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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 |
I've looked at WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and searched the archives here, and remain unsure how to proceed regarding two external links - I'm also unsure whether this is a suitable place to ask for guidance, so please bear with me, and direct me elsewhere if need be! The ELs are as follows:
1. " Reculver Towers At Neolithicsea.co.uk" was added to Reculver in this edit of 22:42, 31 July 2010; there has been no discussion. The EL adds nothing to the article - it actually appears to use text copied from the article - but it does include internal links to an attractive photo gallery. However, I think it may be spam, and, apart from the photos, it's obviously not a reliable source: should it be deleted? p.s. Ditto re " Creake Abbey at Neolithicsea.co.uk" added to Creake Abbey in this edit of 18:24, 1 August 2010. Both external links have been added by User:Neosea, and the time of writing have been his/her only contributions. It's beginning to look to me like COI, given the coincidence between username and URL, and linkspam.
2. " Notes from Medway's Hoo Peninsula - www.hoo-peninsula.co.uk" was added to a number of articles, e.g. St Mary Hoo in this edit of 20:56, 8 June 2010, and automatically generated the edit summary "( Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user)"; there has been no discussion. The EL links to a blog, so looks to me like a good candidate for deletion, and I'm pretty sure it's spam: should it be deleted? I've already deleted this EL from Hoo St Werburgh - then it occurred to me to ask about it here!
Thanks for your time. Nortonius ( talk) 11:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I need a clarification regarding reliable source. My question is also similar to a section above. Generally when a new book is released by a reputed publisher ( already widely and heavily cited in Wikipedia ) is it necessary to wait for some reviews to appear to judge it as a reliable source? From what I know, reviews appear only several months to years after the publication. Regards, -- Themrin 2 ( talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)I was not clear above( my alt account for public networks ). The publisher in question in Motilal Banarsidass ( usage on wiki). The book in question is recently published ( 2 weeks back or so ) Interpreting Ramakrishna authored by Tyagananda, a Chaplain at Harvard University [1] and has also been a panel member for American Academy of Religion discussion [2]. The section in question is here. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It may sound ridiculous, the book is already being used a WP:RS in atleast 3 other articles, but User:Goethean edit wars and removes it for one particular article-- Ramakrishna. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view."
That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted.
Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"
Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)
This pattern of sourcing violates neutrality, definitions of reliable sourcing, and principles of systemic and cultural bias. Noloop ( talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Good sources don't exist, but these meet the letter of Wikipedia's guidelines, and there's plenty of people to revert changes, so there isn't anything to be done. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In The God Delusion, which is about as non Christian Theologian as you can get, Dawkins says that you could build a case that Jesus never existed but that it isn't 'widely supported' and that 'Jesus probably existed'. - MrOllie ( talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Noloop, thank you for doing the research on all of these sources. The claim "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" clearly is not properly sourced. The fact that there are a number of scholars (such as in the Christ Myth Theory article) who question the historical existence of Jesus proves that this claim is simply false. As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old CMT FAQ, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. Anyone who thinks religious indoctrination has no impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence with respect to that religion's truth claims is naive or delusional. That being said, I have tended recently to resign myself to the same conclusion that Peregrine Fisher has made. My sanity is more important than the integrity of a couple of Wikipedia articles. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
People this is not helping. To established a mainstream view you have to establish expertise. As far as I know the evidence for the existence of Jesus is more or less as follows: Theologians - vast majority support historical jesus. Historians - Mixed view, problematic is the lack of contemporary sources which makes any claim lacking first hand evidence. Archaeology - No evidence of the specific person Jesus.
Simply put, if you exclude theologians from the the balance the mainstream is not as clear cut. Noloop argues that theologians are not qualified experts for historical facts (and he has some kind of a point, as we also do not take the opinion of theologians on the life of Cicero or Cleopatra as leading).
Arnoutf (
talk) 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I suspect there are no historians who research Jesus. Likewise, there is no serious research on the life of the historical Priam, even though it's perfectly plausible that the historic Troy had an historic king. There's just not much that can be known in a scientific sense. As Elaine Pagels said: "The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more." Pagels isn't saying there was no Jesus, here; she's saying that if he existed, there's not much that can be known. Noloop ( talk) 06:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(remove indent) This now marks the fifth time (that I know of) that something along this issue has come up:
The problem is not so much that the Christ Myth theory is fringe (that is pretty much a given) but just exactly what it is and where the break is with the equally fringe minimalist position is. Adding to the problems is that the phrases "Christ Myth" is used for other things than "Jesus never existed as as physical person" Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Getting_a_handle_on_the_various_definitions_.28again.29 goes over the various definitions and later list the editors that feel as I do that the very definition of "Christ myth theory" as it currently stands is confusing and not supported by all the reliable sources.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I live in a quiet estate, walk through Queens Crescent every day and to be honest have not noticed any drug dealing gangs or the deprivation noted within the article. This article (given that there are no citations regarding gangs, deprivation or drug dealing) can only be a matter of opinion and as such has no place on wikipedia.
The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)
Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:
Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa ( talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 ( talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently in the process of editing the article for the surname Akins, I added an image of the Akins coat of Arms from the Wikimedia commons image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Akins_coat_of_arms_complete.jpg along with the caption "Akins coat of arms, an early example of which can be found on the gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785), a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina". The source I cited for this was the book The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 by The Historical Comittee of 1976, Craftsman Publishing, Charlotte, 1978, which contains an identified image of the coat of arms along with details of the location of Thomas Akins' grave, his dates of birth and death from the tombstone inscription, etc.
The image was shortly thereafter taken down by a group of other editors: HelloAnnyong, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, Dougweller who seemed to be of the opinion that the source I provided was "unreliable" and that the coat of arms was "dubious" (even though it has been used by the Akins family for more than 200 years) See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Thomas&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1785&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=5677664&df=all&. The other editors argued that the coat of arms was "dubious" because they could find no reference to it being registered outside of the United States. Since the Akins family is Scottish they expected the coat of arms to be recorded in the Lord Lyon's New Register of All Arms and Bearings of Scotland - a register that was not established until 1672, several decades after the Akins family (to whom the coat of arms belongs) had emigrated from Scotland to the Ulster Plantation, and then to America by the 1660's. Earlier examples of the Akins coat of arms can be found on other family gravestones, the earliest being that of Alexander Akins who died in 1669 and is buried in Harford Co., Maryland. Images of this and other gravestones bearing the same Akins coat of arms can be found at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=25978854&df=all& and at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=5677681&df=all& however the editors who objected to the inclusion of the image of the Akins coat of arms in the Akins surname article felt that the aforementioned references were "unreliable" because they were submitted to the Find a Grave website by users.
I feel that there is a double-standard in all of this, as there are numerous other articles dealing with family surnames which include images of coats of arms, crest badges and other images of a similar nature. The fact that the Akins coat of arms has been in use by the Akins family for well over two hundred years, irrespective of what country it was used in, gives a great deal of credence to its legitimacy, and I feel warrants its inclusion in the Wikipedia Akins surname article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 August 2010
( edit conflict) (I won't change my original post although it duplicates most or all of the above)
The problem here may be one of definition. If my great granny painted a daisy over her door, and my granny did the same at her house, and my mum did the same at her house, and I do the same at my house, and my daughter does the same at her house, you could say that it is a tradition for the women of my family to mark their houses with a daisy. What I can't do is claim that it is an English coat of arms, because they have to be granted by the Queen. Wyvren may have sound evidence that his US ancestors used this set of symbols to identify themselves. What he can't demonstrate is that it is in any way connected to a Scots clan armorial bearing. The Charlotte source and the others should be good enough to show that the Akins family used these symbols, but it would have to be made very clear that it's NOT a Scots clan armorial bearing, not recognised by the Lord Lyon etc. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "of that Ilk" see: The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands, pgs. 401-402User:Wyvren|Wyvren]] ( talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
See also: The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands pg. 404
from before the outdent:
So following this conversation, Wyvren added a picture of the tombstone with the caption "Early heraldic gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785) a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina." and listed the book as a reference. Aside from the fact that the book doesn't actually say "heraldic", is it appropriate to use that term in the caption? Seems to me that it isn't, since appending 'heraldic' seems to be giving it more credibility than is due. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren's image ( File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg) is not supported by the booklet, as has been noted (and buried) several times on Talk:Akins. I think it is as simple as that. Any American can change their forename, or surname to "xxx of that Ilk"; it means nothing when someone does it themselves, and has no bearing on the status of that person in Scotland or America [29]. Any American can copyright a drawing of a coat of arms (especially if they just made it up). The assumed-name, the copyrighted image, and Wyvren's beef with the heraldic authority in Scotland, has nothing to do with what he is appealing here - that the consensus on Talk:Akins is that the source does not support the image. Also, it should be made clear that Wyvren's scanned pages ( [30] [31]) do not show that the Steele Creek engraving was the 'symbol of a family' for the last two hundred years. The pages only show a simple sketch, and the man's birth/death dates. That's it.
