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 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
A number of editors are battling to keep a version of the article that relies heavily on self-published group blogs to make a claim about the political partisanship of the subject. Are group blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD reliable sources in this instance? WP:RS and WP:V seem to say very clearly that they are not, but it appears there are a number of people who don't see it that way. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: I would request at this time that this thread remain open for additional commentary and discussion. Problems with using RR and other related sources keep coming up, and we should attempt to reach a resolution that everyone finds satisfactory. Viriditas ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
WP policy on self-published sources ( WP:SELFPUBLISH) seems vague as to what qualifies as a self-published source and what does not. Apart from academic papers, books by established publishers, magazines, and newspapers, please give several examples of what is and what isn't self-published. I am particularly interested in the work product of organizations and websites which don't clearly qualify as news organizations. Drrll ( talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I posted the following information at The Hockey Stick Illusion, a popular-science book, at the "Reception" section ( diff):
The quote is taken from an interview of exchange between Curry and another scientist at a discussion hosted by Keith Kloor, a well-known environmental journalist and former editor at
Audubon Magazine. His resume is
here, and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.
Editor Kim D. Petersen removed the quote, commenting "While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this." Discussion at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rm_Curry seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. On advice of another editor, I'm moving the discussiion of whether to use this source and quote here.
While a strict interpretation of WP:RS and WP:BLP might disallow the source, this would appear to be a gray area, "best treated with common sense" per the regs. I'd be happy to contact Curry and confirm that Kloor did indeed convey her remarks accurately. I think we would be unnecessarily depriving readers of (so far) the only published climatologist's opinion of an interesting book. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Policy is quite clear on this, it is not allowed. Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist. I have no doubt it was her, but there is no way to prove it. Anybody could have made that post under her name (in fact I just posted as Judith Curry on the site). Why do you think this sort of stuff is not allowed? Yoenit ( talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please keep the newsweek discussion in the newsweek section and keep this for the comment Curry made. Yoenit ( talk) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Time to reboot the discussion, I think.
First, Yoenit remarks above, "in fact I just posted as Judith Curry" (19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)), at Keith Kloor's site here (last comment). He was apparently unaware that this is a moderated forum. His imposture was promptly detected and removed. Yoenits' concern that "anybody could have posted using her name" (19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)) has been answered: "EDITOR: Removed test comment by imposter.//KK"
Second, from the discussion so far, it's clear that we need a publicly verifiable confirmation that Dr. Curry indeed wrote what (we almost all agree) she wrote. She has been an invited guest at the Kloor forum; for instance, Kloor interviews her here. My proposal is to contact Kloor and ask him to verify Curry's contribution regarding the Montford book (perhaps for him to emaill Curry to confirm this), then add a public editorial note to that discussion.
Assuming Kloor is willing to do this, would this satisfy the objections to using Curry's comments on the book? --putting aside (for the moment) what exactly should be quoted. Thanks, Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] Dr. Curry herself noticed your impersonation, and posted a warning at Kloor's blog that any posts allegedly by her at other blogs would be imposters.
Impersonating someone is a pretty drastic way of making a point -- it gets you banned here, and isn't appreciated anywhere. In RL, it's known as "fraud". I urge you not to undertake more of such "tests". -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we use court documents as a source to determine a legal outcome? I ask this because there is a dispute over at Prem Rawat in which court documentation seems to be the only source to determine if Mr. Rawat was emancipated by a Colorado court. Essentially we are not looking to gather facts from the documents, just the judge's ruling. However there is an editor who insists that this source would need a secondary source to prove its validity. Thus the matter is "Are court documents reliable sources for determination of a judicial ruling." As ridiculous as it is, this argument actually exists. Ronk01 talk, 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Here in the US all court docs are avalible after a certian period of time, an editor with time on their hands could find them. Ronk01 talk, 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources:
Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.
Please find a secondary source. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable. Ronk01 talk, 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually Momento, I have provided you with sources, I contradicted your argument for application of WP:Primary, since we are not interpreting, and the above seems to prove you wrong, as long as we use the outcome files a fact sources only, we are fine. I oppose much of this secondary source obsession anyway, secondarys are just as flawed as primarys. Ronk01 talk, 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is more verifiable than government documentation, which are cross refferneced hundreds of times, unless of course we are willing to say that all government documentation is non-verifiable, which would damage many, many articles which rely on facts from government documents that don;t get that much press or academic coverage. (I am thinking of CIA, Patriot Act, and any number of articles that rely on government documentation. Ronk01 talk, 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just so we don't have this headache again in the future use Case citation when possible.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody confirm to me whether the use of youtube as a source is acceptable? The source in question is not from an official channel, and is copyrighted. I've have been warned for reverting the addition of this source, and would like confirmation on whether this is an accepted source. As an aside, the article in question is a BLP. Thanks, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of content on Youtube does not qualify as reliable; when it's not copyright infringing material copied from movies and television programs, it's typically user generated content, with no editorial oversight, and typically no way of reliably confirming even the identity of the uploader/content generator. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This posting is about an image and whether the editor who posted it can be considered a reliable source.
This image can be found both here and here, and also here, all from the same source, a former Wikipedia editor who's parting remark to readers is "Goodbye forever."
That's it. No other source is indicated anywhere.
The question, then, is How do we know this is the Hepatitis C virus? The answer, without some kind of reliable documentation, is We don't know that this is Hepatitis C virus. Conclusion: the image should either be deleted or its caption modified to reflect its uncertain source.
Discussion of this issue can be found here. In the course of that discussion I changed the caption of the image, as indicated here. That edit was immediately reverted, here.
To me it's perfectly obvious that the image has no reliable source. Assumed good faith is no reason to accept it. Looking for consensus on this. BruceSwanson ( talk) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the reason I doubt this pictures is HCV? Its lack of a verifiable source, that's what. Your personal gut feeling is no substitute. As for the fact that "all pictures can be faked", that would seem to be a cause for greater vigilance, not a total lack of it -- and by that I mean that you seem to oppose inserting the word purported into the caption. Or don't you? BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
So I take it you support my position in favor of removal. BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the comments by WLU immediately above, I urge readers to follow the three links (particularly the last one) he provided and judge for themselves whether the issue was dealt with "to everyone's satisfaction" except mine, thus warranting a charge of "forum shopping". BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
How does MastCell know what a Hep C virus looks like? Has he seen one, or another image of one? Has anyone? If so, where? As for good faith, the "original uploader" was one PhD_Dre. Look, admire, and assume good faith. And come to think of it, isn't PhD_Dre telling us not to assume good faith? He is, isn't he?
Here's something pertinent. Says nothing about good faith. It does say of images that:
“ | Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, (e.g., in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts) it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source, such as an URL, but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given. | ” |
BruceSwanson ( talk) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is Advanced Media Network RS? 211.30.103.37 ( talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the review for Glass Mark for example:
I won't oppose this one but don't give too much weight compared to ANN or Mania.com . Reviews are pieces of PoV that why you must have good reasons to mention them in a Wikipedia article and have to find a good balance between the different opinion based on the expertise of the reviewer and/or the reach and impact of the review website within the targeted audience and beyond. I find ironical to tag pieces of PoV as Reliable. Getting paid for reviews in the Anime/Manga field is uncommon, many RS reviewers don't make a living out of it, even more got only freebies like reviews copy and press accreditation for anime/manga convention. -- KrebMarkt 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Any staffer of appropriate age will also receive several press convention passes (depending on age restrictions of attending event), Anime press events and conventions, video gaming events, and plentiful anime material to review (DVDs, Manga, Visual Novels, etc. [if applying, and approved for, a review position)
Per WP:SPS (bolding my emphasis):
陣 内 Jinnai 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Would an article on www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for controversial material about a BLP? ie this article [10] for [11]? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit an article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there may be some moderation and editing articles before they are published. [12]. Personally, I find the article polemic in tone, and likely a partisan posting as part of an off-wiki dispute concerning the man which has spread onto Wikipedia,( See [13]) and it is not clear that Buddhistchannel has the kind of editorial oversight required per WP:RS. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the highest quality sources are clearly in order, which I don't believe www.buddhistchannel.tv to be, though I would like to get the opinions of other editors about this. FYI, there is a similar posting at BLPN, but no response to date, so I thought I would try here. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, then most of Wikipedia would go poof in an instant. Here is the Buddhist Channel editor page - while they publish a disclaimer for content (a legal necessity), they clearly also have clear, high editorial standards for fairness, balance, and egalitarian coverage of Buddhism. This source is of considerably higher quality than many others cited on nearly every page in Wikipedia. "Using the latest web technologies on content publication, the BC remains the world's only dedicated Buddhist news servcies, providing daily updates and in-depth coverage...To augment the BC's premier position as a Buddhist news site, five prominent Buddhist individuals were appointed as members of the "International Advisory Panel (IAP)". Each of the panelists - coming from different countries and with expertise in various disciplines - is expected to play a critical role in establishing the Buddhist Channel as a truly global, web based media platform...The BC will remain loyal to the 'non-sectarian' emphasis of the news coverage. It shows in its logo, a three petal lotus of different colors, each shade representing the mainstream schools of Buddhism." Tao2911 ( talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a gross mischaracterization of their quite standard legal disclaimer - they repost articles from other news sources. Of course they have to have a disclaimer for content they didn't generate - however, their statements clearly show that they have an editorial policy that promotes fairness and balance, and that they are selective about content. It's not just a chat room or news dump. Come on - review the site, people. Furthermore, I would like to say that one has to look beyond the simple "brand" of the source - the New York Times prints retractions every day - and review the actual content being reported. Is it accurate? Is it fair? A sort of willful ignorance is being displayed when sources are being discounted just because they are not a major daily newspaper. In this case, validity is gained in part precisely by the source being of special interest in the field of Buddhism as a whole. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling there was one of those. Nice work. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how a CYA disavowal of liability can be immediately translated into an inherent lack of reliability. As pointed out above, even The Grey Lady has this kind of standard, boilerplate legal disclaimer regarding its content. The reliability of a source is determined by its enacted practices, not by the espoused-but-largely-ignored principles forced upon it by risk averse lawyers. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the decision about reliability should not be decided based solely on the legal disclaimer issue. I'm personally more concerned with whether buddhistchannel.tv has the kind of editorial oversight required to show that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per RS. Based on the various about us -type pages, this is a news service: it publishes or republishes content submitted by the public, rather than write original content. Their choice of material is wide. Buddhistchannel.tv appeare to republish what are likely copyright infringements of mainstream news sources, such as this Reuters article and also thoroughly unreliable sources such as this republished wordpress blog. The article in question has been posted anonymously, and I am not clear that the owner and the four staff who "also edit and moderate articles" part of the time, constitute enough of a reputation for and interest in fact-checking to make it a reliable source for a controversial material about a living person. -- Slp1 ( talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Errors or omissions" is a legal term of art. Individuals commenting here might want to review Professional indemnity insurance for why someone might disclaim "Errors or omissions." I don't see how a legal disclaimer means that a site lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Does this site have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - is it used by other, obviously reliable sources? Hipocrite ( talk) 18:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point. What we are using the source for is the FACT of there being ALLEGATIONS, ONGOING CONTROVERSY, and especially the existence (including transcription and pdf of original) of a letter from 8 zen masters calling for Shimano to be disciplined. There is NO POV being expressed; only facts! These facts quite clearly include that Shimano denies all wrongdoing. If source is ok for your "non-controversial Facts" it should be fine for existence of facts that there simply is controversy - which is not in dispute here. We have other sources. This one is helpful. Tao2911 ( talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The print publications are far better sources than the website, which is questionable, at best. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No one is addressing the actual particulars of this case. The facts in question in this article contain their own proofs in the article - the whole letter in question is quoted, with source. This letter is acknowledged all over the place online. You don't have to be willfully obtuse here - you can verify that a source is indeed accurate. Wiki guidelines suggest this, folks. We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule.
