This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
An edit warring, IP-hopping editor from Romania keeps inserting the following image URLs into the article about Henri Coandă, saying that they are from the "Museum of Technology 'Dimitire Leonida' where part of Coanda archive is kept". I wonder what other editors think of these:
Are these images at all useful as references? Can they be used as "External links" instead? Binksternet ( talk) 01:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The website:
http://www.the-numbers.com/
Data type: Film budgets
Article where issue as arisen:
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Relevant discussion:
Talk:Resident_Evil:_Afterlife#Budget
Background
The Numbers offers film information such as grosses, DVD sales, budgets etc and is increasingly being used as a source on film articles. The Wikipedia Film Project currently accept it as a source for box office data: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Resources#Box_office. There have been previous discussions where its reliability has been called into question, with no definitive outcome: [2]
Context
The issue has arisen in the discussion at the Afterlife page that it should be the preferred source for the budget, because it offers a more precise amount ($57.5 million [afterlife 1]) ahead of the more widely quoted figure of $60 million (The NY Times—"about $60 million" [afterlife 2];the LA Times—"nearly $60 million" [afterlife 3]). Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap all carry the $60 million figure too.
Concern
The ambiguous statements of the LA Times and New York Times are certainly consistent with The Numbers, in that $57.5 million could quite easily be "about $60 million" or "nearly $60 million", but they don't back up the figure directly. Nearly $60 million could just as easily be $59 million. My problem with The Numbers is that it has form for misquoting its budget sources. In many instances it simply doesn't give sources for budgets, but here are a few examples of it misquoting the sources it does give for some of its budgets:
Robin Hood ($210 million). Quotes the New York Times which says "...more than $200 million..."
[3]
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($210 million). Quotes Variety that says "north of $200 million"
[4]
Disney's A Christmas Carol ($190 million). Quotes the LA Times which says "nearly $200-million"
[5]
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($160 million). Quotes the The Hollywood Reporter which says "...at least $150 million..." and Variety which says "$150 million-$170 million"
[6]
It seems to draw from secondary sources, and what's worse is that it seems to make up its own numbers. At least in the cases quoted readers can clearly see its misquoting information, but there is a danger that in the cases it doesn't provide sources its estimates will be regarded as factually correct.
My view
The website clearly doesn't seem to have primary sources when it comes to budget information so draws on previously published information. It is demonstrably unreliable when it comes to publishing information from its various sources, so I don't think it should considered as a reliable source for budget information. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Other views
There is quite appreciable evidence that no numbers are accurate (vide the number of lawsuits about what are, or are not, "net profits.") Where it is clear that studios do not accurately know how much a film cost, there is no reason to dispute any figures at all, as long as readers are informed that all figures are "estimates" of some sort. Collect ( talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is the following Master's thesis, published by a press called VDM considered a reliable source on the topic of Longevity myths? Robert Young, AFRICAN-AMERICAN LONGEVITY ADVANTAGE: MYTH OR REALITY?: A Racial Comparison of Supercentenarian Data. I will admit upfront that my view is that the article on "longevity myths" is an original synthesis. The author of the afore mentioned book, who is also an editor here, maintains that it is not and cites his own master's thesis. As you can imagine there is also a thread related to this at the COI/N - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Ryoung122_on_Longevity_myths. I originally told Mr. Young that master's thesis are not considered reliable sources in general, but he asked for confirmation on that as well. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Supplying the requested detail can allow RS/N to determine if the source is reliable. MAs are not considered reliable for the establishment of new or original subjects of research: originality is not part of the ambit of masters research. As such an MA could never be reliable on Wikipedia for the establishment of the existence of an object of encyclopedic inquiry existing. Take any OR questions to WP:NOR/N Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm planning to write a article about the History of the Parish of Aycliffe, a area now made up of Newton Aycliffe, School Aycliffe and Aycliffe Village. I'm trying to gather some sources together to get a basis. Anyway I've found a book on Google Books, named " The history and antiquities of the county palatine of Durham" from 1857 and it explains the history of the Parish's name on page 524. I've never really used books sources and I don't know if this is reliable or not. Any help or advice with this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks -- George2001hi (Discussion) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if http://www.wes.org is a reliable news source? It seems to me like just a commercial "evaluation" website, not a credible news agency! Is this really a credible source for encyclopedic content?? It is used in a bunch of articles on wikipedia. Monsig ( talk) 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This query was a bit misleading. The source that Monsiq objects to is not the domain wes.org, but rather World Education News & Reviews, which is published by the organization that owns the domain. The "about" page for that source is http://www.wes.org/ewenr/aboutWENR.htm . This is a monthly newsletter publication (formerly in print, but more recently online) that has an editor and whose articles have named authors who generally cite sources. Two of the specific articles that have been cited in Wikipedia are http://www.wes.org/ewenr/05oct/feature.htm and http://www.wes.org/ewenr/00july/feature.htm . Current contents of this newsletter require registration: [7]. -- Orlady ( talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing against a connection between Buxton and instantdegrees.com (there seems to be enough evidence for that from reliable sources) I am asking for evidence that they are also connected to Canterbury and Ashford, as is claimed in the "article". Monsig ( talk) 14:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In Scientific opinion on climate change, the statement:
is sourced to:
The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I am currently having the following problem:
I am not going to discuss my proposal here, because the key question is original research, not reliable sources. And I ask you not to continue discussing it here. Take it to WP:NPOV/N if you don't trust Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. Hans Adler 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Physicist Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society recently, in protest over what he calls the "appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change." The Register reported his resignation here, and I added this cite to Lewis's Wikibio diff, replacing an earlier cite to a blog. The originally posted copy of Lewis's letter appears to be here, and his protest resignation has received considerable notice, for example this blog lists six newspapers carrying the story online. The Register's story appears to me to be the best quality of the lot, and is written by the only reporter who apparently contacted Lewis for comments.
Editor William M. Connolley reverted, commenting "happily, all that has to go - el rego isn't an RS". I asked him to specify his objections here and here, but he hasn't yet replied.
This diff is an accurate quote of Lewis's letter (though the selection could be improved), and this Register story is (to my eye) better-than-average journalism.
Can this Register article be considered a Reliable Source for Lewis's resignation? Thanks, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are the links: http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/ and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DIPAS/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp&labhits=710 .
Sterling Hospitals is a large organization, possessing official medical and scientific standard certifications, and who's work is supervised by various entities, including governmental ones. If it publishes something, it must be approved by various supervising bodies. The same goes for DIPAS, which is a governmental organization and a research facility. Its publications are approved by multiple supervisors before they appear on their official site. Please comment. Thanks. -- Nazar ( talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with McGeddon. I also replied on the Prahlad Jani talkpage [12]. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I do appreciate your input, guys, I think we need some more neutral opinions here. Both McGeddon and Dr.K. are actively engaged into the article related argument and represent one of its sides. Namely, the skeptic one. -- Nazar ( talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Sulmues is bent on using a 19th century source (from 1872) to "prove" that the town of Konitsa was "Albanian" [13]. The source is John Murray, one of those 19th century British travellers who roamed the Balkans. It is of course heavily outdated, and the author is not a historian or scholar of any sort, yet this user simply cannot see what is wrong with the source. Can someone please explain to him that 19th century sources are heavily outdated and should not be used? God knows I tried. Ditto here, where he is using a source from 1920 [14] and (of course) can't see anything wrong with that. This user has a very hard time understanding that anything older than ~50 years is deprecated and should only be used with extreme caution. Athenean ( talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to point out that any 19th century source must be used with caution even if it by an accredited scholar or academic. The reason is simple-the theories they used have since been disproved or replaced and some studies were as much for propaganda as they were for science. Sensationalism, tabloid like articles, and finally Yellow journalism were common in many papers of the day. As the Spring Heeled Jack scare shows even now reputable papers like The Times were not immune. The quality by our standards just wasn't there.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Primary sources are discouraged, but assuming there is a legitimate primary source, is there a rule that says that a primary source uploaded to a wikipedia page cannot be used as a reference? I'm told there is such a rule but I haven't seen it. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
To be more specific, the file is a signed court document. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be a consensus in the matter that the court documents are necessary in this instance. I dloaded the document from an external website, uploaded them to a wikipedia page (so the reference would be there if the external site changed), and then used the wiki pdf page as the reference. I noted the original source on the wikipedia page. The question is whether that is improper, and I should only use the original source as the reference rather than the wiki pdf. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a PDF that you got from some blog and then uploaded to Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Duh. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, when I removed this from the James O'Keefe article, User:SpecialKCL66 reverted me, [20] [21], stating "this issue has already been discussed at length". Yes, it's been discussed, and the consensus is, it is not WP:RS, and even if it was, it probably couldn't be used in this manner. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
BruceGrubb ( talk · contribs) contends that this forum post is a reliable source for the article Corrupted Blood incident, as argued here. Can somebody please vet both the source, and the articular content that BruceGrubb is extrapolating? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Forum Flags: "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment. Note: Individual Blizzard Employees can select their own special icon. Look for "Blizzard Poster" and a Blizzard icon to identify Blizzard Posters with custom icons."
Tigole has the Blizz icon where the level number should be and "Blizzard Poster" underneath his name ergo per Forum Flags he is "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment". Clearly a WP:RS as explained by Blizzard themselves.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some required work with others on Razer (robot) that was suggested be done the last time I brought it up for Frequent Article Nomination. We're almost done bar one issue which was how could we source how Vincent Blood left the team and show there was a split. All I've managed to discover is this BBC source which was written after Robot Wars was finished which only lists the other team members as part of the team, ommiting Blood which both me and the major contributor wasn't sure if this would be suitable. In addition, I think there is a Youtube video that shows Razer being demonstrated without Blood being there which was done after Robot Wars. My question is, would either or both of them be suitible in sourcing a team split within FA requirements? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 17:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently reverted an IP on to be, or not to be, but now I feel bad about it. Apparently the problem is that there are a handful of slightly different versions of the soliloquy available (differences in punctuation, small wording changes such as using "despised love" or "depriz'd love". I assume these come from different folios and are in fact all reliably sourced, and the differences are too minor to include all of them. so in a case like that which version do we use? There's about half a million academic sources available on the internet to choose from (and more non-academic sources then there are stars in the known universe).
It's not really a major issue, except that I'd like to forestall mistaken reverts like the one I made. Any guidance would be appreciated. -- Ludwigs2 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A new article on an academic journal called Iranshenasi was created today. The only source given is an article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Looking at the page About Iranica the source seems reputable enough. However, when I read the article about Iranshenasi, things get more problematic. The style and wording are such that this article would not survive for 5 minutes on WP... Lots of peacock and weasel words, nothing sourced. I put refimprove and notability tags on the article, but they have been removed twice now by the article's creator. If EI is accepted as an RS, then I guess Iranshenasi might squeak by our notability standards, but otherwise I think it should go to AfD. (I have looked for other sources -even a homepage of the journal- but have found none; however, that is immaterial to the discussion here). -- Crusio ( talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
My comment: The editor of the journal is 80+ old and from what I know, he is probably not computer literate. But i do recall seeing a website some years ago, however the website is in Persian. I would have to do a google search for it, except that the word Iranshenasi is very popular in Persian. So that argument is not really a good argument (Wikipedia does not require a website). The writer of the article in Iranica is Abbas Milani who is a Professot at Stanford [22]. I have provided more refences to the citation of the journal itself.