Outside of the Wikisphere, numerous webpages/newgroup-threads show that Wyvren (aka Steven L. Akins) is considered to have forged a will, and is suspected of faking tombstone photos [32]; he is reported to have attempted to plant a faked tombstone [33]; and he is said to have fudged genealogical records on the web [34]. The findagrave photo that he linked above, of what he claims is a 17th century tombstone, has clearly been manipulated in some way. I think that this case is an example of why original images, all by themselves, are not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; and why, in some cases, conflicts of interest are a danger to the integrity of an article. The Wikipedia articles on Scottish clans are made up of content from numerous independent sources. The clans themselves, and their lines of chiefs, are specifically dealt with in numerous independent sources. Not so with "Clan Akins", all we get are: Wyvren/Steven's various webpages; ' bucket shop'-type websites that he submits his info to; user submitted documents and photos; and roundabout arguments concerning the validity of Scottish heraldic practice and Americans. The clan articles rely on more than the authority of disgruntled Wikipedians who have spent thousands of dollars on: failed attempts at petitioning heraldic authorities for coats of arms; on name changes; and on registering copyrights for drawings. That's why this editor's COI, and questions of his reliability, are an issue in regards to his edits to this article.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
All of which is no doubt very interesting, but this is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I don't see the reliability of any source being discussed here, just a continuation of an argument which properly belongs at Talk:Akins. Groomtech ( talk) 06:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at The Hockey Stick Illusion article over the use of this source in the "Reception" section of the article. The source is from the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap en Techniek ( Dutch Wikipedia entry). Those advocating its removal point out that the post is from the book shop section of the magazine's website, not from its print edition and appears to be simply trying to sell the book, not formally reviewing it. The contrary opinion is that the person who wrote the post is identifying himself by name and is one of the magazine's editors, thus giving the book a neutral review under the name of the magazine. Opinions on the quality of the source, especially from uninvolved editors, are welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please Chris, let the participants here give their opinion without an AGW regular trying to influence it. I believe I presented a fair and balanced portrayal of the nature of the dispute. Please let this board take it from there. Cla68 ( talk) 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The section header doesn't state the issue very precisely, as we are talking about a web only feature, not the magazine proper. I can't read Dutch, and only reading the entire publication, in context in its original language, can provide one with a proper perspective on whether this is usable. See comment by a Dutch speaker at the article talk page, here [35] and note also previous discussion here. [36] ScottyBerg ( talk) 03:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
These subheadings are unnecessary and misleading since the originator of the question appears to be involved him/herself. How about if there is going to be so much drama the involved editors agree not to comment anymore and we leave it at that? From what I gathered here and on the talk page where this is being discussed the source appears not to be reliable. At best, this sounds akin to solicited reviews that might not ever appear in any publications but end up on a book dust jacket in order to promote the book. It would be nice to get some more Dutch language readers to verify the story here, but unless we've been fed false information this is just marketing material. It is clearly not akin to anything else actually published in the magazine, since it was not actually published in the magazine. If the editors opinion is notable enough as an individual opinion, then it would be possible to attribute it to him only, but not to the magazine as such. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Advertisements and other promotional materials lack the independence required to qualify as reliable sources, imho. Dlabtot ( talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In This article a dispute is taking place over weather or not CNN is a valid and reliable source. Source: CNN Article: Charles County, Maryland
Qoute:
It later became the largest residential arson in the history of the state of Maryland.
Talk page: Talk:Charles County, Maryland
Thanks. -- Phoon ( talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Can some one have some opinion on the following University debate related sources please:
They are all used in the
European Universities Debating Championship article and all (with the exception of the
eudc.wikidot.com) appear to be websites or blogs of Colm Flynn. The
eudc.wikidot.com appears to be relatively new and it is unclear where they are sourcing there information from given the request for information on the main page. I have asked before about these sources before (see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#www.debating.net) without a clear consensus.
I have looked for more sources for results on European Universities Debating Championship for example here but with out any luck.
Any comments please
Codf1977 (
talk) 10:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else ? Codf1977 ( talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. Would this paper be considered a reliable source? It was used here. Thanks!-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I checked on American Idol and have reports about Kara DioGuardi's firing from the show, only TMZ confirms it. One user leaked for no words about Fox.
Talk:American Idol#Judges changes
ApprenticeFan work 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
People here will tell you that TMZ isn't reliable, or that you should look for another source. I don't know of any policy/guideline based reason for this. TMZ comments on "trivial" matters, which I guess we know when we see. Other than that, they're are super reliable. Editors? Check. Paid writers? Check. Someone to sue if they get it wrong? Check. Used as a source by other reliable sources? Check (quadruple check, really). Cover an area that paper encyclopedia's don't cover? Check. Editors find them distasteful? Check. Hmmm. They're basically reliable, even concerning what they cover, which is BLPs. There isn't any policy based reason to discount them, as far as I know. On the other hand, and in general, if two editors will revert you, you can't get passed 3RR. So, maybe they're IAR unreliable. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Dr Judith Curry in an interview with Keith Kloor on Kloor`s website? Kloor is a professional journalist About Kloor. In particular i want to use the following text in The Hockey Stick Illusion article.
"I am not so much defending this book as recommending that people read it. Climate scientists can learn a lot from Montford’s book. Not in terms of who is “right” or “correct” in terms of the science (that is still being debated), but how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate. While the hockey stick is not of any particular scientific importance, Montford’s book explains why the hockeystick became a big deal, owing to the IPCC’s choice to make the hockey stick a visual icon for the IPCC in its marketing of the IPCC. Therefore, in the public’s mind, challenges to the hockeystick metaphorically became challenges to the entire global warming argument. And the Climategate emails, while not illuminating any actual scientific misconduct, provided a view into the underbelly of how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints".
Thoughts? Also per the talk page here could those involved please put INV in front of their posts so uninvolved persons know what`s what, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For obscure reasons, the reference to this web page has been tagged as a dubious source. Can someone please verify its credibility. Thanks. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 08:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As an Italian, I've had a look at the website. It looks like a neat and well researched, even if not strictly professional, database of information on Italian pop songs. It has editorial restriction (i.e. it's not a Wiki or user-made website) even if it acknowledges some contribution as coming from user's suggestion. and for the purposes for which it is used in the article I would say it is reliable enough. -- Cyclopia talk 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Page:
List of wars between democracies (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Source: Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 122, 129, 209-10; discussed as an example where the states confronting each other are similar in government type, in economic status, but not in religion; since Brecher et al. lump common democracy in with other variables, and consider the greatest difference between pairs of states, not the least, there may be others.
Diff or proposed edit: Removal of the First Kashmir War from the list.
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#First_kashmir_war
Comments:
The source is being used to claim that the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies. The claim apparently goes like this:
Is that an acceptable reasoning, that makes this a reliable source for the claim that The First Kashmir War was a war between democracies? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the input. I think the consensus is clear, the source can not be used to support the statement. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I recommend that under no circumstances should you attempt to represent the outcome as a consensus that the source cannot be used to support the statement. Go back to the talkpage - that is the correct forum for content disputes. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated on this discussion regarding whether an Institute for Public Policy Research or an Office for National Statistics source is better for employment statistics on Somalis in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The ONS would generally be considered the most reliable source for employment statistics in the U.K. Jayjg (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2 questioned the reliability of Manolith.com. Judging by WP:Reliable sources, I thought it was. Does it pass? Flyer22 ( talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
[53] Is this a reliable source. Editor User:Mike R has removed it twice claiming it is a wiki mirror, I see no evidence for that claim. Justin talk 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind. Justin talk 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this [ [54]] RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven ( talk • contribs) 14:09, August 7, 2010
Is http://www.iranterror.com/ a reliable source? This page is being used in an article for biographical details. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am ignorant on the topic Malcom X however this paragraph raised WP:REDFLAG for
"Living in Harlem, he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and steering prostitutes.[35] According to biographer Bruce Perry, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually, though not always for money. In a Michigan boarding house, he raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite.[36] Later, in New York, Little and some friends raised funds by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived.[36] In Boston a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm.[37] No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.[38][39][40] >
This entire paragraph is cited only with Bruce Perry's book
Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America.
The final sentence is: No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.[38][39][40]
Which Raises REDFLAGS to me. I really dont care either way whether he was Bisexual or not but this smells funny, and I am not the first to note this. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for biographies? ("Encyclopedia of World Biography"). Is this a wikipedia mirror? -- Ragib ( talk) 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is trouble on the page with a youtube link used as reference and an editor keeping to remove the "unreliable source?" tag. I cannot find the policy that explicitly forbids youtube as a reference. Could someone point it out for me. Thanks. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Nibiru collision uses sources like Geocities, Zetatalk.com, and Badastronomy.com, documenting a popular delusion. I don't have an appetite to clean it up myself, and there are probably a few fine-tuning judgment calls to make, so I'll just mention it here if someone is interested. Wnt ( talk) 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I seek your views of an issue I am discussing at User talk:Dyanega#Problem citation. The citation(s) in question are accessible at this site—but only to paid subscribers. I have the greatest respect for the editor(s) who have posted the sources, but there is a difficulty for ordinary Wikipedians (as acknowledged at WP:SOURCEACCESS) in obtaining the information alluded to. I see no reason to delete such sources. However, in the interests of transparency, I have expanded their description to convey that it is a waste of time clicking on the link. Is this situation covered more fully anywhere in our guidelines, or has anyone an alternative solution, please? Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi ( talk) 09:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got an editor on Talk:Fashion_blog#New_content_added who doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on using blogs and other self published sites as sources, and they have personalized their issues with me enough that they don't seem inclined to listen to me any more. If anyone has time to drop by and offer their two cents, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi some thoughts on if this site [58] would be a reliable source for the St Nazaire Raid article. It the St. Nazaire society a registered charity in the United Kingdom. It was set up by the survivors of the raid and its patron is the Duke of Edinburgh. Obviously I would want to use the society as a reference for the article. Thanks -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm wanting to know for meeting WP:V can we link to unofficial/fan translation patches themselves if they don't include a copy of the work that would be translated as a last resort? 陣 内 Jinnai 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The current Simon Amstell article relies on this talktalk celeb page for an accurate date of birth, no other sources validate this information. I have tried looking at the site T&Cs but these do not appear to have any editorial policy for the website. Considering they have a significant database for popular celebrities but no named journalists or attribution for information, should be support or exclude this source under the WP:BLP guidelines? Fæ ( talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A high-level intelligence agent who had been referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by "a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI" stated that this washington post article was an FBI plant. How does this affect the reliability of this Post article?