This is not a "serious allegation" we need proof for. We have undisputed sources for allegations of abuse. What this article provides is proof of significant letter confirming allegations by peers years after last printed source. This is being widely discussed in Zen field, and has been for years. Again, allegations are NOT IN DISPUTE. This article is a helpful adjunct, to bring info up to more recent past and make issues more comprehensible. I wish someone would actually carefully review the material and context, instead of this "angels on needle heads" debate. Tao2911 ( talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course! But that is NOT the only measure here - is article fair? Yes. Is it balanced? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it meet standards for NPOV and content? yes. Is it the only source of controversial info? NO, its not even one of the primary THREE. Is their any reason to suspect subject matter to be forged, falsified? Clearly not - no one is arguing so. Look at the actual material - don't just wade in with more template blasting and hypotheticals, of which we have pages now. Tao2911 ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Does wikipedia consider the New Catholic Encyclopedia a valid source? LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Pg 191 article about John Cassian.
Also the Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger appears to validate this statement as well.
[17]. And also page 984 "From that point on, semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a HERESY in the Roman Catholic church."
LoveMonkey (
talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Here goes.
And also that I think that Cassian's status as a saint in the Roman Catholic church is ambiguous and it should be clarified that Cassian is not really considered a saint in the church. I was going to get to that after this disagreement.
Thanks LoveMonkey ( talk) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry addendum the statement should be to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian as heresy." Thanks Again LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for that last statement being lost on me. What is meant by "Therefore when in doubt, use attribution". LoveMonkey ( talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This is good advice thanks Dlabtot.
Commator ( talk · contribs) has been adding to this, and other metalworking articles, a number of links to their commercial web site. These have been added as ELs, and as references. The linked site is "relevant", in that its topic area is related to the subject under discussion, however it has almost no content on it. It's way short of the WP:EL standard. I don't even see it as adequate for a reference: not merely not being WP:RS, but not even enough for a reference in passing. I'm happy to accept (in the spirit of WP:AGF) that they could be knowledgeable in the field and have knowledge that could usefully be added to this article, however the content accessible on the linked site is nowhere near enough.
Their discussion since is welcomed, however the style of these two threads could be seen as needlessly personal and combative:
This went to RfC a week ago, links to metal-art.com.ua |Talk:Forging but the editor still sticks to their position and continues to regard unanimous comments by a number of other editors as merely a vendetta against their site. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My intension is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:
"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i][ii]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies[iii]."
i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.
ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.
iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. -- Commator ( talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In view of the discussion above and at Talk:Forging, I have removed the link from a number of pages because checking showed that where used as a reference, the text in the article was not particularly helpful, and the statements were not verified by the reference. This LinkSearch currently shows links only here and at Talk:Forging. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this isn't a reliable source, but since the user is persistent I'm bringing it up here. At dispute is a citation in an article where the subject made a talk at a student organization. A transcript of the talk (the only one apparently) was put on a freeweb style site student organization's page. The student organization apparently had consent to make the transcript, but that is all that has been said about it. I've tried to explain that that consent doesn't mean anything since it's hosted on some site where anyone could upload anything and claim anything. the only thing I've found in the archives here is someone mentioning that a lecture or talk would only be a reliable source if a transcript existed and while he didn't specify, I'm sure that the intended meaning was that that transcript existed on a reliable source.--
Crossmr (
talk) 23:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please post this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This page is for discussion of policy, not of specific sources. LK ( talk) 03:24, 8 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, it 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 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, are the following sources reliable for the numbers of Chveneburi?
1) [23]
2) [24]
3) [25]
4) [26]
Please see also this dif for the original edit [27] Yoenit ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at some biographies today and noticed generic links to ancestry.com used as references for birth dates. (See references in Pat Brown). I thought, "hey, that's cool, someone linked some genealogical information." Then I noticed these links were not to specific entries for the individuals at ancestry.com. The links were to the front page. That struck me as surreptitious advertising for ancestry.com since a) the link is to the front page of the site, and b) the site requires paid membership to access their data. It also occurs to me that information in ancestry.com is not authoritative since it can be entered by anyone and isn't subject to editorial review. So, is a link to ancestry.com a valid reference? Vantelimus ( talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
For the most part, Ancestry.com contains user generated material without editorial oversight, and thus fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
On List of wars between democracies User:Pmanderson contantly re-adds Dean V. Babst's article "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace." The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9-14;" as a source. However, that article does not talk about democracies, but about elective governments, ie goverments that have elections. That is not generally accepted as being a democracy, for example South Africa under Apartheid was an elective government, but not a democracy. IMO it's WP:SYN to use it as a source for wasr between democracies, when it only talks about wars between elective governments. Am I wrong?
The first time I took this up was here: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#The_Boer_wars. It was re-added recently: [29] -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm unfortunately involved in a fairly frustrating discussion on the Somalia talk page. In it, an editor (who I believe is biased towards painting a rosier picture of Somalia than is entirely neutral) has stated that Transparency International's Corruption Index ranking for Somalia (180/180) should not be mentioned, because he claims it is not a reliable source. Pressed on why, he says it's because he believes one source of the ranking, a Matt Bryden, is not reliable. Here a second reliable source question comes up. To support his allegation that Bryden (a UN Monitoring Group's chief coordinator) is unreliable, he provides a bunch of, in my view, amateurish looking news reports ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and asserts that those are reliable (I do not agree). My opinion is that the Transparency Index has its detractors, but it is still a widely used metric of perceived corruption. But while many Wikipedia articles use the index, on the Somalia page, there is no mention of corruption at all, despite it placing dead last and several high profile corruption allegations over the past year or so (namely misdirection of UN food aid and government collusion with pirates). I believe Transparency International is a reliable source on its own ranking, and that its ranking, being the most commonly cited metric of perceived government corruption, is notable enough for inclusion. I was hoping someone with more experience on reliable sources could weigh in on this issue. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes ( talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
"include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
You were certainly right to bring it here, and I hope other non-involved editors aren't discouraged from getting involved in this discussion by the wall of words. First Light ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"We find that there are many limitations to corruption indicators due to the methodologies used in aggregating or averaging, the reliability of the sources on which they are based, and the varying definitions of corruption utilized."
"The CPI relies heavily on “expert assessments” of corruption, representing the views of a small number of people.16 For the most part, these expert assessments are carried out by expatriates of the countries involved. The longer these expatriates are living outside their country of origin, the less likely they are to have an accurate understanding of the current situation in the country. Absolute objectivity is difficult to achieve, and most people naturally will be biased toward either a government or its opposition. To the extent that the expatriates making the assessments of corruption are members of particular economic or social groups, expert assessments of corruption may be biased."
"As the website of TI pointedly notes while the Index identifies Somalia at the very bottom of the ladder in 2008, that does not mean that Somalia is the ‘world’s most corrupt country’ or that Somalians are the ‘most corrupt people’. All it takes for a country to be very corrupt is a few powerful politicians and officials perpetrating corruption on the rest of the population... All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political sectors."
"Since corruption is the result of entrenched dysfunctional institutions in a country, changes at the country-level will be slow to appear. It will take some time for anti-corruption reforms to take effect after they are introduced, and even longer for people to notice the effects of the reforms so that perceptions to change. Since the CPI uses up to three years of data, then even if there are reductions in corruption according to the most recent figures, those advances will be tempered by the inclusion of previous years data. The 1998 CPI Press Release even states, “It needs to be emphasized, though, that it can take some time for these actions [anti-corruption reform] to influence international perceptions, and be consequently reflected in the CPI."