Also I am not sure why Crusio deleted: "The founding editor in chief was Jalal Matini. The journal is published in Persian (with a small English section) and covers Iranian history, Persian culture, and Persian literature. [1]. Among its board members (past and present) one can mention Peter Chelkowski [2], Roger Savory, Zabiollah Safa. Ehsan Yarshater, Heshamt Moayyad [3] and Djalal Khaleqi Motlaq [1]."
Also the journal is well counted in google books [23] despite being in Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@slatersteven:. The article is written by an expert [ [24]] in the field. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@Crusio: The article is a not blurb. However, if you need other citations for the journal [25] [26]. Also the article is written by a Full Professor at Stanford [27]. "Important articles on the Shahnameh and related topics have been published in the periodical Iranshenasi in Persian, but with an English resume." [28].. and etc. Note also again the journal is in Persian, so you should not expect quadrlion citations but the amount is still impressive in google books. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see where the concept of "peer-review" cameup although the Encyclopaedia is peer-review. If you look at my response to slatersteven, it is about the number of citations and also the academic positions of the scholars (full professor of Norte Dame/Stanford and a full professor of Columbia). This is not a matter of opinion but simply following the definition of WP:RS. First Crusio is not stating what source he has a problem with? Iranica, Yarshater, Milani, Iranshenasi, Columbia University, Stanford and etc.? This is surely very vague. One is not using the concept of "peer-review" to establish WP:RS.
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [29]
Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [30]
For example WP:RS states: "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."
Now google books has [31] a total of 20,000 citations. Google Scholars close to 1500-2000 [32]
If we follow guidelines, then I do not think normal users can decide if full Professors from Stanford and Columbia whose works are cited by hundreds of scholars in the same field and other fields are unreliable. If that was the case, then pretty soon the whole idea of Wikipedia would collapse since it would be if certain users "like a certain source". Crusio is saying he does not like the tone of an article, but that is not sufficient. This is not the way to challenge WP:RS. He needs to show where in WP:RS he has found a major problem. If it is the universities? Columbia and Stanford. If it is the publisher? Columbia university. Following guidelines and you will see hundreds of scholarly citations for Iranshenasi as well as Iranica. For Iranica it should not be suprising, but for Iranshenasi which is a Persian journal, that is still a very large number.
Note the Iranica article states about the journal Iranshenasi: "The new journal’s advisory board included an impressive array of scholars from around the world. Three members of Iran Nameh’s Advisory Board joined Iranshenasi: Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, and Zabihollah Safa. ". If you have a problem here, then I can tell you that the most important authors in Islamic studies, Near eastern history and Iranology write for Iranica. If you think its editor is unreliable than again do a google scholar check. Please do a google books and scholar search for each name. [33] [34] and etc.
As per Iranica, here is the columbia university link on it [35]. Here is a news link on it [36], it is a no contest and anyone who knows anything about the field of Iranology or Near Eastern studies, references this source. [37] [38] (22,700 results in google books, written from scholars in many many fields).
QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS WORLDWIDE : A real tour de force. There is no project in the entire Middle Eastern field more worthy of support than the Encyclopædia Iranica. Prof. Richard N. Frye, Harvard University in Journal of the American Oriental Society
The Encyclopædia Iranica volumes are the most extensive and important contributions to the study of Islamic and pre-Islamic Iranian history and culture that have been made in this century. Dr. Prudence Harper, Curator of Ancient Near Eastern Art at Metropolitan Museum of Art
The foremost reference work on Iran ever produced and one of the premier reference works in the humanities published in our time. Prof. Roy Mottahedeh, Harvard University in Middle East Journal
The Encyclopædia Iranica will be judged as the most significant contribution of our century to the advancement of Iranian studies as a scholarly enterprise. Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [39]
Une grande entreprise. Prof. Gilbert Lazard, Membre de l'Institut, in Journal Asiatique
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [40]
La première fois qu'une encyclopédie pluridisciplinaire sur l'Iran est mise en chantier. Prof. Jean Calmard, University of Paris, in Abstracta Iranica
This monument of scholarship in Iranian Studies is a mine of detailed information, with bibliographical references, on every aspect of Iranian history, thought, languages, and civilization. Dr. Farhad Daftary, Institute of Ismaili Studies, in Journal of the American Oriental Society
[Encyclopædia Iranica] is an invaluable aid not only to Iranian scholars but also to scholars of Assyrian history, ancient Greek and Roman history, and the history of Islam, as well as archaeologists and historians of culture and religion. Dr. N. I. Medvedskaya, Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, in Vestnik Drevnej Istorii (translated text)
Encyclopædia Iranica is indispensable for any scholarly work of specialists in the fields of Iranian and Islamic Studies. [It] deserves the highest praise and full support. Prof. Werner Ende, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität inZDMG(translated text)
Une grande entreprise qui fera certainement date dans l'histoire des études Iraniennes. The late Prof. Z. Telegdi, University of Budapest in Archiv Orientalni, Prague
Mit der vorliegenden Encyclopædia ist ein jahrhundertwerk in Angriff genommen worden. The late Professor Bertold Spuler, University of Hamburg, in Der Islam
By contrast [to the Encyclpædia of Islam] Islamic art and architecture play a far larger role in ... Encylopædia Iranica ... [It] includes many biographies of artists, including painters, calligraphers, potters, metalworkers, and woodcarvers, as well as entries on cities and media, such as ceramics, carpets, and calligraphy. Dr. Sheila Blair & Dr. Jonathan M. Bloom, inMiddle East Studies Association Bulletin
Encyclopædia Iranica is a real treasury of competent, up-to-date information, and an important research tool. Dr Rüdiger Schmitt, University Professor, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany
-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some opinions please! Are www.filmsnobbery.com and www.ferntv.ca suitably reliable to show the notability of Emily Schooley? The links are to the specific pages, but I'm more interested in whether they are WP:RS - I'm not quite sure. Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Over on the Weston Price I have been trying to balance a claim made by Stephen Barrett ( Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists) using a November 3. 1933 paper presented by Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. laboratory of Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York called "Metabolic Disturbance in Relation to the Teeth" which cites then contemporary article from Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association to show that Weston Price wasn't the one lone nut Barrett implies him to be.
I even added more modern sources (Ensminger, Audrey H. (1994) Foods & nutrition encyclopedia: Volume 1 CRC Press, Page 546; Chernoff, Ronni (2006) Geriatric nutrition: the health professional's handbook Jones & Bartlett Learning, Page 193) to show the ideas presented in this old paper are not entirely out of date and we have WP:NPOV and WP:OR tag being put on those claims rather than the Barrett claim. I have even found two reliable references that show that Barrett's claim "This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid" (citing a 1951 and a 1982 article) to be in error.
The 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 136 states that the focal infection theory never really died and Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 states: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."
Now in the light of all this can Barrett be considered a reliable source?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 18:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To say it very clearly: An article about a leading dental researcher who died in 1945 is an article about dental/medical history, not a fringe article. Barrett (i.e. things self-published by him without any editorial overview) is to some extent a reliable source on fringe. He is not a reliable source on dental history. Barrett has an extreme POV that makes it necessary to be careful even about what he says in the field of fringe. This extreme POV obviously affects how he treats this historical topic: He is mistaking what appears to be a perfectly legitimate stage in the history of mainstream dentistry (whether it was an error or not) with fringe. Hans Adler 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I should mention that of Barrett's claims only the focal infection theory one has any reference and those can be shown to be possibly out of date. In fact, searching through Price's book shows some serious errors in Barrett's claims.
Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."
Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)
"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)
"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. [...] I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)
"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)
The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases on them so how can Barrett claim Price is ignoring these things without a single reference backing up that statement? Better yet since Price published through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (who was publishing textbooks like Modern Practice in Dermatology back in the day) while Stephen Barrett is self published with the majority of his claims unreferenced how can we say Barrett trumps Price regardless of how old Price's work is, especially when we can show via old source the claims are in error? There is something very wrong with that picture.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A recent authoritative review showed a clear association between cavities and heart diseases [5]. More importantly, this same study showed that people with poor oral health, on average, lead shorter lives. The association between cavities and diabetes is also a subject of active, ongoing research [6-8]. Connections between heart disease, diabetes, and dental decay have been suspected for decades. Many of the scientists who called attention to this have proposed that diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates were the common cause of these diseases [9-15] Dental diseases, mental diseases, heart disease, infectious respiratory diseases, and heart disease are all at least partially caused by common failures in metabolism. Such failures are inevitable when there is a deficiency of essential nutrients, particularly vitamins D, C, and niacin.
There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930's and 1940's [16-27]. More than 90% of the studies concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities. Particularly impressive was a study published in 1941 demonstrated the preventative affect of "massive" doses of vitamin D [28]. And yet no subsequent studies in the scientific literature suggested a need to follow up and repeat this work.(sic)
(BLP violation removed -- Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC))
(Remove indent)I agree. It is not like the situation in
Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 where I was arguing for the views of Jon Taylor and Robert L. FitzPatrick to be included because those views, works, and even direct quotes had been used in third party peer reviewed publications like Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, McGeorge Law Review, and Juta Academic. Furthermore, if the online reports regarding the
Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc.,
King Bio Pharmaceuticals cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a
WP:RS. The
Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial.
What I would love to know is how do you present a case claiming homeopathy is quackery so poorly that you lose it? With stuff like "Clinical Trials (2003-2007)", "The laws of chemistry and physics, as we understand them, say that homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo if a treatment has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules remain." - Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited. Rapid response to BMJ 1999;319:1115-1118; Linde, K, et al. "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy". J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. "Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366); "Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study." J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860); "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005); J. D. Miller "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" Nature 434, 199-202 (10 March 2005) proving a key claim of homeopathy to be false; and many more ( including James Randi) to show homeopathy not only doesn't work but can't work just how in the name of sanity do you effectively blow it?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have brought up Ronz' removal of content from this noticeboard at the BLP/N. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I am doing some editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and another chap there has called into question the reliability of a book I am using to verify some of the material. Can someone please tell me if the book "A Testimony to Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment) is a reliable source to use? The ISBN is: 0 85052 819-4
Thank you in advance. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely taken aback that a genuine request for assistance yields such an awful sectarian comment. I had hoped that people of position on Wikipedia would be above such behaviour. Can anyone genuinely help please without using such bitter language. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You should not ask whether an individual is a reliable source but whether a book is. This book was published by "Pen and Sword Books" as one of their "regimental history books". [41] But reliability refers to the facts in the book, and the history of this regiment is controversial. You need to determine how historians view the regiment and this book may not address that. TFD ( talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I simply want to know if Potter's book can be taken as a true source of facts (facts only - not opinion, unless supported by other sources) and if Potter can be referred to in the article as the "Regimental Historian". I don't want to enter into speculation on the Ulster Defence Regiment or accusations about it. The Wikipedia article already explores that in great depth. I will use what I'm told here as absolute. With regards to what historians feel about the regiment this is the only history currently available so it's all I have to work with as a Regimental History, apart from a book written by a journalist in 1991 and some smaller histories produced by former members of lesser rank. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Potter states that he was "invited by the Colonels Commandant" to compile the history of the regiment. That suggests it is official. That and the fact that the finished work is kept safe and unpublished by the British Ministry of Defence.