Washington Post article http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07
Article where Washington Post Article is stated to have been an FBI plant http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/print.html Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The salon article stated that the post article was a plant so I'm questioning if the post article is still considered a reliable source. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, both views should be noted. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 04:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Not just dea, "Agents of the DEA, ATF, Air Force, Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service documented some 130 separate incidents of "art student" encounters" or maybe Allegations of Israel spying on the United States (1999-2001) Some other articles point to some other instances of alleged spying that don't involve just the art students. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Squidfryerchef, some of the spying allegations came before the release of the dea document. There are broader allegations that don't just include the art students. I suggest that you watch the 20 minute four part fox special on Israel spying on America with carl cameron on youtube to get a better idea. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 10:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
But if the article article is to focus on just the art student spying allegations, I agree that the 60 pg. Dea document would be a good focus. I do think that espionage or spying should be mentioned in the title. Inquiry is definitely a good description. How about DEA Israeli "art student" espionage Inquiry or maybe DEA "art student" Espionage Inquiry. What do you think? Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/cougar-queen-the-jodie-fisher-film-festival User is claiming to be a reporter, or the reporter from the website, and that we have some content here from this wordpress and he wants it attributed to this wordpress? I recently came a cross it and removed the cite as not a WP RS and tagged the content as citation required, shall I replace the citation or remove the content?
In B. A. Baracus it is being used to support this content ... In the 2010 remake of The A-Team, the 1983 GMC Vandura van returned. Filming in Canada made it difficult to source the original vehicle and instead a modified 1994 Chevrolet G20 cargo van was used, but the red stripe is not the same as in the original van.<ref> {{cite web | date = June 18, 2010 | author = Jerry Garrett | title = Ten Secrets of the A-Team Movie Van | url = http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/ten-secrets-of-the-a-team-movie-van/ }} </ref>
It was in a few more article which I removed it yesterday, I have no idea who originally added the content and the cite. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here in courtesy to try to help resolve a stalemate. I don't think I should weigh in myself because of how I found out about the dispute, but I can certainly ask you good people to do so. :)
The question concerns the reliability of the forum Gearslutz, which has recently been challenged in several articles. See [67] and [68]. Not one, but two threads have been opened at WikiProject album (the active one is here; the other was a later but failed attempt to get feedback here), but they haven't brought wider participation.
Opinions to help establish consensus and resolve the stalemate would be most welcome. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not RS, rather obviously. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
His official website has the link to his Gearslutz account here at the links section, which leads to his discussions at Gearslutz. Hope that clarifies anything. Dan56 ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Gearslutz is usable for the purpose of citing the author's claims to his individual actions, and noone elses. Dan56 ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people.
I'm hoping to get a handle on the consensus emerging from the conversation above.
Those who seem to feel the source is usable, at least in some circumstances, include
User:HelloAnnyong (who opines that if the poster is an expert and the poster's identity can be verified, the content is usable (eta), but only in discussing the poster himself);
User:Jayjg (with the caveat that it cannot be used to support claims about living people eta only to support statements about the poster himself, if the poster can be verified);
User:Binksternet (who notes specifically to this situation that Elevado's identity as the poster can be verified and agrees that it can be used to support information only about the living person who wrote it), and
User:Jrod2 (who also notes that Elevado's identity is confirmed, but who also feels that nothing Elevado says that directly relates to other people can be used).
User:Dan56, who originally used the material, seems at this point to agree that the source is usable for citing the author's claims to his individual actions (since his identity is verifiable), but nobody else's.
Those who seem to feel the source is not usable are User:Blueboar (who feels that the "experts" exemption was not meant for this situation); User:Dlabtot (who strongly believes it is unreliable under any circumstances); User:Johnuniq (who says if material is noteworthy, it will be published elsewhere as well); and User:Lil-unique1 (who fears both impersonation and modification of the material by administrators). (ETA) And User:Jrod2, whose opinion has altered in the course of this conversation.)
Please let me know if I have misunderstood your perspective. (ETA: Every contributor mentioned here has been notified of this summary.)
At this point, we don't seem to have clear consensus, and that would be particularly valuable to get in this circumstance as User:Dan56 is quite a prolific and good content contributor, with many GAs under his belt. Making the consensus here clear to him will undoubtedly inform his future contributions...and accordingly Wikipedia's future album-related GAs. :) His confusion is understandable, I think, given that Voodoo (D'Angelo album) included this content at the point it passed its GA review in September 4, 2008. I trust that he will abide by clear consensus whatever it is, once it's been established. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is alleged in the 3rd paragraph of the BLP section Resignation of Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod that Shirley and Charles Sherrod were among early pioneers of the Community Land Trust movement in the US. The citation for this was originally The Yellow Springs News, a weekly local paper from the area where the University is located where Shirley Shirrod was awarded her masters for her research on such collective farms. Is the YSNews a reliable source? Note that a citation to an academic essay has since been added to the YSNews ref. Does this help? (See also New_Communities#The_Model_for_Community_Land_Trusts.) The applicable talkpage discussion is here. Any editors' input is appreciated.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the text currently disputed, in full:
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., co-founding New Communities, a collective farm in Southwest Georgia modeled on kibbutzim in Israel.<RuralDvlpmtOrg><CNN> According to scholarship by land trust activists Susan Witt and Robert Swann, New Communities' founding in 1969 by individuals such as the Sherrods connected to the Albany Movement<SmallTownPpr> served as a laboratory and model in a movement toward the development of Community Land Trusts throughout the U.S.: "The perseverance and foresight of that team in Georgia, motivated by the right of African-American farmers to farm land securely and affordably, initiated the CLT movement in this country."<AcademicPpr>
Located in Lee County, Georgia, the 6,000-acre project was the largest tract of black-owned land in the U.S.<RuralDvlpmtOrg> The project soon encountered difficulties[...].
Peace?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Shirley Sherrod was recently involved in a widely reported US political dispute. The OP is attempting to use The Yellow Springs News, a local weekly, to assert the following fact in Shirley Sherrod's BLP: In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S. This is a notable fact that would have been reported by the national press if it were true. On the talk page discussion, the OP refuses to remove this poorly cited controversial fact from the BLP, and he claims that he was told right here on this noticeboard that his citation was deemed ok. If anyone can help with this, I would be grateful. Jarhed ( talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed: the reliable source of Yellow Springs News uncontroversially credits Sherrod with the status of a land trust pioneer [as does her former fellow land trust activist Chuck Collins, who reminisced recently about Sherrod in a very nice profile in the HuffPo, which cite I could add...plus the primary source of Sherrod's keynote speech to the Nat'l Community Land Trust org's annual convention in 2009 in Albany, etc.]. This was certainly no case of relying on some haphazard fluff piece that made some unsupportable fringe assertion.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 05:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of articles which cite, or rely completely on, Wipipedia, described as a "specialist BDSM wiki". Spanking bench is the example that I cam across, but there are others. I know that we don't normally accept open wikis per WP:SPS -- is this an exception? Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me every article in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Wipipedia needs to be reviewed for sourcing and appropriately flagged. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I consider Robert K. G. Temple to be a fringe author and I propose to remove all references to him in articles related to Chinese and world history, particularly at Military history of China (pre-1911) and Economic history of China (pre-1911) where the main author, User:Teeninvestor, heavily relies on him. Why should he be removed? Temple, at least the way he is cited, makes a string of exaggerated and grandiose claims of Chinese excellence which aren't true and are so sweeping vis-a-vis Europe and the rest of the world that most cannot be verified in fact.
Temple is best known for his book The Sirius Mystery where he presents his idea that "the Dogon people preserve the tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system". Temple is considered a pseudo-scientist by bad archaeology ( link). He is no historian, and even less a sinologist, but merely purports to summarize in his The Genius of China: 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention the work of the notable sinologist Joseph Needham (mostly without detailed references).
Since I happen to work in this field, I found him factually wrong on many accounts such as his claims that the Chinese invented segmental arch bridges (in fact, the Romans did half a millennium before, see here, here or here) or that the Chinese use of water-power preceded that of the west by many centuries (in fact, the oldest watermills were built by the Greeks and Romans). But the real problem remains Temple's propensity to make exceptional unproven and unprovable claims which have no basis in Needham actually.
In this context, Temple has been found by a majority of users to be not reliable here and particularly here by a majority of users. Consensus was that he needs to be removed or replaced by the scholar he purports to summarize, Needham; this should not be difficult given the wide availability of Needham's work.
I apologize to renew the debate and draw your attention from other matters, but Teeninvestor's inactivity since then suggests that he did not hear that. The users then participating are going to be notified by me per WP:Canvass. Please leave a vote so that this question can now be permanently settled.
Appendix: for those unfamiliar with Temple's claims, click on "show" for a small non-exhaustive selection |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Economic history of China (pre-1911):
|
Temple = unreliable. Regards. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
My degree of involvement and depth of knowledge here has been limited to one particular dispute. In that case Temple made a claim which, as worded, was so far-reaching and absolute that it was impossible for it to be true as written. One editor wanted to keep it in on the basis of saying Temple is a RS. In that case Temple was certainly a very unreliable source and wrote in a careless / hyperbolic manner.
Gun Powder Ma has provided much seemingly factual and verifiable information which would clearly show him to also be a fringe writer. North8000 ( talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll ask the stupid question: why are we using a summary of the work rather than the real deal? There is absolutely no reason we should not be citing Needham over Temple, regardless of the latter's reliability. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Unreliable source given the Erik von Daineken space alien fantasies. There are lots of high-grade scholarly works available on both early chinese and early european history. Use them instead. Bali ultimate ( talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The evidence seems to weigh in favor of using Needham over Temple although I am not generally in favor of "popularist" authors and would prefer the use of Chinese sources. Philg88 contact 17:09, 19 April 2024 UTC [ refresh
A merely procedural question since I am not familiar with the process: If there is a consensus that Temple should not be used, what next to do with him? Should the references be replaced by a tag like "citation needed" or should his assertions be removed altogether from the text? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That site, which has permission to hold a lot of freely available (without subscribing to major science journals) copies of articles related to the general field sometimes called "cold fusion", has been blacklisted for some time. The major reason it was blacklisted was that the owner of the site has added some introductory material into a number of data files. However, the people who requested the blacklist appear to be exhibiting some hypocrisy. Here is some information about one particular file, known as the "ERAB report" (a.k.a. the 1989 US DOE report on cold fusion):
V kindly informed me that this discussion is underway.