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.
As Midday pointed out concensus is not based on popular vote, indeed if i were to do a mass transparent canvassing campaign and suddenly the score was 40 against inclusion compared to 5 for inclusion, this doesn't equal concensus. No! concensus would be for either side to convince the other of their argument for inclusion/exclusion and then agreeing to a compromise, regardless in whose favour it is. This is something that hasn't occurred here, that so-called 'wall of text' has yet to be countered, and do tell us why a respected Somali news outlet like Wadheernews is not legimate enough to be featured on wikipedia? -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I would not count American Chronicle as a reliable source for any Wikipedia article. I am not sure how their editorial policy (if any) works, but from what I've seen it is essentially no better than a blog. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not really a question of the reliability of the source, but more how to cite it. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post host a number of documents released by the US government about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The NYTimes hosts the exact same material here that the Washington Post does here, with the NYTimes site including an additional page. On Al Fand training camp these two sources are treated as though they are not the same and that they were "published" by the NYTimes and the WPost. To me this is akin to linking to the same AP story multiple times on different sites and claiming they are published by each of the places it appears. The article is currently up for AFD, so it is understandable why somebody would seek to inflate the number of sources in the article to give an impression of greater notability than is really there. In my view the publisher of this work is the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and the two sources are the same. Another editor apparently feels differently. How should this be cited and should they be treated as two separate sources? Apologies if this is an improper venue, not sure where else to ask though. nableezy - 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Is ComicAttack RS? It's about page: About - shows that it has staff. Though it mostly focuses on OEL comics, it does have manga and anime reviews.
Example review: here
They also release news articles for anime and manga: example
It has been mentioned by Melinda Beasi in her reviews. Beasi is RS in the anime and manga field due to writing for PopCultureShock. 211.30.103.37 ( talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro ( talk · contribs)
Back to the issue i'm inclined to give weight to Manga Recon (PCS) due to the quality of its key contributors
There is (again) a battle raging over whether or not Lawrence Solomon is an Environmentalist [34]. Would the following canadian newspaper be a reliable source to finally put this issue to rest? The Metropolitain as it does describe as such mark nutley ( talk) 10:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of this newspaper, even though I live in Quebec where it is published. I gather it is a freebie that one can pick up about town. From the "about us" page, it "is a journal of opinion, reflection and the arts", [35] and indeed the article in question is clearly framed as an opinion column (see the I, we statements) rather than journalism/news. It appears that The Metropolitain accepts unsolicited manuscripts, but it does have a editorial board full of names I recognize and with a background in journalism etc. So... the article would be a reliable source for the opinion of David Solway (described in our article as being known for his "polemical outspokeness") but nothing more. -- Slp1 ( talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the great things about Wikipedia is the drive to make sure that information is accurate and verifiable. This can present problems for information about small and remote communities. Often there are no published sources of up to date or detailed information. Should standards be lower for this kind of material or should we just accept that parts of the world that do not have newspapers should fall off the radar?
I wanted to include a sentence stating that there is mainstream right wing criticism of teh Southern Poverty Law Center. I wish to use an essay published in an opinon journal as evidence of this fact [36] The article is written by a mainstream conservative activist/personality (Matt Barber-- he has a mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia). The essay pretty much says the SPLC has drifted from its civil rights mission and now maligns mainstream right wing personalities.
My attempt to include this reference has been contested because townhall.com is not a reliable source. However, I am not using the article as a means to prove fact, I am using teh essay as evidence of criticism. I would also like to anticipate criticism that this is original research, but I am not sure if this is the venue. So here are my questions: can a mainstream opinion journal be used as evidence of criticism? Is it original research to include a statement acknowledging published criticism of an
I wish to include some form of the statement: The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. [1] [2] [3] [4]
discussion of this point is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Claim_of_controversial_sources.
revision history is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&action=history Mrdthree ( talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to say there is mainstream criticism, you'd have to find a mainstream source to support that statement. Isn't that rather obvious? So the answer is no. Dlabtot ( talk) 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is one of original synthesis. You cannot take two or three essays, even if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, and generalize it to say there has been much criticism or many critics. You'd really need an analysis piece to support that wording. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The alternate wording, Some right-wing commentators, activists..., X, Y, Z is better, though it belongs in a Criticism section, not in the lead. I also wouldn't consider Dr. Swain to be right-wing. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One further point, why doesn't that article have "praise" and "criticism" sections? That's pretty unusual for an advocacy group. The whole article has an almost promotional tone. It shouldn't be too hard to find material for either a praise or criticism section. But for criticism especially, you'd want to use generalist sources before citing specialty conservative publications. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is my proposed summary: an opinion piece can be used as a reliable source to indicate that the author has criticized a specific organization and as a reliable source for the reason the author has criticized the organization. However it is a editorial decision as to whether the authors opinion is relevant to the article. Agree? Mrdthree ( talk) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is AkibaBlog RS? Used as source by Anime News Network - 1, 2, 3 211.30.103.37 ( talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro ( talk · contribs)
This may be one to take to the RS noticeboard for a review, mentioning that the site that comes closest to being the newspaper of record (ANN) uses it as a source. — User:Quasirandom 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
211.30.103.37 ( talk) 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro ( talk · contribs)
Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used as an WP:RS source for the following statement "The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." as done here specially and more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas? Nsaa ( talk) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Degenerating. Let's try starting from scratch? You are free to remove this colapse in totality. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Note: MN is currently on parole that resticts him from introducing any new sources into articles. This was necessary due to his repeated failure to understand sources or our policy. His comments above should be evaluated in the light of this William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with dave souza, this book is not a RS for that statement in that article, and has general problems that precluded it from generally being considered a reliable source. Verbal chat 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I didn't really want to get involved in this, but the discussion seems to be heading in the wrong direction. First, let me stress that reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. Reliability is heavily dependent upon context and a source can be reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. In this particular case, the source represents a minority, if not fringe view point. I don't think that it is
The book is fringe and should not be used as a source at all. TFD ( talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me repeat a point I made above: why do we need to cite this book in the first place if the information that people want to cite from it is contained in other uncontroversial sources? -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Book used as a source in academic papersI see a lot of "This book is ignored" and a lot of "Scholars have passed this book over" This book was cited in the Hartwell Paper [46] it was written by the following,
So as it is being cited by this many eggheads, is it still to be called not reliable? mark nutley ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Oxford's The Journal of Environmental Law charges $32 to view that paper, which is a little beyond my price range. Does anyone have access to that journal to check if the book was used a source in it? I don't think that journal's articles are included in Infotrac, although I'll check. Anyway, this book has been used a source in at least one academic paper, which Mark linked to above, so I think it has been definitely established as meeting our RS guideline. Cla68 ( talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Red flags indicating unreliabilityLots of red flags here indicate the source is unreliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia:
(od)
( edit conflict)What part of what you have linked to is absurd? And what`s wrong with a link from the publisher to wikipedia? mark nutley ( talk) 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
{[ec}}:::::::::::::Please don't expect our guidelines to be as prescriptive as that. Reliability is not the default. Even books from reliable publishers may not be reliable sources. Articles in the New York Times may not be reliable sources. You need to demonstrate reliability. The bit about 'challenge the lazy orthodoxies' doesn't impress. What's the proof of it's being highly respected in the relevant field? Again, please stop harping on this 'list of requirements' and explain why you think it is a reliable source. Dougweller ( talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Evidence that the book promotes unreliable fringe viewsFrom one of the few reviews in the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, "It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame.", "Andrew Montford’s book [is] built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre...", "As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial." [52] So, it's one man's struggle against "the scientific establishment", by definition a fringe view. Far from being a "great scientific mistake", Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been replicated – "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years. A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed." "So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication." The National Academy of Sciences has investigated the original graph, and "agreed that there were statistical failings of the kind highlighted by M&M [McIntyre & McKitrick], but like von Storch it found that they had little effect on the overall result." [53] Note that "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The contrarians have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." [54] . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Look, the book is a reliable source for some things, and not for others. It's not reliable for scientific facts - it's from an individual who believes in the minority or fringe view that the entire body of science regarding Climate Change is wrong - but I don't see anyone proposing to use it for that. It's usable for the opinion of the author on controversies in the climate-change space, as a polemic. Further, it's probably reliable for dry historical fact (On June 23, 1934, John Smith shot his dog). In the context of this discussion, the proposed use was to source "MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." No one doubts this to be true - in fact, we have other, obviously reliable facts that say it. We can all have beliefs about why some editors want to use this source - I share those beliefs. They are not relevent.
However, the second part of this request was "[and] more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas?" Possibly. It depends on what you'd like to use the source for. Typically, we do not use polemics as sources for disputed facts or for scientific statements. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A reliable source is a term used on Wikipedia for a source that is used to verify material. Saying that a source is 'reliable' doesn't mean that we can rely on the material in it to be correct - it simply means that it meets our sourcing guideline. Our neutral point of view policy requires that on any topic, we present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Common sense indicates that often, when significant viewpoints disagree, some of those viewpoints must be wrong. That doesn't mean the sources in which they were published are not reliable sources, as the term is used on Wikipedia. Dlabtot ( talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking for Jonitus by C.J. Verduin], an article by Kees Verduin at the Unversity of Ledien, is being used as a source for our Sons of Noah article here [55]. My removal and addition of a cite tag has been reversed, with the claim " this is valid historiographic information". Dr Kees Verduin's home page says:
Field specific My interests lie in hypertext, databases, information management in general, graphics, and (statistics) computer applications in education and not necessarily in that order. Through my participation in the M & T education, I browse occasionally some time in the history of probability statistics and just recently with Christiaan Huygens busy. In addition, a collaboration with Iris' s Life of toemalige Safety Office of the University of Leiden a smallcommunication module to display works created
Not Field specific Besides the above interests I hold myself in my spare time also working with art-historical topics, the question of the identity of the figure GIIOHARGIIIVS an example. Other things I want to spend some attention to, are The image of Jonitus the Campanile of the Duomo in Florence.