I don't see why there's such a fuss about it. I asked a question and expected to get the sensible answers I've had from some people. I suppose I should have realised that anything to do with Ireland is going to get some people on a soap box. I think that's my point really. I'd rather have the "soap boxing" done here than see it happen on the article discussion page.
Could someone give me a view on the "official status" of Potter please - as regimental historian of the Ulster Defence Regiment? SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for an informed, independent opinion. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like an opinion from an appointed person who isn't involved in Irish affairs. I'm not seeking an argument with anyone. I'll scout around and see if I can find some help elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's no rush, the article isn't going anywhere. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now referred this question to
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Help_Required_With_Source and
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source .
SonofSetanta (
talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that it has. Much emphasis seems to be laid on Major Potter's opinion by several posters opposed to the use of his work. What is more relevant though is that he is named, but not explained, and it seems odd to me that the man who compiled the official history of the regiment cannot be called the "Official Regimental Historian". Even if his book is not the official version which as we know is unreleased. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think one aspect of my request is completely satisifed - over attribution. I'd be very pleased if you could give me an opinion on the term "official historian" with regards to John Potter so that it can be explained to a reader that it was he who compiled the official history - even if his book isn't. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean Judith. I'll change what I've written about him as a result of your comment. Thank you. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an article called Targeted killing. The content of the article are being discussed. The first two sentences of the article are:
Targeted killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or " unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention [tk 1]
...
- References
- ^ Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521870887. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
In the article this book is cited 27 times (a,b...aa) under one citation.
From the talk page:
You are citing a book you should include page numbers (See WP:Page numbers). Also my may not be aware of this but Google access to pages in a book vary depending on the location of the searcher. If the people Google think that copyright restricts access in a jurisdiction, they restrict to IP addresses in that jurisdiction. -- PBS ( talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Normally". Especially for "non-indexed" books. The google search function is a handy indexing tool, in addition to the book's table of contents and index. If the page is not accessible, one still gets to see the page number.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche is the main contributor to the article and I believe the only contributor to the first two sentences. I need a third party who is not currently involved in the discussion to explain to myself and Epeefleche whether or not my request for page numbers is reasonable and normal, or if the refusal to add page numbers is reasonable and normal. PBS ( talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
W
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
Although page numbers are required for book-length sources, the first response to a missing page number should be to request one (by adding the "page number needed" tag or otherwise). Immediate deletion is only warranted in the case of highly dubious, incendiary or potential WP:BLP violating sources. Otherwise it is an unfriendly action whether allowed by the rules or not. I'm not impressed by the argument about FA status; we are supposed to be here to write good articles not to win accolades. Zero talk 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
•As some might suspect, there is some background to the above. There may, just possibly, be something driving the inquiry more than simply intellectual curiosity. And if not for AGF, the phrase "POINTy" might come to mind. Just to put this in perspective ...
Some might call it coming to court with "unclean hands".
Having said all that, PBS--you will note--never indicated that he couldn't see what the page numbers were. Simply by hitting the link that is provided. As I suggested he do. I have no reason to doubt that he can see the page numbers here, which clicking the link in the ref provides -- along with, for the bulk, the actual pages themselves.
Of course, even in the wake of all the above, it is an interesting question.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't go about deleting sentences with inline citations, without good reason. Here, PBS can (as far as we know) see not only all the relevant page numbers, and the index, and the table of contents, but also do independent searches in the book. And there is certainly nothing at all dubious, incendiary, or a BLP violation here. Except, of course, PBS did try to hide the entire article from all Wiki readers, so perhaps he does have a reason to wish to complain about the RS-supported language which he can plainly read, and the page numbers which he can plainly see.
WP:Page numbers does not require one to provide page numbers. It says "you should normally ... in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books ...".
There is a purpose for the word "normally" in the rule. It makes the rule other than an absolute one. This situation describes just such an instance where the "normal" rule is not necessary -- for reasons I describe. The reader can see the page number, and often even see the page itself. Some editors here would like to read the rule as though the word "normally" does not appear. They're construing a rule other than the one that we have before us.
This is not a "normal" situation. It is a book with an index. It is a book with an accessible index. It is a book where the page numbers can be seen by clicking on the link provided. It is a book where PBS would not appear to have any earth-shattering need to push this point other than to be POINTy, and seek to have people on this page say that while the rule is not an absolute rule -- well, let's ignore the clear language of the rule, here they should treat it as thought the word "normally" is not in the rule.
And with what result, if no page numbers are supplied? Will we delete all book refs now on wikipedia that lack page numbers?
If not, what other result would follow from such a requirement?
Cla68 suggested that PBS can help by verifying the page himself. I've not seen PBS accept that advice.
Dlabtot seemed not, by his response, to recognize from PBS's description that by clicking on the name of the book in the ref, he would see the relevant page numbers. In fact, many of the editors seemed not to understand that, from their above comments. So again -- the ref links directly to the pages in question, within the book, and identifies the page numbers in question. (And I've never seen a googlebooks link die -- though gnews links do, all the time.)-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
@Camelbinky. I think there are several different issues being mixed. The original question of Epeefleche could be answered clearly and unanimously. It is definitely better to have page numbers, and it is normal to request them. Epeefleche is also right to say that Google books does not even work for all users, depending on where they log on. However, that unanimous response might not resolve all disagreements, of course. Your point about whether not having a page number is cause for deletion in all cases is a finer point, and you certainly not wrong to point that out. I certainly think that it would not be nice for someone to delete things quickly or aggressively just because of page numbers. Still, as long as you are given time, I do not really see why page numbers would be a big problem in this case?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst page numbers are good, be aware that different editions (including reprints in different countries) will have different numbers.-- Michael C. Price talk 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is just more forum shopping and wikidrama that is (*sigh*), yet another example of WP:Tendentious editing—a form of disruption—by an editor whose views are not shared by the rest of the community and he won’t let it go. Much of this is documented with links here on Talk:Targeted killing. It is just that simple. PBS is one of our early admins and knows better than to do this. He is clearly angry.
I suggest that the community here simply point out to the shepherding editor of the ‘Targeted killing’ article how best to address the legitimate needs for citing the article. I have to go to work but I’ll check back and see if PBS is continuing to fan flames here (or elsewhere). I will advise him here and now that he would be exceedingly wise to let the volunteer wikipedians who are experienced in citation matters to take this matter from hereon with no more badgering over the ‘Targeted killing’ article—here or anywhere else on the project. Greg L ( talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleeche why the ad hominem parting shot? To repeat what I said earlier: the consensus was that the block was unwarranted. The administrator who blocked my account, unblocked it and has agreed that (s)he will not bock my account in future (see the archived ANI and my talk page).
In the article War of 1812 there was (and is) a clause "(Another frigate had been destroyed to prevent it being captured on the stocks.)" which was supported by this citation: Theodore Roosevelt, multi volume The Naval War of 1812 Or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with the United Kingdom to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans.
Care to make a guess as to which sentence in that citation supported the clause (A serach/grep will not find it). See the discussion on the article's talk page page it is actually in Part II page 47 "Ross took Washington and burned the public buildings; and the panic-struck Americans foolishly burned the Columbia, 44, and Argus, 18, which were nearly ready for service." that was worked out via another source that is not cited but which is more likely to have been the origin of the clause. "Rushing down to the river, they set fire to a new Frigate, Columbia, caulked but still in the stocks and nearly ready for launch; and to the new Sloop of War Argus, which lay along side the wharf virtually ready for sea" (Ian W. Toll six frigates. p.435) This is why page numbers are usually essential to verify summaries of the sources cited in Wikipedia articles.
Epeefleeche do you now see that the Citation guideline's use of the qualification "normally" is to cover exceptions of the sort that I mentioned above such as no page numbers in an e-book or a citations of an online edition of a physical book such as the Oxford English Dictionary where page numbers are not available. It is not meant to be read that generally any book with a physical index or one that is indexed through third party search engines do not require page numbers? -- PBS ( talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree page numbers should be included if available but and here is the kicker sometimes such numbers are not available. One such example is in the Weston A Price article where one reference reads ""Weston A Price" New York Times Jan 24, 1948" because when you order from the New York Times article archive they give just the article rather the article in context so often you don't have a page number! Electronic versions of printed articles (such as USAToday and Times also don't have page numbers of the printed version either. USAToday is particularly annoying because stories often have different titles between the electronic and paper versions meaning if for what ever reason the link ever breaks you are going to majorly SOL at ever finding the printed version of that article.
This is why I get so annoyed when in talk people just link to an article rather than telling us what they are linking to (the dreaded [55] or " This has the needed information" nonsense) Years later that link may not work so if Internet archive didn't make a back up how is anyone going to know what you linked to?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel and the apartheid analogy is a minefield article, plagued by edit-warring, repeated deletion discussions, and other problems. The article contains long lists of supporters and opponents of the use of this analogy. However, although there are citations for all of the supporters, most of the opponents are simply listed with no evidence. Last week, the list of opponents was duplicated in the article. I removed the duplication, and deleted the unsourced claims. (I also deleted one unsourced alleged supporter). This was reverted by another editor, so I added "citation needed" tags to the unsourced alleged opponents of the analogy. This request has been reverted three times by the same editor, without any attempt to supply the information or to verify these claims. Was my request reasonable, is this repeated removal of the tags disruptive, and if no evidence is provided that these individuals iindeed oppose the allegation, would it be appropriate to remove the names? RolandR ( talk) 07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article for Alfred Enoch draws on http://www.veritaserum.com/movies/actors/alfredenoch.shtml as a key source. Veritaserum cites its sources as IMDB and http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org. I would like to challenge the associated material as needing further citations/verification but would appreciate confirmation on my opinion about this source. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the fact tags have been replaced with either incomplete or unreliable references
Self-published sources, including
* http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/nata.htm * http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPmontseny.htm * http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html
are definitely not acceptable in this case.
Since there is obviously a problem with sources on this page, which is very long-standing, I am removing references which do not cite page numbers. It is essential to verify statements, and an article which repeatedly cites the "sources" above has lost the benefit of the doubt.