I think it is better for everyone that LENR-CANR.org be banned. I do not want to see LENR-CANR associated with Wikipedia, and the anti-cold fusion fanatics who are in charge of the article here do not want to see it either, so this arrangement suits both of us. However, perhaps I can be assistance addressing the questions that have arisen here. Let me clear up any confusion and set the record straight.
I do not recall whether I wrote an introduction to other articles and papers but there are over 1000, so I might have forgotten some.
The ERAB report was made available only on paper, which is why I copied the ncas.org version.
The introduction to the ERAB report is as clearly marked as possible. There is no chance anyone will confuse it with the document. It begins: "A copy of the ERAB report has been prepared by the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) organization (www.ncas.org). It is available here in HTML format: http://www.ncas.org/erab/. It is converted to Acrobat format in this document, below. . . ." The title page of the document (p. 3) is clearly marked as such and it says “Internet Edition Prepared by National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) District of Columbia - Maryland - Virginia (USA)”
Anyone can compare my version to the ncas original and see that I have made no changes. As noted here, anyone can link from my version to the ncas version to read their Introduction.
Regarding the accusation made by the anti-cold fusion fanatics here that LENR-CANR includes copyright violations, I am sure that nothing I can say or do will dissuade them. I am not inclined to provide copies of dozens or hundreds of e-mail messages and other documents proving that I have permission to upload the papers, and the fanatics would only claim I forged such documents even if I did. However, anyone can confirm that LENR-CANR does not have copyright violations. The proof is simple, and the evidence can be assembled in a few minutes with Google. You do not need to take my word for it, and you do not need anything from me.
You need only look on the Internet for links to LENR-CANR, references within papers and books to it, and references to my name -- Jed Rothwell -- which is unique. You will find dozens of published papers and books that mention the website or include footnotes with the addresses from the web site. Take, for example, a paper featured on our main page: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009. This lists LENR-CANR in a reference; it describes many resources only available at LENR-CANR.org; and all of the authors of the paper (plus the other 90 people who contributed) are well represented in our library. Obviously, the people at the DIA know about LENR-CANR.org. They know I have uploaded this paper and many others by the DIA co-authors. Along the same lines, you will find papers at Naturwissenschaft, J. Fusion Energy, the ICCF conference proceedings and in dozens of other web sites with links to LENR-CANR. Some list my name in them as the editor or in the Acknowledgements section. The editors and authors at these sites are aware of the existence of LENR-CANR. They know me, personally. They must know that their papers are uploaded. If I had uploaded papers without their permission, they would ask me to remove them. Publishers did, in fact, ask me to remove a few papers. At the publisher’s request, there are also about a dozen papers that include only the abstract and a link to the publisher’s site. Obviously, I have full copies of the papers and I could upload them. I wouldn’t do that because the last thing I want to do is upset the publishers!
You can also confirm this by looking at the gaps in the collection. The bibliography lists 3,500 papers but there are only ~1,000 uploaded. There are several hundred important cold fusion papers well known to everyone familiar with the field which are not uploaded. There are prominent authors not represented in the collection. The reason is obvious: I asked for permission but they said no. The gaps are not there because I am biased against authors. I have uploaded papers by most of the prominent anti-cold fusion authors such as Morrison.
It stands to reason that I must be doing this openly, with the full knowledge and cooperation of the authors and publishers in the field.
- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
Let me add one other observation. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not list LENR-CANR.org as a source, and it does not allow any links to it, is prima facie proof that the fanatics in charge of this article are biased and that their objective is to prevent the readers from learning about this subject. Not to toot my own horn -- because I did not write all those 1000 papers, after all -- but an article about cold fusion that does not mention LENR-CANR.org is like an article on ornithology that does not list the Audubon Society.
I would to keep things this way so that any knowledgeable person who reads the Wikipedia article will see it is biased. The fanatics will not allow anyone to correct the errors and distortions in the article, or to replace their opinions with actual, peer-reviewed scientific facts. Since they insist the article be biased & awful, I prefer that it be manifestly awful, to warn off any serious reader. Hence, I do not want any improvements. - Jed Rothwell
This site has listings of various "best albums" polls in magazines and newspapers. It appears to be a commercial, rather than personal, website. Do you think it is an RS for the statement that a certain record came at a certain position in a certain poll? -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw |title=Auto-Tune the News:bed intruder song|publisher=Auto tune the news- via - schmoyoho's Channel - via [[You Tube]]|accessdate=August 11, 2010}}</ref>
Is this an official youtube cite or is it schmoyoho's channel ?
Off2riorob (
talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know how Napster generates content like this. Is it RS? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It's bio text on 1.8.7. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Robbins article, there is some debate over whether he was born in 1958 or 1959. One editor has put in a source for the year 1958. I reverted that change because I don't think it's a reliable or usable source (it requires a paid subscription and searching to find the actual source). I also pointed to an earlier discussion about this website, which, in my view, seems to support my position. I posted a message on the editor's Talk page, and the editor disagrees with me and put back the source. I'm not going to war with the editor. Frankly, I don't know which year is right. I lean slightly in favor of keeping 1958 because that's what it's been, but I've been unable to find an authoritative source on the birth date. Indeed, there's another source in the article that questions which year it is. I'm not sure that source is particularly reliable, either.
At this point, all I want is some consensus on whether the so-called "California Birth Index" at ancestry.com can be used to source a birth date, not a definitive answer to which year Robbins was born, although that would be also helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This http://books.google.com/books?id=ojgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=petri+armenian+mitanni&source=bl&ots=R1TrJ8M-o0&sig=L8AuhGTkIelLQN2lpDyAwecAHd8&hl=en&ei=Hh63SdncCpnMsAPq_ryuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result Prof. Petrie (19th century Egyptologist) "Mitannian (Armenian) origins"] <--[[ Petrie_Museum_of_Egyptian_Archaeology|Petrie Museum in London was named after him, ranking after Cairo and British Museums]], William_Flinders_Petrie|Petrie was added as a source for the statement "The kingdom of Mitanni was a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan origin". It's currently footnote 4 in Mitanni. (The editor was later blocked for edit-warring and now has a 4 month topic ban under the Armenian-Azerbaijan sanctions). There was a discussion of it on the talk page, where another editor said "You seem to be referring to passages which quote Flinders Petrie, who seems to have claimed that Mitanni were in some sense "Armenian" ("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." GIven the gloss in the reference, saying "Mitannian (Armenian) origins" and evidently trying to impress the reader about Petrie's importance (and he was important, but modern scholarship has overturned some of his ideas), I not only do not see (literally, all I can see is pictures of book covers when I click on the link) anything that should be used as a reliable source for this statement. For some reason I don't understand, the same link has added as an external link and there is a dispute on this (I don't think it should be there either, but that's another issue although obviously it shouldn't be in both places). I hope someone can make sense of this! Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no block of this in the UK. User:Paul_Barlow himself that commented about the source [71] (here is the page number and highlighted, I fixed the previous link Doug provided), lives in the UK also. It must be something wrong with your system Dougweller I dont know. Also, if you notice in the Mitanni page, the seal [72] has been there since 2006, mentioning of Armenian-Mitanni and the source is from 'Genesis of Armenian People'. Also, excuse my grammer, but my point about the other 19th century scholars used as sources was by admin Dbachmann, mentioned in the Proto-Armenian language page as an RS. The comments Paul made were incorrect regarding the Petrie source with 'modern' linguistic studies. The works of those 19th century linguists which I mentioned in Talk:Mitanni, are still used in the modern linguistics, and have not changed. The same sources and linguists are what Petrie and Henry Hall commented in the EL source I provided. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The Armenian language and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included), are grouped together as Armeno-Aryan, this is a scholarly view which Dbachmann and Paul Barlow added the additions of this in Indo-European related pages in Wikipedia recently. There are the IE tree's and other IE charts/graphs that show the Armeno-Aryan subgrouping, which later Armenian and Indo-Iranian branch out to their seperate branches. Armeno-Aryan is the ancestor of both Armenian and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included). The Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian) Handbook of Formal Languages (1997) p. 6.Indo-European tree with Armeno-Aryan, exclusion of Greek [73] In addition to this, the Mitanni pages in google mostly mention Indo-Iranian which is more near to Armeno-Aryan, than the later branched out Indo-Aryan group. The Petrie source I provided and the Mitanni seal I showed which says Armenian-Mitanni with the Genesis of Armenian People source back up what I'm saying about the 19th century linguists like Hubishmann, still used in the modern linguistics, such as the IE tree I provided here with the Armeno-Aryan grouping, which is based on the Mitanni IE names and language. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The page number is 384, and another User:Paul_Barlow I mentioned also lives in the UK like Dougweller, and he is able to view it. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Certainly it seems as though the new doctrine had made some headway before the death of Amenhetep III, but we have no reason to attribute it to Tii, or to suppose that she brought it with her from abroad. There is no proof whatever that she was not a native Egyptian, and the mummies of her parents, Iuaa and Tuaa, are purely Egyptian in facial type. It seems undoubted that the Aten cult was a development of pure Egyptian religious thought."