I don't see how his self-published article can be a reliable source. I can't find it mentioned on Google Books or Google Scholar. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
moved to This section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a discussion on Mass killings under Communist regimes about various things. One thing that repeatedly pops up is claims that R.J. Rummels "Death by Government" isn't a reliable source, or that it is fringe. Could we get some guidance and recommendation here to determine if it's a reliable source or not, because the repeated claims of it being WP:FRINGE or similar takes up a significant part of the discussion, but isn't going anywhere. The two sides are at an impasse regarding Rummel, with no new arguments coming from either side, it's just repetition, and no consensus is in sight. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My claim is not that the author is fringe, but rather it is my contention is that WP:FRINGE instructs us to treat the source's contentious assertions as a view outside of academic mainstream, until proven otherwise. Specifically, we have guidance that, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance". The burden of proof to show this level of acceptance has NOT been met. BigK HeX ( talk) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, both parties of the dispute voluntarily decided to play a straw man game. The question is not in if "Death by government" is fringe. The number of citations is a strong argument that by no means this book is fringe. Rummel can be credited for drawing attention of scientific community to the problem of killing of people by their own governments, he was one of the first persons who started to talk about bloody nature of Mao's regime, Rummel was arguably the first scholar who applied advanced math apparatus to the field of genocide studies, and all of that is quite sufficient for his book to be widely recognised and extensively cited. However, does it mean that all Rummel's claims are widely accepted? No. As I already demonstrated previously, both his estimates (the data he used for his computations) and some his conclusions have been criticised by scholars. This criticism has not been refuted, therefore, it is valid. That means that the statement about the problems with Rummel's data and conclusions must accompany every notion about Rummel's theoretical findings in Wikipedia.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Sources being used on this entry seem to be brought here all the time. I'd suggest that the problem might run a bit deeper than individual sources when it becomes this difficult to write an entry based on unquestionably reliably ones. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The work is most definitely not fringe. As an example it is frequently assigned in college course related to the subject (and not in the same way that Mein Kampf may be - which is why this is a wholly inappropriate false analogy which says more about the person making the analogy then about Rummel's work). However, per Paul's comment above, the work is pretty old and, unsurprisingly as usually happens in academia, it has been subject to some criticism and some of the results have been revised. The proper course of action in such a situation is to present the material from the source, attribute it explicitly to Rummel and, if reliable criticisms of this work can be found, include these in the article as well. radek ( talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm having trouble understanding how a "professor emeritus of political science at" a top 30 US university can be considered "fringe". Outdated, maybe even incorrect, sure. But most definitely not fringe. "Fringe" does not mean "includes views I disagree with" which is what it looks like some people are basing their opinions on here. radek ( talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment From my experience Rummel is extremely ideological in his works and tries to be as sensationalistic as possible, including usage of emotional language and terms. His methodology is dubious, I recall that for example he uses extreme cases of massacres or places where people were killed and then applies numbers from them to all events happening in that timeperiod coming to impossible rates of deaths. I would strongly advise against using him as a source and recommend using better ones when possible. His interesting aspect is that he tries to give deaths in historic events where information about death rates is very scarce, but his methods leave much to be desired in terms of reliability. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Rummel's statistics are derived from a comprehensive range of sources; he is one historian of this subject who is invariably fair, condemning right-wing and left-wing governments alike, as well as many regimes whose crimes normally receive little attention from either the media or scholars. Yet his methodology is often somewhat questionable. His statistics for genocide are not generally derived from original research in primary sources, but by taking the most probable figure after examining the range of estimates given by previous writers on the event. This procedure is not necessarily unreasonable, but can lead to the acceptance of figures for a particular act of genocide which are distorted by inaccurate and sometimes biased sources. (...) The Encyclopedia, using Rummel's figures, claims (p.29) that Stalin murdered 42,672,000 people between 1929 and 1953. Rummel's statistics are set out at length in his book Lethal Politics. Here, Rummel claims that Stalin murdered 20,889,000 persons between 1928 and the outbreak of the war in June 1941, including 4,345,000 during the zenith of the Great Terror in 1936-38. These figures (indeed, even higher ones) had previously been given widespread publicity and seeming credibility in the well-known works of Robert Conquest, Roy Medvedev, and others. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a wealth of previously unavailable sources has become available which very recent historians have employed to revise these figures dramatically downwards. These researchers, such as Alex Nove, J. Arch Getty, Sheila FitzPatrick, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, are scholars of international repute whose views on Stalinism are identical to those of any other person of goodwill; they have, however, the possibly quaint belief that historians are obliged to tell the truth, regardless of what that truth might be. Nove concluded that 10-11 million persons perished in the Soviet Union during the decade 1930-39, 'with peasants numerically the main victims'. It would appear that 'only' 786,098 persons were shot by Stalin for 'counter-revolutionary and state crimes' between 1931 and 1953, with 682,000 of these killed in 1937-38, the height of the Great Purges. Rather cleverly examining the dropout rates of random samples of individual telephone subscribers listed in the Moscow phone books of 1935-36 and 1937-38 Fitzpatrick concluded that the rate of disappearance was no more than 7 per cent, although the dropout rate among senior party officials was much higher, around 60 per cent/ In other words, Rummel (and many other historians) has vastly exaggerated the scale of Stalin's mass murders, whatever else might be said about Stalinism or the Soviet Union. Other examples of innaccurate data are mentioned. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
SummaryThis is an attempt to avoid the tangents this discussion for some reason always ends up in, and focus the debate back.
Conclusion: This debate is over. Death by Government is a reliable source, but the people that oppose his conclusions are too dogmatic to ever admit that. The end. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say, the conclusion is that Rummel is not fringe, but outdated, and somewhat superficial in his conclusions. The articles cannot rely heavily on his works as a source, and reasonable criticism should be added every time when Rummel is cited.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I generally agree with Paul here, though I think it's fine to cite Rummel's numbers, though any critiques should be noted. AFAICR not all of the communist numbers he gives were exaggerated, or more precisely, overestimated. Some were. Some weren't. That's why it's important to note the critiques. radek ( talk) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Specific quotesI'm sorry for not doing this at once, but I'm new at these source conflicts, and one learns from ones mistakes. :-) The discussion on the talk, page was always about Rummel himself (because people don't like his views), and he was claimed as fringe and not rs, etc. The above discussion has made it blatantly clear to me that such accusations and discussing such accusations is completely pointless. So now let's do it by the "book" (yes, I think a template at the top of the page would be good). It also turns out, although the criticism when not directed at Rummel, is directed at the book in question. However, most of the times Rummel is used as a source, it's not the book but specific articles. So the claim that the book is not peer-reviewed etc is an utter red herring. My mistake for not double checking the claims of the people who critisized Rummel. Extremely stupid of me. Anyway, I've added a section at the bottom, using the proposed template. Let's see if that works better. :) I propose that we archive this whole section, it was a waste of time. Sorry about that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
John Prescott said: “I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” here (WalesOnline) Please advise if you consider his statement to be self-identification of his nationality. If so, would it support the lead saying: "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott [8] (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh [9] former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." Talkpage discussion here. Thanks, Daicaregos ( talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors on this page might wish to be aware of the lengthy discussion at Talk:John Prescott#British. There is no dispute on that page over what Prescott has said, or over the fact that it comes from a reliable source - [60]. The unresolved question is over appropriate balance and weight in the wording of the opening sentence of the article, together with the various meanings of the term "nationality", and the weight to be given to the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS. Those are not matters, in my view, for which this noticeboard should provide advice. Am I right? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on the following sources:
unitedkits.com historicalkits.co.uk prideofmanchester.com
Some people have raised concerns regarding the reliability of these sources because they are considered fansites. The first two in particular, however, are just the most comprehensive sources for Manchester United kit information on the internet.
Thanks, Tom ( talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
unitedkits.com is the personal website of two United fans. historicalkits.co.uk appears to be the personal website of "Dave". prideofmanchester.com is the commercial website of Neil Jones, "Jim" and "Rob". There is no indication that any of them satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Page:
Mass killings under Communist regimes (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Source:
Death by Government,
Google books,
Link to chapter defining Democide
Comments:
Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear), this falls foul of
WP:SELFPUB with regards to the proposed wording (because, if he claimed a coinage, that would be self-serving even if true). We could say that he "used" the term, but not that he coined it.
Also, if you have encountered objections to the use of the cite, I reckon they are probably on weight grounds rather than the reliability of the source per se.--
FormerIP (
talk) 11:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the issue here?
There is no source that Rummel coined the silly word (still unknown to the OED); on the other hand, this is not the place to discuss whether this irrelevant sentence belongs in any article other than the one on Rummel, and the one on the word itself. That isn't a WP:RS issue; it's an WP:ONTOPIC issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
[64] does it fulfill the requirements for reliability?--Gniniv ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The context in which it was used was
...pointing to Shem's descendant Joktan as the direct ancestor of the East. reference: Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?