There are a large number of contentious, uncited claims on this page. There is no excuse for this; the article may have been written a long time ago, but the concerns I raised over a year ago have not been addressed. If there is no improvement in sourcing, I will delete all of the tagged statements in two week's time. BillMasen ( talk) 11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone determine whether this [57] and musicOMH [58] are reliable enough to pass the FA candidacy of Goodies (album) Candy o32 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/dpsatish/237/61930/mangalore-diary-highrises-malls--beautiful-bunt-women.html Is this source reliable in the Mangalore article. Though this appears in a blog of IBN Live, it is a blog operated by a professional journalist of the news channel and is under the control of the news channel. 115.242.217.252 ( talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Recently I've seen a user moving BLP articles with birthday.se as a source. Birthday.se is a Swedish site for finding more in-depth information about a particular person's birth date. Does birthday.se qualify as a source? Hey Mid ( contributions) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The link here [59] could create harm to living persons. Can you please block it?-- Zucchinidreams ( talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Recently an editor has put a pdf file [60] that according to him claims as "fact" that people murdered based in part on lists made by Nazi Ukrainian collaboration organisation were "cooperating with Soviets". This goes against established information in mainstream publications.
Is this reliable to be a source about Nazi mass murder and its background?
The text of the pdf is in cyrilic and Ukrainian-meaning that we have to rely on google to translate it.However there are sentences and statements that if correct make me question the sources reliability on the issue of murders committed by Nazi collaborationist organisation OUN.
I found following examples(note that this is from google translation and a bit messsy):
All those statements if correct seem to indicate a highly biased work-I couldn't find its english translation, nor review in any journal. The text seems to be partially defensive towards OUN and attempts to portay its actions against Jews and Poles as "anti-colonial struggle". It is also used to claim Polish intellectuals murdered based on lists prepared by OUN were "cooperating with Soviets". Non-controversial sources on the murder note that those murdered had in majority no political involvment. An editor on discussion page claims that this claim originated "from source cited under footnote 4 - Кальба М. Ми присягали Україні. ДУН 1941–1943. – Львів, 1999. –С. 117 – - “memoirs of the Myroslav Kal’ba – mentioned as Schutzmann Myroslav Kal’ba - one of the Nachtigal and later 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion member"
I believe this article isn't neutral nor reliable to source activities of OUN and its involvment in Nazi mass murder.I would welcome any comment.--
MyMoloboaccount (
talk) 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that there is somewhat a controversy regarding Nazi era research by Ukrainian historians-see this publication by Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.Visiting Scholar Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian StudiesHarvard University: [62] President Yushchenko, nationalist parties, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement, which fought both against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and to present OUN and UPA leaders as national heroes. They either denied or justified by its pro-independence struggle, the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in terrorism, the Nazi genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. I think this might be case with what we are dealing with here to some extent.Of course since we have to rely on google translate and its clumsy translation all this subject becomes very difficult-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 01:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please supply a standard citation of the work in question? not a link, a citation. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The article roddon I am working on has been criticised during a peer-review for the inconsistency of using both BC and BP within the same article. I have followed the sources whilst trying adhere to the Manual of Style#Chronological items. Would you provide advice on how to handle this inconsistency properly please. I have one BC date, 2400 BC due (Worssam & Taylor 1975, p. 93.) and there are a few BP dates such as 4000 BP (Gallois 1988, p. 77.). Do I convert the BC date to BP? If so, how? For example, if (according to Before present) standard practice is to use 1950 as the calibrated carbon dating reference then do I convert 2400 BC to 4350 BP with a footnote saying "source is 2400 BC converted to BP using 2400+1950=4350 BP"?
-- Senra ( Talk) 12:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
In the Deadwood article, a YouTube video of a David Milch interview is being used as a source in the themes section. On the talk page, I have repeatedly asserted that, according to past discussions here on WP:RSN, YouTube should not be used as a source. I have encouraged the other involved editors to try to find the original source for the video, which was a class at USC (COMM 426, "Religion, Media and Hollywood," January 24, 2008). As an edit war has now broken out over this issue, I would other, noninvolved, editors and administrators to look at the video and judge whether it is a reliable source. Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, the title of this section is misleading. In this case, YouTube is not the source. It's the medium. No one is asserting the source is credible because it's published on YouTube. It's a prima facie good source. 109.186.62.61 ( talk) 06:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
above comments copied from Talk:Deadwood (TV series) by The Interior (Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As I look at it, there appear to be reviews by a number of folks and subsequent comments by decidedly non-noptable folk. I'm being told that the writers of the reviews are regular journalists doing a gig at Mediapost, but I'm not finding any of the reviewers' bios, to verify that. Has someone else come across this issue? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
We have thousands of links to http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com, many of them as sources in WP:BLPs. VRTS ticket # 2010090810000806 states that the site has the subject's name wrong. I am unconvinced of the reliability of this as a source. Guy ( Help!) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Editorial policy [63] and [64] indicate this is not an RS. Fifelfoo ( talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I did a quick search and neither BUAV.org or antivivisection.info came up. Can the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) article which lists Amerijet as a primate transporter here and the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance (Nava) listing of Amerijet here be used to source a claim along the lines of
Amerijet is one of only a few airlines that still transports primates to be used in experimentation. They have transported primates from the islands of Saint Kitts and Barbados, and elsewhere in the Caribbean and South America, to the United States. The shipments were for companies, such as Primate Products, Inc. and Worldwide Primates, that provide primates to laboratories. In August 2009, Amerijet was cited by the USDA for failing to meet federal standards in regards to enclosures holding 15 tamarins.
in Amerijet International? Thanks, Mechanical digger ( talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Superman 2 was released nationwide in June 1981, the same summer as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Countless sources, however, list it as a 1980 release. No doubt this confusion comes from copyright filings but it was released in 1981 for sure. Thank you.
Someone please help verify
First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_150th
Talk:First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_149th.
Also, is this US-centric? Was there an earlier trans-European telegraph? 71.198.176.22 ( talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant 149th. My mistake. At least there is now plenty of time to verify this fact. Sorry I was off by one. 71.198.176.22 ( talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, this:
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/06/the-140-project-filmmakers-capture-140-seconds-of-home/
Does it meet WP:RS and why/why not?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytemeh ( talk • contribs)
I would like to ask an administrator to consider closing this thread: wired.com is a reliable source, but, with all due respect, that doesn't help Bytemeh's case of notability by proxy approved by the Reliable Sources board. Drmies ( talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: If might add a point here. There are valid reasons that I had to go through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Using_a_posting_to_Youtube.com_by_the_copyright_holder to show that I could use a youtube video as a reference. Yes, it was (and is) annoying as all get out but there are very good reasons for it. Personally, we should use a demonstrated official channel copy of the video in question just to save on the migraines.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What sources are acceptable for articles about historical events and figures? Are news articles acceptable? Books promoting fringe theories?
The dispute revolves around these two edits: [65] [66] The first edit inserts a fringe source to support a statement that doesn't appear in any of the biographies about the subject; the second replaces one of them with a news article that is apparently circularly based on the article itself at an earlier date, as is set out here.
I ask that this discussion be kept within a narrow focus of the question, and not blur off into a digression about the fringe theory itself. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Andrew for supplying some basic policy info. I expected as much so have no comment on his policy analysis except to say that he is spot on. In regards to Tom's opening statement and Nishidani's rejoinder to Andrew, however, I do have a few comments:
To get back on topic, I would propose the following sources to ground the words "leading patrons of the Elizabethan age":
Given May's figure of 33 dedications noted above, its clear that DeVere was in the top 3 or 4 nobles in terms of patronage.
Given the above mainstream references, especially the comments by noted scholar Stephen May, will these two references suffice? If so, I am content to have them replace the BBC reference that is in question. Smatprt ( talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Where academic sources are available for academic topics, they should be preferred. Where there is a dispute about the status of some academic opinions as fringe, academic field reviews should be preferred to determine what the standard of research knowledge is in the field. BBC is not known as editing to an academic standard. Penguin may or may not, depending on the particular work. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Way up at the top of this discussion, User:Tom Reedy asked that responses include ref's to WP policy. The policy is at "WP:IRS" [71]. Here's a relevant quote, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." The trick, when sources do not agree, is to make sure that all reliable POV are represented rather than choosing one over another. WCCasey ( talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Summing up. Would an uninvolved editor read over this and sum up the consensus, please? Which to me appears to be that newspaper articles written by non-specialists are superseded by better sources when available, and that wording should reflect the source rather than deep-searching popular literature to find a source that matches the wording. As to this particular edit, the wording as it stands is not supported by any reliable source, but the phrase "noted patron" is acceptable to all. Does that sound correct? And if so, would someone close this out? Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The citation for all these quotes is:
Comment:Frankly, an offer of alternate wording, based on the existing facts already known to we editors, would certainly have been welcome prior to this. I proposed "leading" in the lead from a good faith reading of the article. If the word so offended, suggestions were certainly welcome. "Major" ,"Notable", "Noted", etc. - all capture the lower sections on patronage pretty well, as far as I am concerned. As we know, the lead captures the article and, as noted by others here, there is plenty in the two sections on patronage to justify the existing (or similar) wording. Placing fact tags on specific words and then demanding a reference for the exact wording, especially in a generalization, seems like a waste of time and energy. As also noted above, there has been no sourcing offered that says De Vere was not a major patron, quite the opposite if you consider the primary sources. As noted above, they people who were there, and wrote it down, are the most reliable sources, since all future scholarship derives from these primary sources. The copious tributes, if one bothers to read them, paint a vivid picture of De Vere, and flattery notwithstanding, the re-occuring themes of learning and patronage, and devotion to the furthering the arts and sciences, are extremely well documented. Smatprt ( talk) 02:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, if we want to avoid any interpretation or generalization, we could also simply quote May as follows: "According to historian Stephen May, "Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences." (page 9)
"Noted," "notable", la même chose a moi, although "noted" is better grammar and reads more smoothly (using "notable" makes Oxford a condition, not necessarily contemporary, while using "noted" makes him the object of action by his contemporaries, which is evident from some of the dedications). No reference is needed, since the bone of contention was the degree of notability. I'm sure a study of Elizabethan dedications has been done by someone, but I can't find one and from what I've read in the course of this conversation Oxford was somewhere in the middle in terms of numbers. And we certainly prefer not to quote in the lede, although the main William Shakespeare article offends in that regard. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
An edit warring, IP-hopping editor from Romania keeps inserting the following image URLs into the article about Henri Coandă, saying that they are from the "Museum of Technology 'Dimitire Leonida' where part of Coanda archive is kept". I wonder what other editors think of these:
Are these images at all useful as references? Can they be used as "External links" instead? Binksternet ( talk) 01:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The website:
http://www.the-numbers.com/
Data type: Film budgets
Article where issue as arisen:
Resident Evil: Afterlife
Relevant discussion:
Talk:Resident_Evil:_Afterlife#Budget
Background
The Numbers offers film information such as grosses, DVD sales, budgets etc and is increasingly being used as a source on film articles. The Wikipedia Film Project currently accept it as a source for box office data: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Resources#Box_office. There have been previous discussions where its reliability has been called into question, with no definitive outcome: [2]
Context
The issue has arisen in the discussion at the Afterlife page that it should be the preferred source for the budget, because it offers a more precise amount ($57.5 million [afterlife 1]) ahead of the more widely quoted figure of $60 million (The NY Times—"about $60 million" [afterlife 2];the LA Times—"nearly $60 million" [afterlife 3]). Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap all carry the $60 million figure too.