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 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | Archive 73 | Archive 74 | Archive 75 |
I've looked at WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and searched the archives here, and remain unsure how to proceed regarding two external links - I'm also unsure whether this is a suitable place to ask for guidance, so please bear with me, and direct me elsewhere if need be! The ELs are as follows:
1. " Reculver Towers At Neolithicsea.co.uk" was added to Reculver in this edit of 22:42, 31 July 2010; there has been no discussion. The EL adds nothing to the article - it actually appears to use text copied from the article - but it does include internal links to an attractive photo gallery. However, I think it may be spam, and, apart from the photos, it's obviously not a reliable source: should it be deleted? p.s. Ditto re " Creake Abbey at Neolithicsea.co.uk" added to Creake Abbey in this edit of 18:24, 1 August 2010. Both external links have been added by User:Neosea, and the time of writing have been his/her only contributions. It's beginning to look to me like COI, given the coincidence between username and URL, and linkspam.
2. " Notes from Medway's Hoo Peninsula - www.hoo-peninsula.co.uk" was added to a number of articles, e.g. St Mary Hoo in this edit of 20:56, 8 June 2010, and automatically generated the edit summary "( Tag: repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user)"; there has been no discussion. The EL links to a blog, so looks to me like a good candidate for deletion, and I'm pretty sure it's spam: should it be deleted? I've already deleted this EL from Hoo St Werburgh - then it occurred to me to ask about it here!
Thanks for your time. Nortonius ( talk) 11:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I need a clarification regarding reliable source. My question is also similar to a section above. Generally when a new book is released by a reputed publisher ( already widely and heavily cited in Wikipedia ) is it necessary to wait for some reviews to appear to judge it as a reliable source? From what I know, reviews appear only several months to years after the publication. Regards, -- Themrin 2 ( talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)I was not clear above( my alt account for public networks ). The publisher in question in Motilal Banarsidass ( usage on wiki). The book in question is recently published ( 2 weeks back or so ) Interpreting Ramakrishna authored by Tyagananda, a Chaplain at Harvard University [1] and has also been a panel member for American Academy of Religion discussion [2]. The section in question is here. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It may sound ridiculous, the book is already being used a WP:RS in atleast 3 other articles, but User:Goethean edit wars and removes it for one particular article-- Ramakrishna. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view."
That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted.
Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"
Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)
This pattern of sourcing violates neutrality, definitions of reliable sourcing, and principles of systemic and cultural bias. Noloop ( talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Good sources don't exist, but these meet the letter of Wikipedia's guidelines, and there's plenty of people to revert changes, so there isn't anything to be done. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
In The God Delusion, which is about as non Christian Theologian as you can get, Dawkins says that you could build a case that Jesus never existed but that it isn't 'widely supported' and that 'Jesus probably existed'. - MrOllie ( talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Noloop, thank you for doing the research on all of these sources. The claim "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" clearly is not properly sourced. The fact that there are a number of scholars (such as in the Christ Myth Theory article) who question the historical existence of Jesus proves that this claim is simply false. As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old CMT FAQ, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. Anyone who thinks religious indoctrination has no impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence with respect to that religion's truth claims is naive or delusional. That being said, I have tended recently to resign myself to the same conclusion that Peregrine Fisher has made. My sanity is more important than the integrity of a couple of Wikipedia articles. PeaceLoveHarmony ( talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
People this is not helping. To established a mainstream view you have to establish expertise. As far as I know the evidence for the existence of Jesus is more or less as follows: Theologians - vast majority support historical jesus. Historians - Mixed view, problematic is the lack of contemporary sources which makes any claim lacking first hand evidence. Archaeology - No evidence of the specific person Jesus.
Simply put, if you exclude theologians from the the balance the mainstream is not as clear cut. Noloop argues that theologians are not qualified experts for historical facts (and he has some kind of a point, as we also do not take the opinion of theologians on the life of Cicero or Cleopatra as leading).
Arnoutf (
talk) 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
(od) I suspect there are no historians who research Jesus. Likewise, there is no serious research on the life of the historical Priam, even though it's perfectly plausible that the historic Troy had an historic king. There's just not much that can be known in a scientific sense. As Elaine Pagels said: "The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more." Pagels isn't saying there was no Jesus, here; she's saying that if he existed, there's not much that can be known. Noloop ( talk) 06:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(remove indent) This now marks the fifth time (that I know of) that something along this issue has come up:
The problem is not so much that the Christ Myth theory is fringe (that is pretty much a given) but just exactly what it is and where the break is with the equally fringe minimalist position is. Adding to the problems is that the phrases "Christ Myth" is used for other things than "Jesus never existed as as physical person" Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Getting_a_handle_on_the_various_definitions_.28again.29 goes over the various definitions and later list the editors that feel as I do that the very definition of "Christ myth theory" as it currently stands is confusing and not supported by all the reliable sources.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I live in a quiet estate, walk through Queens Crescent every day and to be honest have not noticed any drug dealing gangs or the deprivation noted within the article. This article (given that there are no citations regarding gangs, deprivation or drug dealing) can only be a matter of opinion and as such has no place on wikipedia.
The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)
Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:
Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa ( talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 ( talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently in the process of editing the article for the surname Akins, I added an image of the Akins coat of Arms from the Wikimedia commons image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Akins_coat_of_arms_complete.jpg along with the caption "Akins coat of arms, an early example of which can be found on the gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785), a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina". The source I cited for this was the book The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 by The Historical Comittee of 1976, Craftsman Publishing, Charlotte, 1978, which contains an identified image of the coat of arms along with details of the location of Thomas Akins' grave, his dates of birth and death from the tombstone inscription, etc.
The image was shortly thereafter taken down by a group of other editors: HelloAnnyong, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, Dougweller who seemed to be of the opinion that the source I provided was "unreliable" and that the coat of arms was "dubious" (even though it has been used by the Akins family for more than 200 years) See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Thomas&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1785&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=5677664&df=all&. The other editors argued that the coat of arms was "dubious" because they could find no reference to it being registered outside of the United States. Since the Akins family is Scottish they expected the coat of arms to be recorded in the Lord Lyon's New Register of All Arms and Bearings of Scotland - a register that was not established until 1672, several decades after the Akins family (to whom the coat of arms belongs) had emigrated from Scotland to the Ulster Plantation, and then to America by the 1660's. Earlier examples of the Akins coat of arms can be found on other family gravestones, the earliest being that of Alexander Akins who died in 1669 and is buried in Harford Co., Maryland. Images of this and other gravestones bearing the same Akins coat of arms can be found at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=25978854&df=all& and at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=5677681&df=all& however the editors who objected to the inclusion of the image of the Akins coat of arms in the Akins surname article felt that the aforementioned references were "unreliable" because they were submitted to the Find a Grave website by users.
I feel that there is a double-standard in all of this, as there are numerous other articles dealing with family surnames which include images of coats of arms, crest badges and other images of a similar nature. The fact that the Akins coat of arms has been in use by the Akins family for well over two hundred years, irrespective of what country it was used in, gives a great deal of credence to its legitimacy, and I feel warrants its inclusion in the Wikipedia Akins surname article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 August 2010
( edit conflict) (I won't change my original post although it duplicates most or all of the above)
The problem here may be one of definition. If my great granny painted a daisy over her door, and my granny did the same at her house, and my mum did the same at her house, and I do the same at my house, and my daughter does the same at her house, you could say that it is a tradition for the women of my family to mark their houses with a daisy. What I can't do is claim that it is an English coat of arms, because they have to be granted by the Queen. Wyvren may have sound evidence that his US ancestors used this set of symbols to identify themselves. What he can't demonstrate is that it is in any way connected to a Scots clan armorial bearing. The Charlotte source and the others should be good enough to show that the Akins family used these symbols, but it would have to be made very clear that it's NOT a Scots clan armorial bearing, not recognised by the Lord Lyon etc. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "of that Ilk" see: The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands, pgs. 401-402User:Wyvren|Wyvren]] ( talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
See also: The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands pg. 404
from before the outdent:
So following this conversation, Wyvren added a picture of the tombstone with the caption "Early heraldic gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785) a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina." and listed the book as a reference. Aside from the fact that the book doesn't actually say "heraldic", is it appropriate to use that term in the caption? Seems to me that it isn't, since appending 'heraldic' seems to be giving it more credibility than is due. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Wyvren's image ( File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg) is not supported by the booklet, as has been noted (and buried) several times on Talk:Akins. I think it is as simple as that. Any American can change their forename, or surname to "xxx of that Ilk"; it means nothing when someone does it themselves, and has no bearing on the status of that person in Scotland or America [29]. Any American can copyright a drawing of a coat of arms (especially if they just made it up). The assumed-name, the copyrighted image, and Wyvren's beef with the heraldic authority in Scotland, has nothing to do with what he is appealing here - that the consensus on Talk:Akins is that the source does not support the image. Also, it should be made clear that Wyvren's scanned pages ( [30] [31]) do not show that the Steele Creek engraving was the 'symbol of a family' for the last two hundred years. The pages only show a simple sketch, and the man's birth/death dates. That's it.