Comments:
It's a self-published, non-peer-reviews web page by a non-scholar on a scholarly subject. The author has no apparent notability and is not quoted by anyone as far as Google Scholar knows. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | → | Archive 75 |
A number of editors are battling to keep a version of the article that relies heavily on self-published group blogs to make a claim about the political partisanship of the subject. Are group blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD reliable sources in this instance? WP:RS and WP:V seem to say very clearly that they are not, but it appears there are a number of people who don't see it that way. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Note: I would request at this time that this thread remain open for additional commentary and discussion. Problems with using RR and other related sources keep coming up, and we should attempt to reach a resolution that everyone finds satisfactory. Viriditas ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
WP policy on self-published sources ( WP:SELFPUBLISH) seems vague as to what qualifies as a self-published source and what does not. Apart from academic papers, books by established publishers, magazines, and newspapers, please give several examples of what is and what isn't self-published. I am particularly interested in the work product of organizations and websites which don't clearly qualify as news organizations. Drrll ( talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I posted the following information at The Hockey Stick Illusion, a popular-science book, at the "Reception" section ( diff):
The quote is taken from an interview of exchange between Curry and another scientist at a discussion hosted by Keith Kloor, a well-known environmental journalist and former editor at
Audubon Magazine. His resume is
here, and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.
Editor Kim D. Petersen removed the quote, commenting "While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this." Discussion at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rm_Curry seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. On advice of another editor, I'm moving the discussiion of whether to use this source and quote here.
While a strict interpretation of WP:RS and WP:BLP might disallow the source, this would appear to be a gray area, "best treated with common sense" per the regs. I'd be happy to contact Curry and confirm that Kloor did indeed convey her remarks accurately. I think we would be unnecessarily depriving readers of (so far) the only published climatologist's opinion of an interesting book. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Policy is quite clear on this, it is not allowed. Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist. I have no doubt it was her, but there is no way to prove it. Anybody could have made that post under her name (in fact I just posted as Judith Curry on the site). Why do you think this sort of stuff is not allowed? Yoenit ( talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please keep the newsweek discussion in the newsweek section and keep this for the comment Curry made. Yoenit ( talk) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Time to reboot the discussion, I think.
First, Yoenit remarks above, "in fact I just posted as Judith Curry" (19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)), at Keith Kloor's site here (last comment). He was apparently unaware that this is a moderated forum. His imposture was promptly detected and removed. Yoenits' concern that "anybody could have posted using her name" (19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)) has been answered: "EDITOR: Removed test comment by imposter.//KK"
Second, from the discussion so far, it's clear that we need a publicly verifiable confirmation that Dr. Curry indeed wrote what (we almost all agree) she wrote. She has been an invited guest at the Kloor forum; for instance, Kloor interviews her here. My proposal is to contact Kloor and ask him to verify Curry's contribution regarding the Montford book (perhaps for him to emaill Curry to confirm this), then add a public editorial note to that discussion.
Assuming Kloor is willing to do this, would this satisfy the objections to using Curry's comments on the book? --putting aside (for the moment) what exactly should be quoted. Thanks, Pete Tillman ( talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
[outdent] Dr. Curry herself noticed your impersonation, and posted a warning at Kloor's blog that any posts allegedly by her at other blogs would be imposters.
Impersonating someone is a pretty drastic way of making a point -- it gets you banned here, and isn't appreciated anywhere. In RL, it's known as "fraud". I urge you not to undertake more of such "tests". -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Can we use court documents as a source to determine a legal outcome? I ask this because there is a dispute over at Prem Rawat in which court documentation seems to be the only source to determine if Mr. Rawat was emancipated by a Colorado court. Essentially we are not looking to gather facts from the documents, just the judge's ruling. However there is an editor who insists that this source would need a secondary source to prove its validity. Thus the matter is "Are court documents reliable sources for determination of a judicial ruling." As ridiculous as it is, this argument actually exists. Ronk01 talk, 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Here in the US all court docs are avalible after a certian period of time, an editor with time on their hands could find them. Ronk01 talk, 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources:
Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.
Please find a secondary source. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable. Ronk01 talk, 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually Momento, I have provided you with sources, I contradicted your argument for application of WP:Primary, since we are not interpreting, and the above seems to prove you wrong, as long as we use the outcome files a fact sources only, we are fine. I oppose much of this secondary source obsession anyway, secondarys are just as flawed as primarys. Ronk01 talk, 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is more verifiable than government documentation, which are cross refferneced hundreds of times, unless of course we are willing to say that all government documentation is non-verifiable, which would damage many, many articles which rely on facts from government documents that don;t get that much press or academic coverage. (I am thinking of CIA, Patriot Act, and any number of articles that rely on government documentation. Ronk01 talk, 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Just so we don't have this headache again in the future use Case citation when possible.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody confirm to me whether the use of youtube as a source is acceptable? The source in question is not from an official channel, and is copyrighted. I've have been warned for reverting the addition of this source, and would like confirmation on whether this is an accepted source. As an aside, the article in question is a BLP. Thanks, ♥ Nici♥ Vampire♥ Heart♥ 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority of content on Youtube does not qualify as reliable; when it's not copyright infringing material copied from movies and television programs, it's typically user generated content, with no editorial oversight, and typically no way of reliably confirming even the identity of the uploader/content generator. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This posting is about an image and whether the editor who posted it can be considered a reliable source.
This image can be found both here and here, and also here, all from the same source, a former Wikipedia editor who's parting remark to readers is "Goodbye forever."
That's it. No other source is indicated anywhere.
The question, then, is How do we know this is the Hepatitis C virus? The answer, without some kind of reliable documentation, is We don't know that this is Hepatitis C virus. Conclusion: the image should either be deleted or its caption modified to reflect its uncertain source.
Discussion of this issue can be found here. In the course of that discussion I changed the caption of the image, as indicated here. That edit was immediately reverted, here.
To me it's perfectly obvious that the image has no reliable source. Assumed good faith is no reason to accept it. Looking for consensus on this. BruceSwanson ( talk) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the reason I doubt this pictures is HCV? Its lack of a verifiable source, that's what. Your personal gut feeling is no substitute. As for the fact that "all pictures can be faked", that would seem to be a cause for greater vigilance, not a total lack of it -- and by that I mean that you seem to oppose inserting the word purported into the caption. Or don't you? BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
So I take it you support my position in favor of removal. BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the comments by WLU immediately above, I urge readers to follow the three links (particularly the last one) he provided and judge for themselves whether the issue was dealt with "to everyone's satisfaction" except mine, thus warranting a charge of "forum shopping". BruceSwanson ( talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
How does MastCell know what a Hep C virus looks like? Has he seen one, or another image of one? Has anyone? If so, where? As for good faith, the "original uploader" was one PhD_Dre. Look, admire, and assume good faith. And come to think of it, isn't PhD_Dre telling us not to assume good faith? He is, isn't he?
Here's something pertinent. Says nothing about good faith. It does say of images that:
“ | Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, (e.g., in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts) it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source, such as an URL, but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given. | ” |
BruceSwanson ( talk) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Is Advanced Media Network RS? 211.30.103.37 ( talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the review for Glass Mark for example:
I won't oppose this one but don't give too much weight compared to ANN or Mania.com . Reviews are pieces of PoV that why you must have good reasons to mention them in a Wikipedia article and have to find a good balance between the different opinion based on the expertise of the reviewer and/or the reach and impact of the review website within the targeted audience and beyond. I find ironical to tag pieces of PoV as Reliable. Getting paid for reviews in the Anime/Manga field is uncommon, many RS reviewers don't make a living out of it, even more got only freebies like reviews copy and press accreditation for anime/manga convention. -- KrebMarkt 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Any staffer of appropriate age will also receive several press convention passes (depending on age restrictions of attending event), Anime press events and conventions, video gaming events, and plentiful anime material to review (DVDs, Manga, Visual Novels, etc. [if applying, and approved for, a review position)
Per WP:SPS (bolding my emphasis):
陣 内 Jinnai 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Would an article on www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for controversial material about a BLP? ie this article [10] for [11]? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit an article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there may be some moderation and editing articles before they are published. [12]. Personally, I find the article polemic in tone, and likely a partisan posting as part of an off-wiki dispute concerning the man which has spread onto Wikipedia,( See [13]) and it is not clear that Buddhistchannel has the kind of editorial oversight required per WP:RS. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the highest quality sources are clearly in order, which I don't believe www.buddhistchannel.tv to be, though I would like to get the opinions of other editors about this. FYI, there is a similar posting at BLPN, but no response to date, so I thought I would try here. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, then most of Wikipedia would go poof in an instant. Here is the Buddhist Channel editor page - while they publish a disclaimer for content (a legal necessity), they clearly also have clear, high editorial standards for fairness, balance, and egalitarian coverage of Buddhism. This source is of considerably higher quality than many others cited on nearly every page in Wikipedia. "Using the latest web technologies on content publication, the BC remains the world's only dedicated Buddhist news servcies, providing daily updates and in-depth coverage...To augment the BC's premier position as a Buddhist news site, five prominent Buddhist individuals were appointed as members of the "International Advisory Panel (IAP)". Each of the panelists - coming from different countries and with expertise in various disciplines - is expected to play a critical role in establishing the Buddhist Channel as a truly global, web based media platform...The BC will remain loyal to the 'non-sectarian' emphasis of the news coverage. It shows in its logo, a three petal lotus of different colors, each shade representing the mainstream schools of Buddhism." Tao2911 ( talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a gross mischaracterization of their quite standard legal disclaimer - they repost articles from other news sources. Of course they have to have a disclaimer for content they didn't generate - however, their statements clearly show that they have an editorial policy that promotes fairness and balance, and that they are selective about content. It's not just a chat room or news dump. Come on - review the site, people. Furthermore, I would like to say that one has to look beyond the simple "brand" of the source - the New York Times prints retractions every day - and review the actual content being reported. Is it accurate? Is it fair? A sort of willful ignorance is being displayed when sources are being discounted just because they are not a major daily newspaper. In this case, validity is gained in part precisely by the source being of special interest in the field of Buddhism as a whole. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling there was one of those. Nice work. Tao2911 ( talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how a CYA disavowal of liability can be immediately translated into an inherent lack of reliability. As pointed out above, even The Grey Lady has this kind of standard, boilerplate legal disclaimer regarding its content. The reliability of a source is determined by its enacted practices, not by the espoused-but-largely-ignored principles forced upon it by risk averse lawyers. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the decision about reliability should not be decided based solely on the legal disclaimer issue. I'm personally more concerned with whether buddhistchannel.tv has the kind of editorial oversight required to show that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per RS. Based on the various about us -type pages, this is a news service: it publishes or republishes content submitted by the public, rather than write original content. Their choice of material is wide. Buddhistchannel.tv appeare to republish what are likely copyright infringements of mainstream news sources, such as this Reuters article and also thoroughly unreliable sources such as this republished wordpress blog. The article in question has been posted anonymously, and I am not clear that the owner and the four staff who "also edit and moderate articles" part of the time, constitute enough of a reputation for and interest in fact-checking to make it a reliable source for a controversial material about a living person. -- Slp1 ( talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"Errors or omissions" is a legal term of art. Individuals commenting here might want to review Professional indemnity insurance for why someone might disclaim "Errors or omissions." I don't see how a legal disclaimer means that a site lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Does this site have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - is it used by other, obviously reliable sources? Hipocrite ( talk) 18:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You're completely missing the point. What we are using the source for is the FACT of there being ALLEGATIONS, ONGOING CONTROVERSY, and especially the existence (including transcription and pdf of original) of a letter from 8 zen masters calling for Shimano to be disciplined. There is NO POV being expressed; only facts! These facts quite clearly include that Shimano denies all wrongdoing. If source is ok for your "non-controversial Facts" it should be fine for existence of facts that there simply is controversy - which is not in dispute here. We have other sources. This one is helpful. Tao2911 ( talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The print publications are far better sources than the website, which is questionable, at best. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No one is addressing the actual particulars of this case. The facts in question in this article contain their own proofs in the article - the whole letter in question is quoted, with source. This letter is acknowledged all over the place online. You don't have to be willfully obtuse here - you can verify that a source is indeed accurate. Wiki guidelines suggest this, folks. We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule.