Concern
The ambiguous statements of the LA Times and New York Times are certainly consistent with The Numbers, in that $57.5 million could quite easily be "about $60 million" or "nearly $60 million", but they don't back up the figure directly. Nearly $60 million could just as easily be $59 million. My problem with The Numbers is that it has form for misquoting its budget sources. In many instances it simply doesn't give sources for budgets, but here are a few examples of it misquoting the sources it does give for some of its budgets:
Robin Hood ($210 million). Quotes the New York Times which says "...more than $200 million..."
[3]
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($210 million). Quotes Variety that says "north of $200 million"
[4]
Disney's A Christmas Carol ($190 million). Quotes the LA Times which says "nearly $200-million"
[5]
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($160 million). Quotes the The Hollywood Reporter which says "...at least $150 million..." and Variety which says "$150 million-$170 million"
[6]
It seems to draw from secondary sources, and what's worse is that it seems to make up its own numbers. At least in the cases quoted readers can clearly see its misquoting information, but there is a danger that in the cases it doesn't provide sources its estimates will be regarded as factually correct.
My view
The website clearly doesn't seem to have primary sources when it comes to budget information so draws on previously published information. It is demonstrably unreliable when it comes to publishing information from its various sources, so I don't think it should considered as a reliable source for budget information. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Other views
There is quite appreciable evidence that no numbers are accurate (vide the number of lawsuits about what are, or are not, "net profits.") Where it is clear that studios do not accurately know how much a film cost, there is no reason to dispute any figures at all, as long as readers are informed that all figures are "estimates" of some sort. Collect ( talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Is the following Master's thesis, published by a press called VDM considered a reliable source on the topic of Longevity myths? Robert Young, AFRICAN-AMERICAN LONGEVITY ADVANTAGE: MYTH OR REALITY?: A Racial Comparison of Supercentenarian Data. I will admit upfront that my view is that the article on "longevity myths" is an original synthesis. The author of the afore mentioned book, who is also an editor here, maintains that it is not and cites his own master's thesis. As you can imagine there is also a thread related to this at the COI/N - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Ryoung122_on_Longevity_myths. I originally told Mr. Young that master's thesis are not considered reliable sources in general, but he asked for confirmation on that as well. Griswaldo ( talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Supplying the requested detail can allow RS/N to determine if the source is reliable. MAs are not considered reliable for the establishment of new or original subjects of research: originality is not part of the ambit of masters research. As such an MA could never be reliable on Wikipedia for the establishment of the existence of an object of encyclopedic inquiry existing. Take any OR questions to WP:NOR/N Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm planning to write a article about the History of the Parish of Aycliffe, a area now made up of Newton Aycliffe, School Aycliffe and Aycliffe Village. I'm trying to gather some sources together to get a basis. Anyway I've found a book on Google Books, named " The history and antiquities of the county palatine of Durham" from 1857 and it explains the history of the Parish's name on page 524. I've never really used books sources and I don't know if this is reliable or not. Any help or advice with this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks -- George2001hi (Discussion) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone confirm if http://www.wes.org is a reliable news source? It seems to me like just a commercial "evaluation" website, not a credible news agency! Is this really a credible source for encyclopedic content?? It is used in a bunch of articles on wikipedia. Monsig ( talk) 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
This query was a bit misleading. The source that Monsiq objects to is not the domain wes.org, but rather World Education News & Reviews, which is published by the organization that owns the domain. The "about" page for that source is http://www.wes.org/ewenr/aboutWENR.htm . This is a monthly newsletter publication (formerly in print, but more recently online) that has an editor and whose articles have named authors who generally cite sources. Two of the specific articles that have been cited in Wikipedia are http://www.wes.org/ewenr/05oct/feature.htm and http://www.wes.org/ewenr/00july/feature.htm . Current contents of this newsletter require registration: [7]. -- Orlady ( talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing against a connection between Buxton and instantdegrees.com (there seems to be enough evidence for that from reliable sources) I am asking for evidence that they are also connected to Canterbury and Ashford, as is claimed in the "article". Monsig ( talk) 14:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In Scientific opinion on climate change, the statement:
is sourced to:
The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Arthur, I am currently having the following problem:
I am not going to discuss my proposal here, because the key question is original research, not reliable sources. And I ask you not to continue discussing it here. Take it to WP:NPOV/N if you don't trust Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change. Hans Adler 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Physicist Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society recently, in protest over what he calls the "appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change." The Register reported his resignation here, and I added this cite to Lewis's Wikibio diff, replacing an earlier cite to a blog. The originally posted copy of Lewis's letter appears to be here, and his protest resignation has received considerable notice, for example this blog lists six newspapers carrying the story online. The Register's story appears to me to be the best quality of the lot, and is written by the only reporter who apparently contacted Lewis for comments.
Editor William M. Connolley reverted, commenting "happily, all that has to go - el rego isn't an RS". I asked him to specify his objections here and here, but he hasn't yet replied.
This diff is an accurate quote of Lewis's letter (though the selection could be improved), and this Register story is (to my eye) better-than-average journalism.
Can this Register article be considered a Reliable Source for Lewis's resignation? Thanks, Pete Tillman ( talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are the links: http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/ and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DIPAS/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp&labhits=710 .
Sterling Hospitals is a large organization, possessing official medical and scientific standard certifications, and who's work is supervised by various entities, including governmental ones. If it publishes something, it must be approved by various supervising bodies. The same goes for DIPAS, which is a governmental organization and a research facility. Its publications are approved by multiple supervisors before they appear on their official site. Please comment. Thanks. -- Nazar ( talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely with McGeddon. I also replied on the Prahlad Jani talkpage [12]. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I do appreciate your input, guys, I think we need some more neutral opinions here. Both McGeddon and Dr.K. are actively engaged into the article related argument and represent one of its sides. Namely, the skeptic one. -- Nazar ( talk) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Sulmues is bent on using a 19th century source (from 1872) to "prove" that the town of Konitsa was "Albanian" [13]. The source is John Murray, one of those 19th century British travellers who roamed the Balkans. It is of course heavily outdated, and the author is not a historian or scholar of any sort, yet this user simply cannot see what is wrong with the source. Can someone please explain to him that 19th century sources are heavily outdated and should not be used? God knows I tried. Ditto here, where he is using a source from 1920 [14] and (of course) can't see anything wrong with that. This user has a very hard time understanding that anything older than ~50 years is deprecated and should only be used with extreme caution. Athenean ( talk) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to point out that any 19th century source must be used with caution even if it by an accredited scholar or academic. The reason is simple-the theories they used have since been disproved or replaced and some studies were as much for propaganda as they were for science. Sensationalism, tabloid like articles, and finally Yellow journalism were common in many papers of the day. As the Spring Heeled Jack scare shows even now reputable papers like The Times were not immune. The quality by our standards just wasn't there.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Primary sources are discouraged, but assuming there is a legitimate primary source, is there a rule that says that a primary source uploaded to a wikipedia page cannot be used as a reference? I'm told there is such a rule but I haven't seen it. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
To be more specific, the file is a signed court document. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, there seems to be a consensus in the matter that the court documents are necessary in this instance. I dloaded the document from an external website, uploaded them to a wikipedia page (so the reference would be there if the external site changed), and then used the wiki pdf page as the reference. I noted the original source on the wikipedia page. The question is whether that is improper, and I should only use the original source as the reference rather than the wiki pdf. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 ( talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Obviously a PDF that you got from some blog and then uploaded to Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Duh. Dlabtot ( talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, when I removed this from the James O'Keefe article, User:SpecialKCL66 reverted me, [20] [21], stating "this issue has already been discussed at length". Yes, it's been discussed, and the consensus is, it is not WP:RS, and even if it was, it probably couldn't be used in this manner. Dlabtot ( talk) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
BruceGrubb ( talk · contribs) contends that this forum post is a reliable source for the article Corrupted Blood incident, as argued here. Can somebody please vet both the source, and the articular content that BruceGrubb is extrapolating? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Forum Flags: "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment. Note: Individual Blizzard Employees can select their own special icon. Look for "Blizzard Poster" and a Blizzard icon to identify Blizzard Posters with custom icons."
Tigole has the Blizz icon where the level number should be and "Blizzard Poster" underneath his name ergo per Forum Flags he is "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment". Clearly a WP:RS as explained by Blizzard themselves.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've been doing some required work with others on Razer (robot) that was suggested be done the last time I brought it up for Frequent Article Nomination. We're almost done bar one issue which was how could we source how Vincent Blood left the team and show there was a split. All I've managed to discover is this BBC source which was written after Robot Wars was finished which only lists the other team members as part of the team, ommiting Blood which both me and the major contributor wasn't sure if this would be suitable. In addition, I think there is a Youtube video that shows Razer being demonstrated without Blood being there which was done after Robot Wars. My question is, would either or both of them be suitible in sourcing a team split within FA requirements? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 17:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I recently reverted an IP on to be, or not to be, but now I feel bad about it. Apparently the problem is that there are a handful of slightly different versions of the soliloquy available (differences in punctuation, small wording changes such as using "despised love" or "depriz'd love". I assume these come from different folios and are in fact all reliably sourced, and the differences are too minor to include all of them. so in a case like that which version do we use? There's about half a million academic sources available on the internet to choose from (and more non-academic sources then there are stars in the known universe).
It's not really a major issue, except that I'd like to forestall mistaken reverts like the one I made. Any guidance would be appreciated. -- Ludwigs2 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
A new article on an academic journal called Iranshenasi was created today. The only source given is an article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Looking at the page About Iranica the source seems reputable enough. However, when I read the article about Iranshenasi, things get more problematic. The style and wording are such that this article would not survive for 5 minutes on WP... Lots of peacock and weasel words, nothing sourced. I put refimprove and notability tags on the article, but they have been removed twice now by the article's creator. If EI is accepted as an RS, then I guess Iranshenasi might squeak by our notability standards, but otherwise I think it should go to AfD. (I have looked for other sources -even a homepage of the journal- but have found none; however, that is immaterial to the discussion here). -- Crusio ( talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
My comment: The editor of the journal is 80+ old and from what I know, he is probably not computer literate. But i do recall seeing a website some years ago, however the website is in Persian. I would have to do a google search for it, except that the word Iranshenasi is very popular in Persian. So that argument is not really a good argument (Wikipedia does not require a website). The writer of the article in Iranica is Abbas Milani who is a Professot at Stanford [22]. I have provided more refences to the citation of the journal itself.
