nielsen for a rating. Currently ABC Medianet is accepted and used for back-in-the-day-shows, TV by the Numbers for recent shows. If TV by the Numbers is globally used and accepted as a good source and it uses Travis Yanan as a source then Pitfeedback should be considered just as good as a source. Does Nielsen post the ratings somewhere users can find them? If so I find it weird that they would be used pretty much nowhere over third party sources such as TV by the Numbers, Pitfeedback, etc. where does the LA Times post the ratings? Deliriousandlost names nielsenmedia.com but that website doesn't load for me. Xeworlebi ( talk) 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Question: Can someone link to this magical LA Times that keeps getting mentioned? Or another source that is considered reliable? I for one have only seen three sources for episodic ratings, TV by the Numbers (most for recent shows), ABC Medianet (most for pre 2007), Pitfeedback (few). I did a search and the last article with an actual list of shows and the ratings was from March. I see no problem waiting a week until final and reliable ratings are in but these ratings appear to be nowhere (except TVbtN/Pfb) except the sporadically averages. Xeworlebi ( talk) 09:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
For the two weeks after that (23/30 October) the LA Times gives 8.59 million [82] and 8.29 million [83]. Those match up with pifeedback too, but the LA Times seem to publish these figures every week so I'm betting you can source every single one of the missing figures with the LA Times, so this may well be a redundant discussion. If there are other challenged sources it may be worth going back and sourcing them all through the LA Times, especially if there discrepencies. If you have the number that you want to source it is easy to find using google using the search term: site:articles.latimes.com "ghost whisperer" 8.29 Betty Logan ( talk) 17:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The rest of the discussion is above (below the first quote box). ChaosMaster Chat 14:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Whats your take on none of the entertainment sites bein reliable? ChaosMaster Chat 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A FAQ from visionsofjoy.com ( [85]) has been repeatedly reinserted at Bates Method (e.g. [86]). Given an incipient edit war, I'd like to solicit outside input on whether this is a suitable encyclopedic source. I am of the opinion that it is not, that the material being inserted is not particularly encyclopedic or relevant (if it were, we'd have better sources), and that the inserted text is both contrived and promotional. MastCell Talk 22:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I happened to notice an editor removing a ton of references from articles [87], and while I have no doubt they're acting in good faith I'm questioning whether this really is not a reliable source. From appearances, it looks like a fairly run of the mill entertainment industry magazine that also has a website [88]. Here's their URL [http://www.iaemagazine.com]. Opinions? Burpelson AFB ( talk) 21:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see any substantive resolution to 75.2.209.226's question on the subject prior to its archiving, so I'd like to pose the following followup questions in response to the defense presented for these sources:
For the record, I'm not arguing that either "side" in the previous discussion was right or wrong about which nontraditional sources should be accepted as if they were reliable. I'm saying neither should be, absent a logical rationale. And for that matter, I would accept CPRR as a reliable source in a heartbeat for most questions on the Central Pacific Railroad, assuming a dearth of other reliable sources on a field that's mostly of interest only to collectors and buffs. But I don't understand why the website's owner wants to use it as a reliable source on Stephen Ambrose. 76.22.25.102 ( talk) 21:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...Regarding CCRP, their About page [92] says that this is a "family run" web site. I don't seem to see an editorial policy, or any credentials of the authors. However, it does seem to enjoy some sort of following within education circles. According to the National Education Association, Central Pacific Railroad Photographic History Museum "features more than 10,000 files with a terrific online library of more than 2000 19th century pictures, maps and descriptions of railroad construction and travel. It tells the story of the Pacific Railroad in human terms with lots of exhibits and first person accounts. It also has a simulation game for elementary students called The Great Railroad Race." [93] History.com lists it as additional resource in this student handout. [94] PBS recommends it as further reading. [95] The Library of Congress says it has an "Extensive collection of photographs related to building the Central Pacific Railroad, as well as its early years of operation. Includes some now (1997) and then (1868) comparison photos." [96] I don't know. My initial thought is that it is probably an informative web site, but doesn't quite live up to the standards set forth by WP:RS. But I could be wrong. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
To answer the question "Are Warchronicle.com and CPRR reliable sources on Stephen Ambrose?" I see that another editor said "The paper linked to Ambrose article was not produced by CPRR.org, but is only hosted on the site for free because its topic relates directly to the CPRR." If this is true (and it appears to be) then shouldn't the scrutiny be on the authors of the content? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
There's clear consensus to use CPRR as a reliable source in this case, and no hard feelings. However, part of my question still stands - is warchronicle also a reliable source in this case? 76.22.25.102 ( talk) 13:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)