This is not a "serious allegation" we need proof for. We have undisputed sources for allegations of abuse. What this article provides is proof of significant letter confirming allegations by peers years after last printed source. This is being widely discussed in Zen field, and has been for years. Again, allegations are NOT IN DISPUTE. This article is a helpful adjunct, to bring info up to more recent past and make issues more comprehensible. I wish someone would actually carefully review the material and context, instead of this "angels on needle heads" debate. Tao2911 ( talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course! But that is NOT the only measure here - is article fair? Yes. Is it balanced? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it meet standards for NPOV and content? yes. Is it the only source of controversial info? NO, its not even one of the primary THREE. Is their any reason to suspect subject matter to be forged, falsified? Clearly not - no one is arguing so. Look at the actual material - don't just wade in with more template blasting and hypotheticals, of which we have pages now. Tao2911 ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Does wikipedia consider the New Catholic Encyclopedia a valid source? LoveMonkey ( talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Pg 191 article about John Cassian.
Also the Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger appears to validate this statement as well.
[17]. And also page 984 "From that point on, semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a HERESY in the Roman Catholic church."
LoveMonkey (
talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Here goes.
And also that I think that Cassian's status as a saint in the Roman Catholic church is ambiguous and it should be clarified that Cassian is not really considered a saint in the church. I was going to get to that after this disagreement.
Thanks LoveMonkey ( talk) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry addendum the statement should be to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian as heresy." Thanks Again LoveMonkey ( talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me for that last statement being lost on me. What is meant by "Therefore when in doubt, use attribution". LoveMonkey ( talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This is good advice thanks Dlabtot.
Commator ( talk · contribs) has been adding to this, and other metalworking articles, a number of links to their commercial web site. These have been added as ELs, and as references. The linked site is "relevant", in that its topic area is related to the subject under discussion, however it has almost no content on it. It's way short of the WP:EL standard. I don't even see it as adequate for a reference: not merely not being WP:RS, but not even enough for a reference in passing. I'm happy to accept (in the spirit of WP:AGF) that they could be knowledgeable in the field and have knowledge that could usefully be added to this article, however the content accessible on the linked site is nowhere near enough.
Their discussion since is welcomed, however the style of these two threads could be seen as needlessly personal and combative:
This went to RfC a week ago, links to metal-art.com.ua |Talk:Forging but the editor still sticks to their position and continues to regard unanimous comments by a number of other editors as merely a vendetta against their site. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
My intension is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:
"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i][ii]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies[iii]."
i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.
ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.
iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. -- Commator ( talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In view of the discussion above and at Talk:Forging, I have removed the link from a number of pages because checking showed that where used as a reference, the text in the article was not particularly helpful, and the statements were not verified by the reference. This LinkSearch currently shows links only here and at Talk:Forging. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this isn't a reliable source, but since the user is persistent I'm bringing it up here. At dispute is a citation in an article where the subject made a talk at a student organization. A transcript of the talk (the only one apparently) was put on a freeweb style site student organization's page. The student organization apparently had consent to make the transcript, but that is all that has been said about it. I've tried to explain that that consent doesn't mean anything since it's hosted on some site where anyone could upload anything and claim anything. the only thing I've found in the archives here is someone mentioning that a lecture or talk would only be a reliable source if a transcript existed and while he didn't specify, I'm sure that the intended meaning was that that transcript existed on a reliable source.--
Crossmr (
talk) 23:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Please post this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This page is for discussion of policy, not of specific sources. LK ( talk) 03:24, 8 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, it 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 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, are the following sources reliable for the numbers of Chveneburi?
1) [23]
2) [24]
3) [25]
4) [26]
Please see also this dif for the original edit [27] Yoenit ( talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at some biographies today and noticed generic links to ancestry.com used as references for birth dates. (See references in Pat Brown). I thought, "hey, that's cool, someone linked some genealogical information." Then I noticed these links were not to specific entries for the individuals at ancestry.com. The links were to the front page. That struck me as surreptitious advertising for ancestry.com since a) the link is to the front page of the site, and b) the site requires paid membership to access their data. It also occurs to me that information in ancestry.com is not authoritative since it can be entered by anyone and isn't subject to editorial review. So, is a link to ancestry.com a valid reference? Vantelimus ( talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
For the most part, Ancestry.com contains user generated material without editorial oversight, and thus fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
On List of wars between democracies User:Pmanderson contantly re-adds Dean V. Babst's article "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace." The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9-14;" as a source. However, that article does not talk about democracies, but about elective governments, ie goverments that have elections. That is not generally accepted as being a democracy, for example South Africa under Apartheid was an elective government, but not a democracy. IMO it's WP:SYN to use it as a source for wasr between democracies, when it only talks about wars between elective governments. Am I wrong?
The first time I took this up was here: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#The_Boer_wars. It was re-added recently: [29] -- OpenFuture ( talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm unfortunately involved in a fairly frustrating discussion on the Somalia talk page. In it, an editor (who I believe is biased towards painting a rosier picture of Somalia than is entirely neutral) has stated that Transparency International's Corruption Index ranking for Somalia (180/180) should not be mentioned, because he claims it is not a reliable source. Pressed on why, he says it's because he believes one source of the ranking, a Matt Bryden, is not reliable. Here a second reliable source question comes up. To support his allegation that Bryden (a UN Monitoring Group's chief coordinator) is unreliable, he provides a bunch of, in my view, amateurish looking news reports ( 1, 2, 3, 4) and asserts that those are reliable (I do not agree). My opinion is that the Transparency Index has its detractors, but it is still a widely used metric of perceived corruption. But while many Wikipedia articles use the index, on the Somalia page, there is no mention of corruption at all, despite it placing dead last and several high profile corruption allegations over the past year or so (namely misdirection of UN food aid and government collusion with pirates). I believe Transparency International is a reliable source on its own ranking, and that its ranking, being the most commonly cited metric of perceived government corruption, is notable enough for inclusion. I was hoping someone with more experience on reliable sources could weigh in on this issue. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes ( talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
"include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."
You were certainly right to bring it here, and I hope other non-involved editors aren't discouraged from getting involved in this discussion by the wall of words. First Light ( talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
"We find that there are many limitations to corruption indicators due to the methodologies used in aggregating or averaging, the reliability of the sources on which they are based, and the varying definitions of corruption utilized."
"The CPI relies heavily on “expert assessments” of corruption, representing the views of a small number of people.16 For the most part, these expert assessments are carried out by expatriates of the countries involved. The longer these expatriates are living outside their country of origin, the less likely they are to have an accurate understanding of the current situation in the country. Absolute objectivity is difficult to achieve, and most people naturally will be biased toward either a government or its opposition. To the extent that the expatriates making the assessments of corruption are members of particular economic or social groups, expert assessments of corruption may be biased."
"As the website of TI pointedly notes while the Index identifies Somalia at the very bottom of the ladder in 2008, that does not mean that Somalia is the ‘world’s most corrupt country’ or that Somalians are the ‘most corrupt people’. All it takes for a country to be very corrupt is a few powerful politicians and officials perpetrating corruption on the rest of the population... All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political sectors."
"Since corruption is the result of entrenched dysfunctional institutions in a country, changes at the country-level will be slow to appear. It will take some time for anti-corruption reforms to take effect after they are introduced, and even longer for people to notice the effects of the reforms so that perceptions to change. Since the CPI uses up to three years of data, then even if there are reductions in corruption according to the most recent figures, those advances will be tempered by the inclusion of previous years data. The 1998 CPI Press Release even states, “It needs to be emphasized, though, that it can take some time for these actions [anti-corruption reform] to influence international perceptions, and be consequently reflected in the CPI."