Also I am not sure why Crusio deleted: "The founding editor in chief was Jalal Matini. The journal is published in Persian (with a small English section) and covers Iranian history, Persian culture, and Persian literature. [1]. Among its board members (past and present) one can mention Peter Chelkowski [2], Roger Savory, Zabiollah Safa. Ehsan Yarshater, Heshamt Moayyad [3] and Djalal Khaleqi Motlaq [1]."
Also the journal is well counted in google books [23] despite being in Persian. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@slatersteven:. The article is written by an expert [ [24]] in the field. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
@Crusio: The article is a not blurb. However, if you need other citations for the journal [25] [26]. Also the article is written by a Full Professor at Stanford [27]. "Important articles on the Shahnameh and related topics have been published in the periodical Iranshenasi in Persian, but with an English resume." [28].. and etc. Note also again the journal is in Persian, so you should not expect quadrlion citations but the amount is still impressive in google books. -- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I do not see where the concept of "peer-review" cameup although the Encyclopaedia is peer-review. If you look at my response to slatersteven, it is about the number of citations and also the academic positions of the scholars (full professor of Norte Dame/Stanford and a full professor of Columbia). This is not a matter of opinion but simply following the definition of WP:RS. First Crusio is not stating what source he has a problem with? Iranica, Yarshater, Milani, Iranshenasi, Columbia University, Stanford and etc.? This is surely very vague. One is not using the concept of "peer-review" to establish WP:RS.
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [29]
Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [30]
For example WP:RS states: "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."
Now google books has [31] a total of 20,000 citations. Google Scholars close to 1500-2000 [32]
If we follow guidelines, then I do not think normal users can decide if full Professors from Stanford and Columbia whose works are cited by hundreds of scholars in the same field and other fields are unreliable. If that was the case, then pretty soon the whole idea of Wikipedia would collapse since it would be if certain users "like a certain source". Crusio is saying he does not like the tone of an article, but that is not sufficient. This is not the way to challenge WP:RS. He needs to show where in WP:RS he has found a major problem. If it is the universities? Columbia and Stanford. If it is the publisher? Columbia university. Following guidelines and you will see hundreds of scholarly citations for Iranshenasi as well as Iranica. For Iranica it should not be suprising, but for Iranshenasi which is a Persian journal, that is still a very large number.
Note the Iranica article states about the journal Iranshenasi: "The new journal’s advisory board included an impressive array of scholars from around the world. Three members of Iran Nameh’s Advisory Board joined Iranshenasi: Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, and Zabihollah Safa. ". If you have a problem here, then I can tell you that the most important authors in Islamic studies, Near eastern history and Iranology write for Iranica. If you think its editor is unreliable than again do a google scholar check. Please do a google books and scholar search for each name. [33] [34] and etc.
As per Iranica, here is the columbia university link on it [35]. Here is a news link on it [36], it is a no contest and anyone who knows anything about the field of Iranology or Near Eastern studies, references this source. [37] [38] (22,700 results in google books, written from scholars in many many fields).
QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS WORLDWIDE : A real tour de force. There is no project in the entire Middle Eastern field more worthy of support than the Encyclopædia Iranica. Prof. Richard N. Frye, Harvard University in Journal of the American Oriental Society
The Encyclopædia Iranica volumes are the most extensive and important contributions to the study of Islamic and pre-Islamic Iranian history and culture that have been made in this century. Dr. Prudence Harper, Curator of Ancient Near Eastern Art at Metropolitan Museum of Art
The foremost reference work on Iran ever produced and one of the premier reference works in the humanities published in our time. Prof. Roy Mottahedeh, Harvard University in Middle East Journal
The Encyclopædia Iranica will be judged as the most significant contribution of our century to the advancement of Iranian studies as a scholarly enterprise. Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [39]
Une grande entreprise. Prof. Gilbert Lazard, Membre de l'Institut, in Journal Asiatique
The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [40]
La première fois qu'une encyclopédie pluridisciplinaire sur l'Iran est mise en chantier. Prof. Jean Calmard, University of Paris, in Abstracta Iranica
This monument of scholarship in Iranian Studies is a mine of detailed information, with bibliographical references, on every aspect of Iranian history, thought, languages, and civilization. Dr. Farhad Daftary, Institute of Ismaili Studies, in Journal of the American Oriental Society
[Encyclopædia Iranica] is an invaluable aid not only to Iranian scholars but also to scholars of Assyrian history, ancient Greek and Roman history, and the history of Islam, as well as archaeologists and historians of culture and religion. Dr. N. I. Medvedskaya, Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, in Vestnik Drevnej Istorii (translated text)
Encyclopædia Iranica is indispensable for any scholarly work of specialists in the fields of Iranian and Islamic Studies. [It] deserves the highest praise and full support. Prof. Werner Ende, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität inZDMG(translated text)
Une grande entreprise qui fera certainement date dans l'histoire des études Iraniennes. The late Prof. Z. Telegdi, University of Budapest in Archiv Orientalni, Prague
Mit der vorliegenden Encyclopædia ist ein jahrhundertwerk in Angriff genommen worden. The late Professor Bertold Spuler, University of Hamburg, in Der Islam
By contrast [to the Encyclpædia of Islam] Islamic art and architecture play a far larger role in ... Encylopædia Iranica ... [It] includes many biographies of artists, including painters, calligraphers, potters, metalworkers, and woodcarvers, as well as entries on cities and media, such as ceramics, carpets, and calligraphy. Dr. Sheila Blair & Dr. Jonathan M. Bloom, inMiddle East Studies Association Bulletin
Encyclopædia Iranica is a real treasury of competent, up-to-date information, and an important research tool. Dr Rüdiger Schmitt, University Professor, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany
-- Khodabandeh14 ( talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some opinions please! Are www.filmsnobbery.com and www.ferntv.ca suitably reliable to show the notability of Emily Schooley? The links are to the specific pages, but I'm more interested in whether they are WP:RS - I'm not quite sure. Thanks, Bigger digger ( talk) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Over on the Weston Price I have been trying to balance a claim made by Stephen Barrett ( Stay Away from "Holistic" and "Biological" Dentists) using a November 3. 1933 paper presented by Charles F. Bodecker, D.D.S. laboratory of Histo-pathology, Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery, New York called "Metabolic Disturbance in Relation to the Teeth" which cites then contemporary article from Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association to show that Weston Price wasn't the one lone nut Barrett implies him to be.
I even added more modern sources (Ensminger, Audrey H. (1994) Foods & nutrition encyclopedia: Volume 1 CRC Press, Page 546; Chernoff, Ronni (2006) Geriatric nutrition: the health professional's handbook Jones & Bartlett Learning, Page 193) to show the ideas presented in this old paper are not entirely out of date and we have WP:NPOV and WP:OR tag being put on those claims rather than the Barrett claim. I have even found two reliable references that show that Barrett's claim "This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid" (citing a 1951 and a 1982 article) to be in error.
The 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 136 states that the focal infection theory never really died and Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 states: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."
Now in the light of all this can Barrett be considered a reliable source?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 18:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To say it very clearly: An article about a leading dental researcher who died in 1945 is an article about dental/medical history, not a fringe article. Barrett (i.e. things self-published by him without any editorial overview) is to some extent a reliable source on fringe. He is not a reliable source on dental history. Barrett has an extreme POV that makes it necessary to be careful even about what he says in the field of fringe. This extreme POV obviously affects how he treats this historical topic: He is mistaking what appears to be a perfectly legitimate stage in the history of mainstream dentistry (whether it was an error or not) with fringe. Hans Adler 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I should mention that of Barrett's claims only the focal infection theory one has any reference and those can be shown to be possibly out of date. In fact, searching through Price's book shows some serious errors in Barrett's claims.
Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."
Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)
"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)
"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. [...] I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)
"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)
The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases on them so how can Barrett claim Price is ignoring these things without a single reference backing up that statement? Better yet since Price published through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (who was publishing textbooks like Modern Practice in Dermatology back in the day) while Stephen Barrett is self published with the majority of his claims unreferenced how can we say Barrett trumps Price regardless of how old Price's work is, especially when we can show via old source the claims are in error? There is something very wrong with that picture.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
A recent authoritative review showed a clear association between cavities and heart diseases [5]. More importantly, this same study showed that people with poor oral health, on average, lead shorter lives. The association between cavities and diabetes is also a subject of active, ongoing research [6-8]. Connections between heart disease, diabetes, and dental decay have been suspected for decades. Many of the scientists who called attention to this have proposed that diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates were the common cause of these diseases [9-15] Dental diseases, mental diseases, heart disease, infectious respiratory diseases, and heart disease are all at least partially caused by common failures in metabolism. Such failures are inevitable when there is a deficiency of essential nutrients, particularly vitamins D, C, and niacin.
There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930's and 1940's [16-27]. More than 90% of the studies concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities. Particularly impressive was a study published in 1941 demonstrated the preventative affect of "massive" doses of vitamin D [28]. And yet no subsequent studies in the scientific literature suggested a need to follow up and repeat this work.(sic)
(BLP violation removed -- Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC))
(Remove indent)I agree. It is not like the situation in
Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 where I was arguing for the views of Jon Taylor and Robert L. FitzPatrick to be included because those views, works, and even direct quotes had been used in third party peer reviewed publications like Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, Western Journal of Communication, American Board of Sport Psychology, McGeorge Law Review, and Juta Academic. Furthermore, if the online reports regarding the
Stephen Barrett, M.D. vs. Tedd Koren, D.C. and Koren Publications, Inc.,
King Bio Pharmaceuticals cases are totally factual in their details Barrett has serious credibility problems--possibly enough to discredit him as a
WP:RS. The
Quackbuster, Stephen Barrett, MD, loses appeal and leaves home town article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial.
What I would love to know is how do you present a case claiming homeopathy is quackery so poorly that you lose it? With stuff like "Clinical Trials (2003-2007)", "The laws of chemistry and physics, as we understand them, say that homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo if a treatment has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules remain." - Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited. Rapid response to BMJ 1999;319:1115-1118; Linde, K, et al. "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy". J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. "Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366); "Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study." J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860); "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005); J. D. Miller "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" Nature 434, 199-202 (10 March 2005) proving a key claim of homeopathy to be false; and many more ( including James Randi) to show homeopathy not only doesn't work but can't work just how in the name of sanity do you effectively blow it?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have brought up Ronz' removal of content from this noticeboard at the BLP/N. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I am doing some editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and another chap there has called into question the reliability of a book I am using to verify some of the material. Can someone please tell me if the book "A Testimony to Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment) is a reliable source to use? The ISBN is: 0 85052 819-4
Thank you in advance. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I am absolutely taken aback that a genuine request for assistance yields such an awful sectarian comment. I had hoped that people of position on Wikipedia would be above such behaviour. Can anyone genuinely help please without using such bitter language. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You should not ask whether an individual is a reliable source but whether a book is. This book was published by "Pen and Sword Books" as one of their "regimental history books". [41] But reliability refers to the facts in the book, and the history of this regiment is controversial. You need to determine how historians view the regiment and this book may not address that. TFD ( talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I simply want to know if Potter's book can be taken as a true source of facts (facts only - not opinion, unless supported by other sources) and if Potter can be referred to in the article as the "Regimental Historian". I don't want to enter into speculation on the Ulster Defence Regiment or accusations about it. The Wikipedia article already explores that in great depth. I will use what I'm told here as absolute. With regards to what historians feel about the regiment this is the only history currently available so it's all I have to work with as a Regimental History, apart from a book written by a journalist in 1991 and some smaller histories produced by former members of lesser rank. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Potter states that he was "invited by the Colonels Commandant" to compile the history of the regiment. That suggests it is official. That and the fact that the finished work is kept safe and unpublished by the British Ministry of Defence.