Outside of the Wikisphere, numerous webpages/newgroup-threads show that Wyvren (aka Steven L. Akins) is considered to have forged a will, and is suspected of faking tombstone photos [32]; he is reported to have attempted to plant a faked tombstone [33]; and he is said to have fudged genealogical records on the web [34]. The findagrave photo that he linked above, of what he claims is a 17th century tombstone, has clearly been manipulated in some way. I think that this case is an example of why original images, all by themselves, are not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; and why, in some cases, conflicts of interest are a danger to the integrity of an article. The Wikipedia articles on Scottish clans are made up of content from numerous independent sources. The clans themselves, and their lines of chiefs, are specifically dealt with in numerous independent sources. Not so with "Clan Akins", all we get are: Wyvren/Steven's various webpages; ' bucket shop'-type websites that he submits his info to; user submitted documents and photos; and roundabout arguments concerning the validity of Scottish heraldic practice and Americans. The clan articles rely on more than the authority of disgruntled Wikipedians who have spent thousands of dollars on: failed attempts at petitioning heraldic authorities for coats of arms; on name changes; and on registering copyrights for drawings. That's why this editor's COI, and questions of his reliability, are an issue in regards to his edits to this article.-- Brianann MacAmhlaidh ( talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
All of which is no doubt very interesting, but this is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I don't see the reliability of any source being discussed here, just a continuation of an argument which properly belongs at Talk:Akins. Groomtech ( talk) 06:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a disagreement at The Hockey Stick Illusion article over the use of this source in the "Reception" section of the article. The source is from the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap en Techniek ( Dutch Wikipedia entry). Those advocating its removal point out that the post is from the book shop section of the magazine's website, not from its print edition and appears to be simply trying to sell the book, not formally reviewing it. The contrary opinion is that the person who wrote the post is identifying himself by name and is one of the magazine's editors, thus giving the book a neutral review under the name of the magazine. Opinions on the quality of the source, especially from uninvolved editors, are welcome. Cla68 ( talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Please Chris, let the participants here give their opinion without an AGW regular trying to influence it. I believe I presented a fair and balanced portrayal of the nature of the dispute. Please let this board take it from there. Cla68 ( talk) 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The section header doesn't state the issue very precisely, as we are talking about a web only feature, not the magazine proper. I can't read Dutch, and only reading the entire publication, in context in its original language, can provide one with a proper perspective on whether this is usable. See comment by a Dutch speaker at the article talk page, here [35] and note also previous discussion here. [36] ScottyBerg ( talk) 03:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
These subheadings are unnecessary and misleading since the originator of the question appears to be involved him/herself. How about if there is going to be so much drama the involved editors agree not to comment anymore and we leave it at that? From what I gathered here and on the talk page where this is being discussed the source appears not to be reliable. At best, this sounds akin to solicited reviews that might not ever appear in any publications but end up on a book dust jacket in order to promote the book. It would be nice to get some more Dutch language readers to verify the story here, but unless we've been fed false information this is just marketing material. It is clearly not akin to anything else actually published in the magazine, since it was not actually published in the magazine. If the editors opinion is notable enough as an individual opinion, then it would be possible to attribute it to him only, but not to the magazine as such. Griswaldo ( talk) 03:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Advertisements and other promotional materials lack the independence required to qualify as reliable sources, imho. Dlabtot ( talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
In This article a dispute is taking place over weather or not CNN is a valid and reliable source. Source: CNN Article: Charles County, Maryland
Qoute:
It later became the largest residential arson in the history of the state of Maryland.
Talk page: Talk:Charles County, Maryland
Thanks. -- Phoon ( talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Can some one have some opinion on the following University debate related sources please:
They are all used in the
European Universities Debating Championship article and all (with the exception of the
eudc.wikidot.com) appear to be websites or blogs of Colm Flynn. The
eudc.wikidot.com appears to be relatively new and it is unclear where they are sourcing there information from given the request for information on the main page. I have asked before about these sources before (see
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56#www.debating.net) without a clear consensus.
I have looked for more sources for results on European Universities Debating Championship for example here but with out any luck.
Any comments please
Codf1977 (
talk) 10:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone else ? Codf1977 ( talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys. Would this paper be considered a reliable source? It was used here. Thanks!-- Gordonrox24 | Talk 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I checked on American Idol and have reports about Kara DioGuardi's firing from the show, only TMZ confirms it. One user leaked for no words about Fox.
Talk:American Idol#Judges changes
ApprenticeFan work 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
People here will tell you that TMZ isn't reliable, or that you should look for another source. I don't know of any policy/guideline based reason for this. TMZ comments on "trivial" matters, which I guess we know when we see. Other than that, they're are super reliable. Editors? Check. Paid writers? Check. Someone to sue if they get it wrong? Check. Used as a source by other reliable sources? Check (quadruple check, really). Cover an area that paper encyclopedia's don't cover? Check. Editors find them distasteful? Check. Hmmm. They're basically reliable, even concerning what they cover, which is BLPs. There isn't any policy based reason to discount them, as far as I know. On the other hand, and in general, if two editors will revert you, you can't get passed 3RR. So, maybe they're IAR unreliable. -
Peregrine Fisher (
talk) 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Dr Judith Curry in an interview with Keith Kloor on Kloor`s website? Kloor is a professional journalist About Kloor. In particular i want to use the following text in The Hockey Stick Illusion article.
"I am not so much defending this book as recommending that people read it. Climate scientists can learn a lot from Montford’s book. Not in terms of who is “right” or “correct” in terms of the science (that is still being debated), but how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate. While the hockey stick is not of any particular scientific importance, Montford’s book explains why the hockeystick became a big deal, owing to the IPCC’s choice to make the hockey stick a visual icon for the IPCC in its marketing of the IPCC. Therefore, in the public’s mind, challenges to the hockeystick metaphorically became challenges to the entire global warming argument. And the Climategate emails, while not illuminating any actual scientific misconduct, provided a view into the underbelly of how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints".
Thoughts? Also per the talk page here could those involved please put INV in front of their posts so uninvolved persons know what`s what, thanks mark nutley ( talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
For obscure reasons, the reference to this web page has been tagged as a dubious source. Can someone please verify its credibility. Thanks. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 08:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
As an Italian, I've had a look at the website. It looks like a neat and well researched, even if not strictly professional, database of information on Italian pop songs. It has editorial restriction (i.e. it's not a Wiki or user-made website) even if it acknowledges some contribution as coming from user's suggestion. and for the purposes for which it is used in the article I would say it is reliable enough. -- Cyclopia talk 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Page:
List of wars between democracies (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Source: Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 122, 129, 209-10; discussed as an example where the states confronting each other are similar in government type, in economic status, but not in religion; since Brecher et al. lump common democracy in with other variables, and consider the greatest difference between pairs of states, not the least, there may be others.
Diff or proposed edit: Removal of the First Kashmir War from the list.
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#First_kashmir_war
Comments:
The source is being used to claim that the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies. The claim apparently goes like this:
Is that an acceptable reasoning, that makes this a reliable source for the claim that The First Kashmir War was a war between democracies? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the input. I think the consensus is clear, the source can not be used to support the statement. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I recommend that under no circumstances should you attempt to represent the outcome as a consensus that the source cannot be used to support the statement. Go back to the talkpage - that is the correct forum for content disputes. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Comments would be appreciated on this discussion regarding whether an Institute for Public Policy Research or an Office for National Statistics source is better for employment statistics on Somalis in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The ONS would generally be considered the most reliable source for employment statistics in the U.K. Jayjg (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
A reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2 questioned the reliability of Manolith.com. Judging by WP:Reliable sources, I thought it was. Does it pass? Flyer22 ( talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
[53] Is this a reliable source. Editor User:Mike R has removed it twice claiming it is a wiki mirror, I see no evidence for that claim. Justin talk 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind. Justin talk 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this [ [54]] RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven ( talk • contribs) 14:09, August 7, 2010
Is http://www.iranterror.com/ a reliable source? This page is being used in an article for biographical details. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am ignorant on the topic Malcom X however this paragraph raised WP:REDFLAG for
"Living in Harlem, he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and steering prostitutes.[35] According to biographer Bruce Perry, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually, though not always for money. In a Michigan boarding house, he raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite.[36] Later, in New York, Little and some friends raised funds by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived.[36] In Boston a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm.[37] No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.[38][39][40] >
This entire paragraph is cited only with Bruce Perry's book
Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America.
The final sentence is: No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.[38][39][40]
Which Raises REDFLAGS to me. I really dont care either way whether he was Bisexual or not but this smells funny, and I am not the first to note this. Weaponbb7 ( talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for biographies? ("Encyclopedia of World Biography"). Is this a wikipedia mirror? -- Ragib ( talk) 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
There is trouble on the page with a youtube link used as reference and an editor keeping to remove the "unreliable source?" tag. I cannot find the policy that explicitly forbids youtube as a reference. Could someone point it out for me. Thanks. -- Jaan Pärn ( talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Nibiru collision uses sources like Geocities, Zetatalk.com, and Badastronomy.com, documenting a popular delusion. I don't have an appetite to clean it up myself, and there are probably a few fine-tuning judgment calls to make, so I'll just mention it here if someone is interested. Wnt ( talk) 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I seek your views of an issue I am discussing at User talk:Dyanega#Problem citation. The citation(s) in question are accessible at this site—but only to paid subscribers. I have the greatest respect for the editor(s) who have posted the sources, but there is a difficulty for ordinary Wikipedians (as acknowledged at WP:SOURCEACCESS) in obtaining the information alluded to. I see no reason to delete such sources. However, in the interests of transparency, I have expanded their description to convey that it is a waste of time clicking on the link. Is this situation covered more fully anywhere in our guidelines, or has anyone an alternative solution, please? Cheers Bjenks ( talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi ( talk) 09:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I've got an editor on Talk:Fashion_blog#New_content_added who doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on using blogs and other self published sites as sources, and they have personalized their issues with me enough that they don't seem inclined to listen to me any more. If anyone has time to drop by and offer their two cents, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi some thoughts on if this site [58] would be a reliable source for the St Nazaire Raid article. It the St. Nazaire society a registered charity in the United Kingdom. It was set up by the survivors of the raid and its patron is the Duke of Edinburgh. Obviously I would want to use the society as a reference for the article. Thanks -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm wanting to know for meeting WP:V can we link to unofficial/fan translation patches themselves if they don't include a copy of the work that would be translated as a last resort? 陣 内 Jinnai 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The current Simon Amstell article relies on this talktalk celeb page for an accurate date of birth, no other sources validate this information. I have tried looking at the site T&Cs but these do not appear to have any editorial policy for the website. Considering they have a significant database for popular celebrities but no named journalists or attribution for information, should be support or exclude this source under the WP:BLP guidelines? Fæ ( talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A high-level intelligence agent who had been referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by "a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI" stated that this washington post article was an FBI plant. How does this affect the reliability of this Post article?