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.
As Midday pointed out concensus is not based on popular vote, indeed if i were to do a mass transparent canvassing campaign and suddenly the score was 40 against inclusion compared to 5 for inclusion, this doesn't equal concensus. No! concensus would be for either side to convince the other of their argument for inclusion/exclusion and then agreeing to a compromise, regardless in whose favour it is. This is something that hasn't occurred here, that so-called 'wall of text' has yet to be countered, and do tell us why a respected Somali news outlet like Wadheernews is not legimate enough to be featured on wikipedia? -- Scoobycentric ( talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I would not count American Chronicle as a reliable source for any Wikipedia article. I am not sure how their editorial policy (if any) works, but from what I've seen it is essentially no better than a blog. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not really a question of the reliability of the source, but more how to cite it. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post host a number of documents released by the US government about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The NYTimes hosts the exact same material here that the Washington Post does here, with the NYTimes site including an additional page. On Al Fand training camp these two sources are treated as though they are not the same and that they were "published" by the NYTimes and the WPost. To me this is akin to linking to the same AP story multiple times on different sites and claiming they are published by each of the places it appears. The article is currently up for AFD, so it is understandable why somebody would seek to inflate the number of sources in the article to give an impression of greater notability than is really there. In my view the publisher of this work is the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and the two sources are the same. Another editor apparently feels differently. How should this be cited and should they be treated as two separate sources? Apologies if this is an improper venue, not sure where else to ask though. nableezy - 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Is ComicAttack RS? It's about page: About - shows that it has staff. Though it mostly focuses on OEL comics, it does have manga and anime reviews.
Example review: here
They also release news articles for anime and manga: example
It has been mentioned by Melinda Beasi in her reviews. Beasi is RS in the anime and manga field due to writing for PopCultureShock. 211.30.103.37 ( talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro ( talk · contribs)
Back to the issue i'm inclined to give weight to Manga Recon (PCS) due to the quality of its key contributors
There is (again) a battle raging over whether or not Lawrence Solomon is an Environmentalist [34]. Would the following canadian newspaper be a reliable source to finally put this issue to rest? The Metropolitain as it does describe as such mark nutley ( talk) 10:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never heard of this newspaper, even though I live in Quebec where it is published. I gather it is a freebie that one can pick up about town. From the "about us" page, it "is a journal of opinion, reflection and the arts", [35] and indeed the article in question is clearly framed as an opinion column (see the I, we statements) rather than journalism/news. It appears that The Metropolitain accepts unsolicited manuscripts, but it does have a editorial board full of names I recognize and with a background in journalism etc. So... the article would be a reliable source for the opinion of David Solway (described in our article as being known for his "polemical outspokeness") but nothing more. -- Slp1 ( talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the great things about Wikipedia is the drive to make sure that information is accurate and verifiable. This can present problems for information about small and remote communities. Often there are no published sources of up to date or detailed information. Should standards be lower for this kind of material or should we just accept that parts of the world that do not have newspapers should fall off the radar?
I wanted to include a sentence stating that there is mainstream right wing criticism of teh Southern Poverty Law Center. I wish to use an essay published in an opinon journal as evidence of this fact [36] The article is written by a mainstream conservative activist/personality (Matt Barber-- he has a mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia). The essay pretty much says the SPLC has drifted from its civil rights mission and now maligns mainstream right wing personalities.
My attempt to include this reference has been contested because townhall.com is not a reliable source. However, I am not using the article as a means to prove fact, I am using teh essay as evidence of criticism. I would also like to anticipate criticism that this is original research, but I am not sure if this is the venue. So here are my questions: can a mainstream opinion journal be used as evidence of criticism? Is it original research to include a statement acknowledging published criticism of an
I wish to include some form of the statement: The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. [1] [2] [3] [4]
discussion of this point is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Claim_of_controversial_sources.
revision history is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&action=history Mrdthree ( talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want to say there is mainstream criticism, you'd have to find a mainstream source to support that statement. Isn't that rather obvious? So the answer is no. Dlabtot ( talk) 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is one of original synthesis. You cannot take two or three essays, even if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, and generalize it to say there has been much criticism or many critics. You'd really need an analysis piece to support that wording. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The alternate wording, Some right-wing commentators, activists..., X, Y, Z is better, though it belongs in a Criticism section, not in the lead. I also wouldn't consider Dr. Swain to be right-wing. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One further point, why doesn't that article have "praise" and "criticism" sections? That's pretty unusual for an advocacy group. The whole article has an almost promotional tone. It shouldn't be too hard to find material for either a praise or criticism section. But for criticism especially, you'd want to use generalist sources before citing specialty conservative publications. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Here is my proposed summary: an opinion piece can be used as a reliable source to indicate that the author has criticized a specific organization and as a reliable source for the reason the author has criticized the organization. However it is a editorial decision as to whether the authors opinion is relevant to the article. Agree? Mrdthree ( talk) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is AkibaBlog RS? Used as source by Anime News Network - 1, 2, 3 211.30.103.37 ( talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro ( talk · contribs)
This may be one to take to the RS noticeboard for a review, mentioning that the site that comes closest to being the newspaper of record (ANN) uses it as a source. — User:Quasirandom 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
211.30.103.37 ( talk) 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro ( talk · contribs)
Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used as an WP:RS source for the following statement "The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." as done here specially and more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas? Nsaa ( talk) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Degenerating. Let's try starting from scratch? You are free to remove this colapse in totality. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Note: MN is currently on parole that resticts him from introducing any new sources into articles. This was necessary due to his repeated failure to understand sources or our policy. His comments above should be evaluated in the light of this William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with dave souza, this book is not a RS for that statement in that article, and has general problems that precluded it from generally being considered a reliable source. Verbal chat 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I didn't really want to get involved in this, but the discussion seems to be heading in the wrong direction. First, let me stress that reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. Reliability is heavily dependent upon context and a source can be reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. In this particular case, the source represents a minority, if not fringe view point. I don't think that it is
The book is fringe and should not be used as a source at all. TFD ( talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Let me repeat a point I made above: why do we need to cite this book in the first place if the information that people want to cite from it is contained in other uncontroversial sources? -- ChrisO ( talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Book used as a source in academic papersI see a lot of "This book is ignored" and a lot of "Scholars have passed this book over" This book was cited in the Hartwell Paper [46] it was written by the following,
So as it is being cited by this many eggheads, is it still to be called not reliable? mark nutley ( talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Oxford's The Journal of Environmental Law charges $32 to view that paper, which is a little beyond my price range. Does anyone have access to that journal to check if the book was used a source in it? I don't think that journal's articles are included in Infotrac, although I'll check. Anyway, this book has been used a source in at least one academic paper, which Mark linked to above, so I think it has been definitely established as meeting our RS guideline. Cla68 ( talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Red flags indicating unreliabilityLots of red flags here indicate the source is unreliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia:
(od)
( edit conflict)What part of what you have linked to is absurd? And what`s wrong with a link from the publisher to wikipedia? mark nutley ( talk) 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
{[ec}}:::::::::::::Please don't expect our guidelines to be as prescriptive as that. Reliability is not the default. Even books from reliable publishers may not be reliable sources. Articles in the New York Times may not be reliable sources. You need to demonstrate reliability. The bit about 'challenge the lazy orthodoxies' doesn't impress. What's the proof of it's being highly respected in the relevant field? Again, please stop harping on this 'list of requirements' and explain why you think it is a reliable source. Dougweller ( talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Evidence that the book promotes unreliable fringe viewsFrom one of the few reviews in the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, "It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame.", "Andrew Montford’s book [is] built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre...", "As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial." [52] So, it's one man's struggle against "the scientific establishment", by definition a fringe view. Far from being a "great scientific mistake", Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been replicated – "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years. A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed." "So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication." The National Academy of Sciences has investigated the original graph, and "agreed that there were statistical failings of the kind highlighted by M&M [McIntyre & McKitrick], but like von Storch it found that they had little effect on the overall result." [53] Note that "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The contrarians have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists." [54] . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
|
Look, the book is a reliable source for some things, and not for others. It's not reliable for scientific facts - it's from an individual who believes in the minority or fringe view that the entire body of science regarding Climate Change is wrong - but I don't see anyone proposing to use it for that. It's usable for the opinion of the author on controversies in the climate-change space, as a polemic. Further, it's probably reliable for dry historical fact (On June 23, 1934, John Smith shot his dog). In the context of this discussion, the proposed use was to source "MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." No one doubts this to be true - in fact, we have other, obviously reliable facts that say it. We can all have beliefs about why some editors want to use this source - I share those beliefs. They are not relevent.
However, the second part of this request was "[and] more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas?" Possibly. It depends on what you'd like to use the source for. Typically, we do not use polemics as sources for disputed facts or for scientific statements. Hipocrite ( talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A reliable source is a term used on Wikipedia for a source that is used to verify material. Saying that a source is 'reliable' doesn't mean that we can rely on the material in it to be correct - it simply means that it meets our sourcing guideline. Our neutral point of view policy requires that on any topic, we present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Common sense indicates that often, when significant viewpoints disagree, some of those viewpoints must be wrong. That doesn't mean the sources in which they were published are not reliable sources, as the term is used on Wikipedia. Dlabtot ( talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking for Jonitus by C.J. Verduin], an article by Kees Verduin at the Unversity of Ledien, is being used as a source for our Sons of Noah article here [55]. My removal and addition of a cite tag has been reversed, with the claim " this is valid historiographic information". Dr Kees Verduin's home page says:
Field specific My interests lie in hypertext, databases, information management in general, graphics, and (statistics) computer applications in education and not necessarily in that order. Through my participation in the M & T education, I browse occasionally some time in the history of probability statistics and just recently with Christiaan Huygens busy. In addition, a collaboration with Iris' s Life of toemalige Safety Office of the University of Leiden a smallcommunication module to display works created
Not Field specific Besides the above interests I hold myself in my spare time also working with art-historical topics, the question of the identity of the figure GIIOHARGIIIVS an example. Other things I want to spend some attention to, are The image of Jonitus the Campanile of the Duomo in Florence.