I don't see why there's such a fuss about it. I asked a question and expected to get the sensible answers I've had from some people. I suppose I should have realised that anything to do with Ireland is going to get some people on a soap box. I think that's my point really. I'd rather have the "soap boxing" done here than see it happen on the article discussion page.
Could someone give me a view on the "official status" of Potter please - as regimental historian of the Ulster Defence Regiment? SonofSetanta ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm asking for an informed, independent opinion. SonofSetanta ( talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I would like an opinion from an appointed person who isn't involved in Irish affairs. I'm not seeking an argument with anyone. I'll scout around and see if I can find some help elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's no rush, the article isn't going anywhere. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I have now referred this question to
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Help_Required_With_Source and
Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source .
SonofSetanta (
talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It appears to me that it has. Much emphasis seems to be laid on Major Potter's opinion by several posters opposed to the use of his work. What is more relevant though is that he is named, but not explained, and it seems odd to me that the man who compiled the official history of the regiment cannot be called the "Official Regimental Historian". Even if his book is not the official version which as we know is unreleased. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I think one aspect of my request is completely satisifed - over attribution. I'd be very pleased if you could give me an opinion on the term "official historian" with regards to John Potter so that it can be explained to a reader that it was he who compiled the official history - even if his book isn't. SonofSetanta ( talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I see what you mean Judith. I'll change what I've written about him as a result of your comment. Thank you. SonofSetanta ( talk) 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There is an article called Targeted killing. The content of the article are being discussed. The first two sentences of the article are:
Targeted killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or " unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention [tk 1]
...
- References
- ^ Gary D. Solis (2010). The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521870887. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
In the article this book is cited 27 times (a,b...aa) under one citation.
From the talk page:
You are citing a book you should include page numbers (See WP:Page numbers). Also my may not be aware of this but Google access to pages in a book vary depending on the location of the searcher. If the people Google think that copyright restricts access in a jurisdiction, they restrict to IP addresses in that jurisdiction. -- PBS ( talk) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Normally". Especially for "non-indexed" books. The google search function is a handy indexing tool, in addition to the book's table of contents and index. If the page is not accessible, one still gets to see the page number.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleche is the main contributor to the article and I believe the only contributor to the first two sentences. I need a third party who is not currently involved in the discussion to explain to myself and Epeefleche whether or not my request for page numbers is reasonable and normal, or if the refusal to add page numbers is reasonable and normal. PBS ( talk) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
W
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
Although page numbers are required for book-length sources, the first response to a missing page number should be to request one (by adding the "page number needed" tag or otherwise). Immediate deletion is only warranted in the case of highly dubious, incendiary or potential WP:BLP violating sources. Otherwise it is an unfriendly action whether allowed by the rules or not. I'm not impressed by the argument about FA status; we are supposed to be here to write good articles not to win accolades. Zero talk 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
•As some might suspect, there is some background to the above. There may, just possibly, be something driving the inquiry more than simply intellectual curiosity. And if not for AGF, the phrase "POINTy" might come to mind. Just to put this in perspective ...
Some might call it coming to court with "unclean hands".
Having said all that, PBS--you will note--never indicated that he couldn't see what the page numbers were. Simply by hitting the link that is provided. As I suggested he do. I have no reason to doubt that he can see the page numbers here, which clicking the link in the ref provides -- along with, for the bulk, the actual pages themselves.
Of course, even in the wake of all the above, it is an interesting question.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't go about deleting sentences with inline citations, without good reason. Here, PBS can (as far as we know) see not only all the relevant page numbers, and the index, and the table of contents, but also do independent searches in the book. And there is certainly nothing at all dubious, incendiary, or a BLP violation here. Except, of course, PBS did try to hide the entire article from all Wiki readers, so perhaps he does have a reason to wish to complain about the RS-supported language which he can plainly read, and the page numbers which he can plainly see.
WP:Page numbers does not require one to provide page numbers. It says "you should normally ... in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books ...".
There is a purpose for the word "normally" in the rule. It makes the rule other than an absolute one. This situation describes just such an instance where the "normal" rule is not necessary -- for reasons I describe. The reader can see the page number, and often even see the page itself. Some editors here would like to read the rule as though the word "normally" does not appear. They're construing a rule other than the one that we have before us.
This is not a "normal" situation. It is a book with an index. It is a book with an accessible index. It is a book where the page numbers can be seen by clicking on the link provided. It is a book where PBS would not appear to have any earth-shattering need to push this point other than to be POINTy, and seek to have people on this page say that while the rule is not an absolute rule -- well, let's ignore the clear language of the rule, here they should treat it as thought the word "normally" is not in the rule.
And with what result, if no page numbers are supplied? Will we delete all book refs now on wikipedia that lack page numbers?
If not, what other result would follow from such a requirement?
Cla68 suggested that PBS can help by verifying the page himself. I've not seen PBS accept that advice.
Dlabtot seemed not, by his response, to recognize from PBS's description that by clicking on the name of the book in the ref, he would see the relevant page numbers. In fact, many of the editors seemed not to understand that, from their above comments. So again -- the ref links directly to the pages in question, within the book, and identifies the page numbers in question. (And I've never seen a googlebooks link die -- though gnews links do, all the time.)-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
@Camelbinky. I think there are several different issues being mixed. The original question of Epeefleche could be answered clearly and unanimously. It is definitely better to have page numbers, and it is normal to request them. Epeefleche is also right to say that Google books does not even work for all users, depending on where they log on. However, that unanimous response might not resolve all disagreements, of course. Your point about whether not having a page number is cause for deletion in all cases is a finer point, and you certainly not wrong to point that out. I certainly think that it would not be nice for someone to delete things quickly or aggressively just because of page numbers. Still, as long as you are given time, I do not really see why page numbers would be a big problem in this case?-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Whilst page numbers are good, be aware that different editions (including reprints in different countries) will have different numbers.-- Michael C. Price talk 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is just more forum shopping and wikidrama that is (*sigh*), yet another example of WP:Tendentious editing—a form of disruption—by an editor whose views are not shared by the rest of the community and he won’t let it go. Much of this is documented with links here on Talk:Targeted killing. It is just that simple. PBS is one of our early admins and knows better than to do this. He is clearly angry.
I suggest that the community here simply point out to the shepherding editor of the ‘Targeted killing’ article how best to address the legitimate needs for citing the article. I have to go to work but I’ll check back and see if PBS is continuing to fan flames here (or elsewhere). I will advise him here and now that he would be exceedingly wise to let the volunteer wikipedians who are experienced in citation matters to take this matter from hereon with no more badgering over the ‘Targeted killing’ article—here or anywhere else on the project. Greg L ( talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Epeefleeche why the ad hominem parting shot? To repeat what I said earlier: the consensus was that the block was unwarranted. The administrator who blocked my account, unblocked it and has agreed that (s)he will not bock my account in future (see the archived ANI and my talk page).
In the article War of 1812 there was (and is) a clause "(Another frigate had been destroyed to prevent it being captured on the stocks.)" which was supported by this citation: Theodore Roosevelt, multi volume The Naval War of 1812 Or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with the United Kingdom to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans.
Care to make a guess as to which sentence in that citation supported the clause (A serach/grep will not find it). See the discussion on the article's talk page page it is actually in Part II page 47 "Ross took Washington and burned the public buildings; and the panic-struck Americans foolishly burned the Columbia, 44, and Argus, 18, which were nearly ready for service." that was worked out via another source that is not cited but which is more likely to have been the origin of the clause. "Rushing down to the river, they set fire to a new Frigate, Columbia, caulked but still in the stocks and nearly ready for launch; and to the new Sloop of War Argus, which lay along side the wharf virtually ready for sea" (Ian W. Toll six frigates. p.435) This is why page numbers are usually essential to verify summaries of the sources cited in Wikipedia articles.
Epeefleeche do you now see that the Citation guideline's use of the qualification "normally" is to cover exceptions of the sort that I mentioned above such as no page numbers in an e-book or a citations of an online edition of a physical book such as the Oxford English Dictionary where page numbers are not available. It is not meant to be read that generally any book with a physical index or one that is indexed through third party search engines do not require page numbers? -- PBS ( talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree page numbers should be included if available but and here is the kicker sometimes such numbers are not available. One such example is in the Weston A Price article where one reference reads ""Weston A Price" New York Times Jan 24, 1948" because when you order from the New York Times article archive they give just the article rather the article in context so often you don't have a page number! Electronic versions of printed articles (such as USAToday and Times also don't have page numbers of the printed version either. USAToday is particularly annoying because stories often have different titles between the electronic and paper versions meaning if for what ever reason the link ever breaks you are going to majorly SOL at ever finding the printed version of that article.
This is why I get so annoyed when in talk people just link to an article rather than telling us what they are linking to (the dreaded [55] or " This has the needed information" nonsense) Years later that link may not work so if Internet archive didn't make a back up how is anyone going to know what you linked to?-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Israel and the apartheid analogy is a minefield article, plagued by edit-warring, repeated deletion discussions, and other problems. The article contains long lists of supporters and opponents of the use of this analogy. However, although there are citations for all of the supporters, most of the opponents are simply listed with no evidence. Last week, the list of opponents was duplicated in the article. I removed the duplication, and deleted the unsourced claims. (I also deleted one unsourced alleged supporter). This was reverted by another editor, so I added "citation needed" tags to the unsourced alleged opponents of the analogy. This request has been reverted three times by the same editor, without any attempt to supply the information or to verify these claims. Was my request reasonable, is this repeated removal of the tags disruptive, and if no evidence is provided that these individuals iindeed oppose the allegation, would it be appropriate to remove the names? RolandR ( talk) 07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The article for Alfred Enoch draws on http://www.veritaserum.com/movies/actors/alfredenoch.shtml as a key source. Veritaserum cites its sources as IMDB and http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org. I would like to challenge the associated material as needing further citations/verification but would appreciate confirmation on my opinion about this source. Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the fact tags have been replaced with either incomplete or unreliable references
Self-published sources, including
* http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/nata.htm * http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPmontseny.htm * http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html
are definitely not acceptable in this case.