Washington Post article http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07
Article where Washington Post Article is stated to have been an FBI plant http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/print.html Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The salon article stated that the post article was a plant so I'm questioning if the post article is still considered a reliable source. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree, both views should be noted. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 04:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Not just dea, "Agents of the DEA, ATF, Air Force, Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service documented some 130 separate incidents of "art student" encounters" or maybe Allegations of Israel spying on the United States (1999-2001) Some other articles point to some other instances of alleged spying that don't involve just the art students. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Squidfryerchef, some of the spying allegations came before the release of the dea document. There are broader allegations that don't just include the art students. I suggest that you watch the 20 minute four part fox special on Israel spying on America with carl cameron on youtube to get a better idea. Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 10:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
But if the article article is to focus on just the art student spying allegations, I agree that the 60 pg. Dea document would be a good focus. I do think that espionage or spying should be mentioned in the title. Inquiry is definitely a good description. How about DEA Israeli "art student" espionage Inquiry or maybe DEA "art student" Espionage Inquiry. What do you think? Preciseaccuracy ( talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/cougar-queen-the-jodie-fisher-film-festival User is claiming to be a reporter, or the reporter from the website, and that we have some content here from this wordpress and he wants it attributed to this wordpress? I recently came a cross it and removed the cite as not a WP RS and tagged the content as citation required, shall I replace the citation or remove the content?
In B. A. Baracus it is being used to support this content ... In the 2010 remake of The A-Team, the 1983 GMC Vandura van returned. Filming in Canada made it difficult to source the original vehicle and instead a modified 1994 Chevrolet G20 cargo van was used, but the red stripe is not the same as in the original van.<ref> {{cite web | date = June 18, 2010 | author = Jerry Garrett | title = Ten Secrets of the A-Team Movie Van | url = http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/ten-secrets-of-the-a-team-movie-van/ }} </ref>
It was in a few more article which I removed it yesterday, I have no idea who originally added the content and the cite. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here in courtesy to try to help resolve a stalemate. I don't think I should weigh in myself because of how I found out about the dispute, but I can certainly ask you good people to do so. :)
The question concerns the reliability of the forum Gearslutz, which has recently been challenged in several articles. See [67] and [68]. Not one, but two threads have been opened at WikiProject album (the active one is here; the other was a later but failed attempt to get feedback here), but they haven't brought wider participation.
Opinions to help establish consensus and resolve the stalemate would be most welcome. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not RS, rather obviously. Dlabtot ( talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
His official website has the link to his Gearslutz account here at the links section, which leads to his discussions at Gearslutz. Hope that clarifies anything. Dan56 ( talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people. Jayjg (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Gearslutz is usable for the purpose of citing the author's claims to his individual actions, and noone elses. Dan56 ( talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people.
I'm hoping to get a handle on the consensus emerging from the conversation above.
Those who seem to feel the source is usable, at least in some circumstances, include
User:HelloAnnyong (who opines that if the poster is an expert and the poster's identity can be verified, the content is usable (eta), but only in discussing the poster himself);
User:Jayjg (with the caveat that it cannot be used to support claims about living people eta only to support statements about the poster himself, if the poster can be verified);
User:Binksternet (who notes specifically to this situation that Elevado's identity as the poster can be verified and agrees that it can be used to support information only about the living person who wrote it), and
User:Jrod2 (who also notes that Elevado's identity is confirmed, but who also feels that nothing Elevado says that directly relates to other people can be used).
User:Dan56, who originally used the material, seems at this point to agree that the source is usable for citing the author's claims to his individual actions (since his identity is verifiable), but nobody else's.
Those who seem to feel the source is not usable are User:Blueboar (who feels that the "experts" exemption was not meant for this situation); User:Dlabtot (who strongly believes it is unreliable under any circumstances); User:Johnuniq (who says if material is noteworthy, it will be published elsewhere as well); and User:Lil-unique1 (who fears both impersonation and modification of the material by administrators). (ETA) And User:Jrod2, whose opinion has altered in the course of this conversation.)
Please let me know if I have misunderstood your perspective. (ETA: Every contributor mentioned here has been notified of this summary.)
At this point, we don't seem to have clear consensus, and that would be particularly valuable to get in this circumstance as User:Dan56 is quite a prolific and good content contributor, with many GAs under his belt. Making the consensus here clear to him will undoubtedly inform his future contributions...and accordingly Wikipedia's future album-related GAs. :) His confusion is understandable, I think, given that Voodoo (D'Angelo album) included this content at the point it passed its GA review in September 4, 2008. I trust that he will abide by clear consensus whatever it is, once it's been established. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It is alleged in the 3rd paragraph of the BLP section Resignation of Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod that Shirley and Charles Sherrod were among early pioneers of the Community Land Trust movement in the US. The citation for this was originally The Yellow Springs News, a weekly local paper from the area where the University is located where Shirley Shirrod was awarded her masters for her research on such collective farms. Is the YSNews a reliable source? Note that a citation to an academic essay has since been added to the YSNews ref. Does this help? (See also New_Communities#The_Model_for_Community_Land_Trusts.) The applicable talkpage discussion is here. Any editors' input is appreciated.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is the text currently disputed, in full:
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., co-founding New Communities, a collective farm in Southwest Georgia modeled on kibbutzim in Israel.<RuralDvlpmtOrg><CNN> According to scholarship by land trust activists Susan Witt and Robert Swann, New Communities' founding in 1969 by individuals such as the Sherrods connected to the Albany Movement<SmallTownPpr> served as a laboratory and model in a movement toward the development of Community Land Trusts throughout the U.S.: "The perseverance and foresight of that team in Georgia, motivated by the right of African-American farmers to farm land securely and affordably, initiated the CLT movement in this country."<AcademicPpr>
Located in Lee County, Georgia, the 6,000-acre project was the largest tract of black-owned land in the U.S.<RuralDvlpmtOrg> The project soon encountered difficulties[...].
Peace?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Shirley Sherrod was recently involved in a widely reported US political dispute. The OP is attempting to use The Yellow Springs News, a local weekly, to assert the following fact in Shirley Sherrod's BLP: In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S. This is a notable fact that would have been reported by the national press if it were true. On the talk page discussion, the OP refuses to remove this poorly cited controversial fact from the BLP, and he claims that he was told right here on this noticeboard that his citation was deemed ok. If anyone can help with this, I would be grateful. Jarhed ( talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed: the reliable source of Yellow Springs News uncontroversially credits Sherrod with the status of a land trust pioneer [as does her former fellow land trust activist Chuck Collins, who reminisced recently about Sherrod in a very nice profile in the HuffPo, which cite I could add...plus the primary source of Sherrod's keynote speech to the Nat'l Community Land Trust org's annual convention in 2009 in Albany, etc.]. This was certainly no case of relying on some haphazard fluff piece that made some unsupportable fringe assertion.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 05:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are a number of articles which cite, or rely completely on, Wipipedia, described as a "specialist BDSM wiki". Spanking bench is the example that I cam across, but there are others. I know that we don't normally accept open wikis per WP:SPS -- is this an exception? Kenilworth Terrace ( talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me every article in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Wipipedia needs to be reviewed for sourcing and appropriately flagged. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I consider Robert K. G. Temple to be a fringe author and I propose to remove all references to him in articles related to Chinese and world history, particularly at Military history of China (pre-1911) and Economic history of China (pre-1911) where the main author, User:Teeninvestor, heavily relies on him. Why should he be removed? Temple, at least the way he is cited, makes a string of exaggerated and grandiose claims of Chinese excellence which aren't true and are so sweeping vis-a-vis Europe and the rest of the world that most cannot be verified in fact.
Temple is best known for his book The Sirius Mystery where he presents his idea that "the Dogon people preserve the tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system". Temple is considered a pseudo-scientist by bad archaeology ( link). He is no historian, and even less a sinologist, but merely purports to summarize in his The Genius of China: 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention the work of the notable sinologist Joseph Needham (mostly without detailed references).
Since I happen to work in this field, I found him factually wrong on many accounts such as his claims that the Chinese invented segmental arch bridges (in fact, the Romans did half a millennium before, see here, here or here) or that the Chinese use of water-power preceded that of the west by many centuries (in fact, the oldest watermills were built by the Greeks and Romans). But the real problem remains Temple's propensity to make exceptional unproven and unprovable claims which have no basis in Needham actually.
In this context, Temple has been found by a majority of users to be not reliable here and particularly here by a majority of users. Consensus was that he needs to be removed or replaced by the scholar he purports to summarize, Needham; this should not be difficult given the wide availability of Needham's work.
I apologize to renew the debate and draw your attention from other matters, but Teeninvestor's inactivity since then suggests that he did not hear that. The users then participating are going to be notified by me per WP:Canvass. Please leave a vote so that this question can now be permanently settled.
Appendix: for those unfamiliar with Temple's claims, click on "show" for a small non-exhaustive selection |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Economic history of China (pre-1911):
|
Temple = unreliable. Regards. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
My degree of involvement and depth of knowledge here has been limited to one particular dispute. In that case Temple made a claim which, as worded, was so far-reaching and absolute that it was impossible for it to be true as written. One editor wanted to keep it in on the basis of saying Temple is a RS. In that case Temple was certainly a very unreliable source and wrote in a careless / hyperbolic manner.