I don't see how his self-published article can be a reliable source. I can't find it mentioned on Google Books or Google Scholar. Dougweller ( talk) 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
moved to This section |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
There is a discussion on Mass killings under Communist regimes about various things. One thing that repeatedly pops up is claims that R.J. Rummels "Death by Government" isn't a reliable source, or that it is fringe. Could we get some guidance and recommendation here to determine if it's a reliable source or not, because the repeated claims of it being WP:FRINGE or similar takes up a significant part of the discussion, but isn't going anywhere. The two sides are at an impasse regarding Rummel, with no new arguments coming from either side, it's just repetition, and no consensus is in sight. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My claim is not that the author is fringe, but rather it is my contention is that WP:FRINGE instructs us to treat the source's contentious assertions as a view outside of academic mainstream, until proven otherwise. Specifically, we have guidance that, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance". The burden of proof to show this level of acceptance has NOT been met. BigK HeX ( talk) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, both parties of the dispute voluntarily decided to play a straw man game. The question is not in if "Death by government" is fringe. The number of citations is a strong argument that by no means this book is fringe. Rummel can be credited for drawing attention of scientific community to the problem of killing of people by their own governments, he was one of the first persons who started to talk about bloody nature of Mao's regime, Rummel was arguably the first scholar who applied advanced math apparatus to the field of genocide studies, and all of that is quite sufficient for his book to be widely recognised and extensively cited. However, does it mean that all Rummel's claims are widely accepted? No. As I already demonstrated previously, both his estimates (the data he used for his computations) and some his conclusions have been criticised by scholars. This criticism has not been refuted, therefore, it is valid. That means that the statement about the problems with Rummel's data and conclusions must accompany every notion about Rummel's theoretical findings in Wikipedia.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment Sources being used on this entry seem to be brought here all the time. I'd suggest that the problem might run a bit deeper than individual sources when it becomes this difficult to write an entry based on unquestionably reliably ones. Griswaldo ( talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The work is most definitely not fringe. As an example it is frequently assigned in college course related to the subject (and not in the same way that Mein Kampf may be - which is why this is a wholly inappropriate false analogy which says more about the person making the analogy then about Rummel's work). However, per Paul's comment above, the work is pretty old and, unsurprisingly as usually happens in academia, it has been subject to some criticism and some of the results have been revised. The proper course of action in such a situation is to present the material from the source, attribute it explicitly to Rummel and, if reliable criticisms of this work can be found, include these in the article as well. radek ( talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm having trouble understanding how a "professor emeritus of political science at" a top 30 US university can be considered "fringe". Outdated, maybe even incorrect, sure. But most definitely not fringe. "Fringe" does not mean "includes views I disagree with" which is what it looks like some people are basing their opinions on here. radek ( talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment From my experience Rummel is extremely ideological in his works and tries to be as sensationalistic as possible, including usage of emotional language and terms. His methodology is dubious, I recall that for example he uses extreme cases of massacres or places where people were killed and then applies numbers from them to all events happening in that timeperiod coming to impossible rates of deaths. I would strongly advise against using him as a source and recommend using better ones when possible. His interesting aspect is that he tries to give deaths in historic events where information about death rates is very scarce, but his methods leave much to be desired in terms of reliability. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Rummel's statistics are derived from a comprehensive range of sources; he is one historian of this subject who is invariably fair, condemning right-wing and left-wing governments alike, as well as many regimes whose crimes normally receive little attention from either the media or scholars. Yet his methodology is often somewhat questionable. His statistics for genocide are not generally derived from original research in primary sources, but by taking the most probable figure after examining the range of estimates given by previous writers on the event. This procedure is not necessarily unreasonable, but can lead to the acceptance of figures for a particular act of genocide which are distorted by inaccurate and sometimes biased sources. (...) The Encyclopedia, using Rummel's figures, claims (p.29) that Stalin murdered 42,672,000 people between 1929 and 1953. Rummel's statistics are set out at length in his book Lethal Politics. Here, Rummel claims that Stalin murdered 20,889,000 persons between 1928 and the outbreak of the war in June 1941, including 4,345,000 during the zenith of the Great Terror in 1936-38. These figures (indeed, even higher ones) had previously been given widespread publicity and seeming credibility in the well-known works of Robert Conquest, Roy Medvedev, and others. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a wealth of previously unavailable sources has become available which very recent historians have employed to revise these figures dramatically downwards. These researchers, such as Alex Nove, J. Arch Getty, Sheila FitzPatrick, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, are scholars of international repute whose views on Stalinism are identical to those of any other person of goodwill; they have, however, the possibly quaint belief that historians are obliged to tell the truth, regardless of what that truth might be. Nove concluded that 10-11 million persons perished in the Soviet Union during the decade 1930-39, 'with peasants numerically the main victims'. It would appear that 'only' 786,098 persons were shot by Stalin for 'counter-revolutionary and state crimes' between 1931 and 1953, with 682,000 of these killed in 1937-38, the height of the Great Purges. Rather cleverly examining the dropout rates of random samples of individual telephone subscribers listed in the Moscow phone books of 1935-36 and 1937-38 Fitzpatrick concluded that the rate of disappearance was no more than 7 per cent, although the dropout rate among senior party officials was much higher, around 60 per cent/ In other words, Rummel (and many other historians) has vastly exaggerated the scale of Stalin's mass murders, whatever else might be said about Stalinism or the Soviet Union. Other examples of innaccurate data are mentioned. -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
SummaryThis is an attempt to avoid the tangents this discussion for some reason always ends up in, and focus the debate back.
Conclusion: This debate is over. Death by Government is a reliable source, but the people that oppose his conclusions are too dogmatic to ever admit that. The end. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say, the conclusion is that Rummel is not fringe, but outdated, and somewhat superficial in his conclusions. The articles cannot rely heavily on his works as a source, and reasonable criticism should be added every time when Rummel is cited.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I generally agree with Paul here, though I think it's fine to cite Rummel's numbers, though any critiques should be noted. AFAICR not all of the communist numbers he gives were exaggerated, or more precisely, overestimated. Some were. Some weren't. That's why it's important to note the critiques. radek ( talk) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Specific quotesI'm sorry for not doing this at once, but I'm new at these source conflicts, and one learns from ones mistakes. :-) The discussion on the talk, page was always about Rummel himself (because people don't like his views), and he was claimed as fringe and not rs, etc. The above discussion has made it blatantly clear to me that such accusations and discussing such accusations is completely pointless. So now let's do it by the "book" (yes, I think a template at the top of the page would be good). It also turns out, although the criticism when not directed at Rummel, is directed at the book in question. However, most of the times Rummel is used as a source, it's not the book but specific articles. So the claim that the book is not peer-reviewed etc is an utter red herring. My mistake for not double checking the claims of the people who critisized Rummel. Extremely stupid of me. Anyway, I've added a section at the bottom, using the proposed template. Let's see if that works better. :) I propose that we archive this whole section, it was a waste of time. Sorry about that. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
John Prescott said: “I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” here (WalesOnline) Please advise if you consider his statement to be self-identification of his nationality. If so, would it support the lead saying: "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott [8] (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh [9] former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." Talkpage discussion here. Thanks, Daicaregos ( talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Editors on this page might wish to be aware of the lengthy discussion at Talk:John Prescott#British. There is no dispute on that page over what Prescott has said, or over the fact that it comes from a reliable source - [60]. The unresolved question is over appropriate balance and weight in the wording of the opening sentence of the article, together with the various meanings of the term "nationality", and the weight to be given to the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS. Those are not matters, in my view, for which this noticeboard should provide advice. Am I right? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on the following sources:
unitedkits.com historicalkits.co.uk prideofmanchester.com
Some people have raised concerns regarding the reliability of these sources because they are considered fansites. The first two in particular, however, are just the most comprehensive sources for Manchester United kit information on the internet.
Thanks, Tom ( talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
unitedkits.com is the personal website of two United fans. historicalkits.co.uk appears to be the personal website of "Dave". prideofmanchester.com is the commercial website of Neil Jones, "Jim" and "Rob". There is no indication that any of them satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Page:
Mass killings under Communist regimes (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Source:
Death by Government,
Google books,
Link to chapter defining Democide
Comments:
Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear), this falls foul of
WP:SELFPUB with regards to the proposed wording (because, if he claimed a coinage, that would be self-serving even if true). We could say that he "used" the term, but not that he coined it.
Also, if you have encountered objections to the use of the cite, I reckon they are probably on weight grounds rather than the reliability of the source per se.--
FormerIP (
talk) 11:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
What is the issue here?
There is no source that Rummel coined the silly word (still unknown to the OED); on the other hand, this is not the place to discuss whether this irrelevant sentence belongs in any article other than the one on Rummel, and the one on the word itself. That isn't a WP:RS issue; it's an WP:ONTOPIC issue. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
[64] does it fulfill the requirements for reliability?--Gniniv ( talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The context in which it was used was
...pointing to Shem's descendant Joktan as the direct ancestor of the East. reference: Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?
Comments:
It's a self-published, non-peer-reviews web page by a non-scholar on a scholarly subject. The author has no apparent notability and is not quoted by anyone as far as Google Scholar knows. --
OpenFuture (
talk) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)