Since there is obviously a problem with sources on this page, which is very long-standing, I am removing references which do not cite page numbers. It is essential to verify statements, and an article which repeatedly cites the "sources" above has lost the benefit of the doubt.
There are a large number of contentious, uncited claims on this page. There is no excuse for this; the article may have been written a long time ago, but the concerns I raised over a year ago have not been addressed. If there is no improvement in sourcing, I will delete all of the tagged statements in two week's time. BillMasen ( talk) 11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Can someone determine whether this [57] and musicOMH [58] are reliable enough to pass the FA candidacy of Goodies (album) Candy o32 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/dpsatish/237/61930/mangalore-diary-highrises-malls--beautiful-bunt-women.html Is this source reliable in the Mangalore article. Though this appears in a blog of IBN Live, it is a blog operated by a professional journalist of the news channel and is under the control of the news channel. 115.242.217.252 ( talk) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Recently I've seen a user moving BLP articles with birthday.se as a source. Birthday.se is a Swedish site for finding more in-depth information about a particular person's birth date. Does birthday.se qualify as a source? Hey Mid ( contributions) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The link here [59] could create harm to living persons. Can you please block it?-- Zucchinidreams ( talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Recently an editor has put a pdf file [60] that according to him claims as "fact" that people murdered based in part on lists made by Nazi Ukrainian collaboration organisation were "cooperating with Soviets". This goes against established information in mainstream publications.
Is this reliable to be a source about Nazi mass murder and its background?
The text of the pdf is in cyrilic and Ukrainian-meaning that we have to rely on google to translate it.However there are sentences and statements that if correct make me question the sources reliability on the issue of murders committed by Nazi collaborationist organisation OUN.
I found following examples(note that this is from google translation and a bit messsy):
All those statements if correct seem to indicate a highly biased work-I couldn't find its english translation, nor review in any journal. The text seems to be partially defensive towards OUN and attempts to portay its actions against Jews and Poles as "anti-colonial struggle". It is also used to claim Polish intellectuals murdered based on lists prepared by OUN were "cooperating with Soviets". Non-controversial sources on the murder note that those murdered had in majority no political involvment. An editor on discussion page claims that this claim originated "from source cited under footnote 4 - Кальба М. Ми присягали Україні. ДУН 1941–1943. – Львів, 1999. –С. 117 – - “memoirs of the Myroslav Kal’ba – mentioned as Schutzmann Myroslav Kal’ba - one of the Nachtigal and later 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion member"
I believe this article isn't neutral nor reliable to source activities of OUN and its involvment in Nazi mass murder.I would welcome any comment.--
MyMoloboaccount (
talk) 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that there is somewhat a controversy regarding Nazi era research by Ukrainian historians-see this publication by Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.Visiting Scholar Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian StudiesHarvard University: [62] President Yushchenko, nationalist parties, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement, which fought both against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and to present OUN and UPA leaders as national heroes. They either denied or justified by its pro-independence struggle, the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in terrorism, the Nazi genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. I think this might be case with what we are dealing with here to some extent.Of course since we have to rely on google translate and its clumsy translation all this subject becomes very difficult-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 01:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you please supply a standard citation of the work in question? not a link, a citation. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The article roddon I am working on has been criticised during a peer-review for the inconsistency of using both BC and BP within the same article. I have followed the sources whilst trying adhere to the Manual of Style#Chronological items. Would you provide advice on how to handle this inconsistency properly please. I have one BC date, 2400 BC due (Worssam & Taylor 1975, p. 93.) and there are a few BP dates such as 4000 BP (Gallois 1988, p. 77.). Do I convert the BC date to BP? If so, how? For example, if (according to Before present) standard practice is to use 1950 as the calibrated carbon dating reference then do I convert 2400 BC to 4350 BP with a footnote saying "source is 2400 BC converted to BP using 2400+1950=4350 BP"?
-- Senra ( Talk) 12:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
In the Deadwood article, a YouTube video of a David Milch interview is being used as a source in the themes section. On the talk page, I have repeatedly asserted that, according to past discussions here on WP:RSN, YouTube should not be used as a source. I have encouraged the other involved editors to try to find the original source for the video, which was a class at USC (COMM 426, "Religion, Media and Hollywood," January 24, 2008). As an edit war has now broken out over this issue, I would other, noninvolved, editors and administrators to look at the video and judge whether it is a reliable source. Thank you. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, the title of this section is misleading. In this case, YouTube is not the source. It's the medium. No one is asserting the source is credible because it's published on YouTube. It's a prima facie good source. 109.186.62.61 ( talk) 06:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
above comments copied from Talk:Deadwood (TV series) by The Interior (Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
As I look at it, there appear to be reviews by a number of folks and subsequent comments by decidedly non-noptable folk. I'm being told that the writers of the reviews are regular journalists doing a gig at Mediapost, but I'm not finding any of the reviewers' bios, to verify that. Has someone else come across this issue? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
We have thousands of links to http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com, many of them as sources in WP:BLPs. VRTS ticket # 2010090810000806 states that the site has the subject's name wrong. I am unconvinced of the reliability of this as a source. Guy ( Help!) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Editorial policy [63] and [64] indicate this is not an RS. Fifelfoo ( talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I did a quick search and neither BUAV.org or antivivisection.info came up. Can the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) article which lists Amerijet as a primate transporter here and the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance (Nava) listing of Amerijet here be used to source a claim along the lines of
Amerijet is one of only a few airlines that still transports primates to be used in experimentation. They have transported primates from the islands of Saint Kitts and Barbados, and elsewhere in the Caribbean and South America, to the United States. The shipments were for companies, such as Primate Products, Inc. and Worldwide Primates, that provide primates to laboratories. In August 2009, Amerijet was cited by the USDA for failing to meet federal standards in regards to enclosures holding 15 tamarins.
in Amerijet International? Thanks, Mechanical digger ( talk) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Superman 2 was released nationwide in June 1981, the same summer as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Countless sources, however, list it as a 1980 release. No doubt this confusion comes from copyright filings but it was released in 1981 for sure. Thank you.
Someone please help verify
First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_150th
Talk:First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_149th.
Also, is this US-centric? Was there an earlier trans-European telegraph? 71.198.176.22 ( talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant 149th. My mistake. At least there is now plenty of time to verify this fact. Sorry I was off by one. 71.198.176.22 ( talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, this:
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/06/the-140-project-filmmakers-capture-140-seconds-of-home/
Does it meet WP:RS and why/why not?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytemeh ( talk • contribs)
I would like to ask an administrator to consider closing this thread: wired.com is a reliable source, but, with all due respect, that doesn't help Bytemeh's case of notability by proxy approved by the Reliable Sources board. Drmies ( talk) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly ( talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: If might add a point here. There are valid reasons that I had to go through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Using_a_posting_to_Youtube.com_by_the_copyright_holder to show that I could use a youtube video as a reference. Yes, it was (and is) annoying as all get out but there are very good reasons for it. Personally, we should use a demonstrated official channel copy of the video in question just to save on the migraines.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What sources are acceptable for articles about historical events and figures? Are news articles acceptable? Books promoting fringe theories?
The dispute revolves around these two edits: [65] [66] The first edit inserts a fringe source to support a statement that doesn't appear in any of the biographies about the subject; the second replaces one of them with a news article that is apparently circularly based on the article itself at an earlier date, as is set out here.
I ask that this discussion be kept within a narrow focus of the question, and not blur off into a digression about the fringe theory itself. Tom Reedy ( talk) 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Andrew for supplying some basic policy info. I expected as much so have no comment on his policy analysis except to say that he is spot on. In regards to Tom's opening statement and Nishidani's rejoinder to Andrew, however, I do have a few comments:
To get back on topic, I would propose the following sources to ground the words "leading patrons of the Elizabethan age":
Given May's figure of 33 dedications noted above, its clear that DeVere was in the top 3 or 4 nobles in terms of patronage.
Given the above mainstream references, especially the comments by noted scholar Stephen May, will these two references suffice? If so, I am content to have them replace the BBC reference that is in question. Smatprt ( talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Where academic sources are available for academic topics, they should be preferred. Where there is a dispute about the status of some academic opinions as fringe, academic field reviews should be preferred to determine what the standard of research knowledge is in the field. BBC is not known as editing to an academic standard. Penguin may or may not, depending on the particular work. Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Way up at the top of this discussion, User:Tom Reedy asked that responses include ref's to WP policy. The policy is at "WP:IRS" [71]. Here's a relevant quote, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." The trick, when sources do not agree, is to make sure that all reliable POV are represented rather than choosing one over another. WCCasey ( talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Summing up. Would an uninvolved editor read over this and sum up the consensus, please? Which to me appears to be that newspaper articles written by non-specialists are superseded by better sources when available, and that wording should reflect the source rather than deep-searching popular literature to find a source that matches the wording. As to this particular edit, the wording as it stands is not supported by any reliable source, but the phrase "noted patron" is acceptable to all. Does that sound correct? And if so, would someone close this out? Tom Reedy ( talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
The citation for all these quotes is:
Comment:Frankly, an offer of alternate wording, based on the existing facts already known to we editors, would certainly have been welcome prior to this. I proposed "leading" in the lead from a good faith reading of the article. If the word so offended, suggestions were certainly welcome. "Major" ,"Notable", "Noted", etc. - all capture the lower sections on patronage pretty well, as far as I am concerned. As we know, the lead captures the article and, as noted by others here, there is plenty in the two sections on patronage to justify the existing (or similar) wording. Placing fact tags on specific words and then demanding a reference for the exact wording, especially in a generalization, seems like a waste of time and energy. As also noted above, there has been no sourcing offered that says De Vere was not a major patron, quite the opposite if you consider the primary sources. As noted above, they people who were there, and wrote it down, are the most reliable sources, since all future scholarship derives from these primary sources. The copious tributes, if one bothers to read them, paint a vivid picture of De Vere, and flattery notwithstanding, the re-occuring themes of learning and patronage, and devotion to the furthering the arts and sciences, are extremely well documented. Smatprt ( talk) 02:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, if we want to avoid any interpretation or generalization, we could also simply quote May as follows: "According to historian Stephen May, "Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences." (page 9)
"Noted," "notable", la même chose a moi, although "noted" is better grammar and reads more smoothly (using "notable" makes Oxford a condition, not necessarily contemporary, while using "noted" makes him the object of action by his contemporaries, which is evident from some of the dedications). No reference is needed, since the bone of contention was the degree of notability. I'm sure a study of Elizabethan dedications has been done by someone, but I can't find one and from what I've read in the course of this conversation Oxford was somewhere in the middle in terms of numbers. And we certainly prefer not to quote in the lede, although the main William Shakespeare article offends in that regard. Tom Reedy ( talk) 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)