Gun Powder Ma has provided much seemingly factual and verifiable information which would clearly show him to also be a fringe writer. North8000 ( talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
All right, I'll ask the stupid question: why are we using a summary of the work rather than the real deal? There is absolutely no reason we should not be citing Needham over Temple, regardless of the latter's reliability. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Unreliable source given the Erik von Daineken space alien fantasies. There are lots of high-grade scholarly works available on both early chinese and early european history. Use them instead. Bali ultimate ( talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
The evidence seems to weigh in favor of using Needham over Temple although I am not generally in favor of "popularist" authors and would prefer the use of Chinese sources. Philg88 contact 17:09, 19 April 2024 UTC [ refresh
A merely procedural question since I am not familiar with the process: If there is a consensus that Temple should not be used, what next to do with him? Should the references be replaced by a tag like "citation needed" or should his assertions be removed altogether from the text? Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That site, which has permission to hold a lot of freely available (without subscribing to major science journals) copies of articles related to the general field sometimes called "cold fusion", has been blacklisted for some time. The major reason it was blacklisted was that the owner of the site has added some introductory material into a number of data files. However, the people who requested the blacklist appear to be exhibiting some hypocrisy. Here is some information about one particular file, known as the "ERAB report" (a.k.a. the 1989 US DOE report on cold fusion):
V kindly informed me that this discussion is underway.
I think it is better for everyone that LENR-CANR.org be banned. I do not want to see LENR-CANR associated with Wikipedia, and the anti-cold fusion fanatics who are in charge of the article here do not want to see it either, so this arrangement suits both of us. However, perhaps I can be assistance addressing the questions that have arisen here. Let me clear up any confusion and set the record straight.
I do not recall whether I wrote an introduction to other articles and papers but there are over 1000, so I might have forgotten some.
The ERAB report was made available only on paper, which is why I copied the ncas.org version.
The introduction to the ERAB report is as clearly marked as possible. There is no chance anyone will confuse it with the document. It begins: "A copy of the ERAB report has been prepared by the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) organization (www.ncas.org). It is available here in HTML format: http://www.ncas.org/erab/. It is converted to Acrobat format in this document, below. . . ." The title page of the document (p. 3) is clearly marked as such and it says “Internet Edition Prepared by National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) District of Columbia - Maryland - Virginia (USA)”
Anyone can compare my version to the ncas original and see that I have made no changes. As noted here, anyone can link from my version to the ncas version to read their Introduction.
Regarding the accusation made by the anti-cold fusion fanatics here that LENR-CANR includes copyright violations, I am sure that nothing I can say or do will dissuade them. I am not inclined to provide copies of dozens or hundreds of e-mail messages and other documents proving that I have permission to upload the papers, and the fanatics would only claim I forged such documents even if I did. However, anyone can confirm that LENR-CANR does not have copyright violations. The proof is simple, and the evidence can be assembled in a few minutes with Google. You do not need to take my word for it, and you do not need anything from me.
You need only look on the Internet for links to LENR-CANR, references within papers and books to it, and references to my name -- Jed Rothwell -- which is unique. You will find dozens of published papers and books that mention the website or include footnotes with the addresses from the web site. Take, for example, a paper featured on our main page: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009. This lists LENR-CANR in a reference; it describes many resources only available at LENR-CANR.org; and all of the authors of the paper (plus the other 90 people who contributed) are well represented in our library. Obviously, the people at the DIA know about LENR-CANR.org. They know I have uploaded this paper and many others by the DIA co-authors. Along the same lines, you will find papers at Naturwissenschaft, J. Fusion Energy, the ICCF conference proceedings and in dozens of other web sites with links to LENR-CANR. Some list my name in them as the editor or in the Acknowledgements section. The editors and authors at these sites are aware of the existence of LENR-CANR. They know me, personally. They must know that their papers are uploaded. If I had uploaded papers without their permission, they would ask me to remove them. Publishers did, in fact, ask me to remove a few papers. At the publisher’s request, there are also about a dozen papers that include only the abstract and a link to the publisher’s site. Obviously, I have full copies of the papers and I could upload them. I wouldn’t do that because the last thing I want to do is upset the publishers!
You can also confirm this by looking at the gaps in the collection. The bibliography lists 3,500 papers but there are only ~1,000 uploaded. There are several hundred important cold fusion papers well known to everyone familiar with the field which are not uploaded. There are prominent authors not represented in the collection. The reason is obvious: I asked for permission but they said no. The gaps are not there because I am biased against authors. I have uploaded papers by most of the prominent anti-cold fusion authors such as Morrison.
It stands to reason that I must be doing this openly, with the full knowledge and cooperation of the authors and publishers in the field.
- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org
Let me add one other observation. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not list LENR-CANR.org as a source, and it does not allow any links to it, is prima facie proof that the fanatics in charge of this article are biased and that their objective is to prevent the readers from learning about this subject. Not to toot my own horn -- because I did not write all those 1000 papers, after all -- but an article about cold fusion that does not mention LENR-CANR.org is like an article on ornithology that does not list the Audubon Society.
I would to keep things this way so that any knowledgeable person who reads the Wikipedia article will see it is biased. The fanatics will not allow anyone to correct the errors and distortions in the article, or to replace their opinions with actual, peer-reviewed scientific facts. Since they insist the article be biased & awful, I prefer that it be manifestly awful, to warn off any serious reader. Hence, I do not want any improvements. - Jed Rothwell
This site has listings of various "best albums" polls in magazines and newspapers. It appears to be a commercial, rather than personal, website. Do you think it is an RS for the statement that a certain record came at a certain position in a certain poll? -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw |title=Auto-Tune the News:bed intruder song|publisher=Auto tune the news- via - schmoyoho's Channel - via [[You Tube]]|accessdate=August 11, 2010}}</ref>
Is this an official youtube cite or is it schmoyoho's channel ?
Off2riorob (
talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know how Napster generates content like this. Is it RS? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 21:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It's bio text on 1.8.7. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 08:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
In the Robbins article, there is some debate over whether he was born in 1958 or 1959. One editor has put in a source for the year 1958. I reverted that change because I don't think it's a reliable or usable source (it requires a paid subscription and searching to find the actual source). I also pointed to an earlier discussion about this website, which, in my view, seems to support my position. I posted a message on the editor's Talk page, and the editor disagrees with me and put back the source. I'm not going to war with the editor. Frankly, I don't know which year is right. I lean slightly in favor of keeping 1958 because that's what it's been, but I've been unable to find an authoritative source on the birth date. Indeed, there's another source in the article that questions which year it is. I'm not sure that source is particularly reliable, either.
At this point, all I want is some consensus on whether the so-called "California Birth Index" at ancestry.com can be used to source a birth date, not a definitive answer to which year Robbins was born, although that would be also helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This http://books.google.com/books?id=ojgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=petri+armenian+mitanni&source=bl&ots=R1TrJ8M-o0&sig=L8AuhGTkIelLQN2lpDyAwecAHd8&hl=en&ei=Hh63SdncCpnMsAPq_ryuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result Prof. Petrie (19th century Egyptologist) "Mitannian (Armenian) origins"] <--[[ Petrie_Museum_of_Egyptian_Archaeology|Petrie Museum in London was named after him, ranking after Cairo and British Museums]], William_Flinders_Petrie|Petrie was added as a source for the statement "The kingdom of Mitanni was a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan origin". It's currently footnote 4 in Mitanni. (The editor was later blocked for edit-warring and now has a 4 month topic ban under the Armenian-Azerbaijan sanctions). There was a discussion of it on the talk page, where another editor said "You seem to be referring to passages which quote Flinders Petrie, who seems to have claimed that Mitanni were in some sense "Armenian" ("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." GIven the gloss in the reference, saying "Mitannian (Armenian) origins" and evidently trying to impress the reader about Petrie's importance (and he was important, but modern scholarship has overturned some of his ideas), I not only do not see (literally, all I can see is pictures of book covers when I click on the link) anything that should be used as a reliable source for this statement. For some reason I don't understand, the same link has added as an external link and there is a dispute on this (I don't think it should be there either, but that's another issue although obviously it shouldn't be in both places). I hope someone can make sense of this! Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no block of this in the UK. User:Paul_Barlow himself that commented about the source [71] (here is the page number and highlighted, I fixed the previous link Doug provided), lives in the UK also. It must be something wrong with your system Dougweller I dont know. Also, if you notice in the Mitanni page, the seal [72] has been there since 2006, mentioning of Armenian-Mitanni and the source is from 'Genesis of Armenian People'. Also, excuse my grammer, but my point about the other 19th century scholars used as sources was by admin Dbachmann, mentioned in the Proto-Armenian language page as an RS. The comments Paul made were incorrect regarding the Petrie source with 'modern' linguistic studies. The works of those 19th century linguists which I mentioned in Talk:Mitanni, are still used in the modern linguistics, and have not changed. The same sources and linguists are what Petrie and Henry Hall commented in the EL source I provided. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The Armenian language and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included), are grouped together as Armeno-Aryan, this is a scholarly view which Dbachmann and Paul Barlow added the additions of this in Indo-European related pages in Wikipedia recently. There are the IE tree's and other IE charts/graphs that show the Armeno-Aryan subgrouping, which later Armenian and Indo-Iranian branch out to their seperate branches. Armeno-Aryan is the ancestor of both Armenian and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included). The Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian) Handbook of Formal Languages (1997) p. 6.Indo-European tree with Armeno-Aryan, exclusion of Greek [73] In addition to this, the Mitanni pages in google mostly mention Indo-Iranian which is more near to Armeno-Aryan, than the later branched out Indo-Aryan group. The Petrie source I provided and the Mitanni seal I showed which says Armenian-Mitanni with the Genesis of Armenian People source back up what I'm saying about the 19th century linguists like Hubishmann, still used in the modern linguistics, such as the IE tree I provided here with the Armeno-Aryan grouping, which is based on the Mitanni IE names and language. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The page number is 384, and another User:Paul_Barlow I mentioned also lives in the UK like Dougweller, and he is able to view it. Aryamahasattva ( talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Certainly it seems as though the new doctrine had made some headway before the death of Amenhetep III, but we have no reason to attribute it to Tii, or to suppose that she brought it with her from abroad. There is no proof whatever that she was not a native Egyptian, and the mummies of her parents, Iuaa and Tuaa, are purely Egyptian in facial type. It seems undoubted that the Aten cult was a development of pure Egyptian religious thought."