This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
Could this [1] be used to write a brief summary of the production of the documentary in question in the Lindsay Lohan article? Siawase ( talk) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out WP:NEWSBLOG Jayjg, I hadn't seen that section before. Itsmejudith: that's sort of what I'm thinking. To be sure, there is a lot of gossip floating around about Lohan, but when UNICEF and anti-trafficking groups are involved it's a bit beyond that. I wrote the whole expansion as I intended and did a WP:BRD edit inserting it into the article so you can see the precide wording I chose and how the material sourced to the lost in showbiz blog comes off in context. [2] Siawase ( talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
i just came across this link on wikipedia at an ITN page (assassination of the pakistani figure) and tagged it as dubious, but i also had further concerns about its status as reasonable/reliable. Its about page cites its goal as "dedication is a missionary gesture," where a cursory glance at article also shows its one-sided view to portray persecution and push a pov. It also says its mission to start the chinese language page was because "Nowadays, curiosity about Christianity, the Church and pope John Paul II is widespread among the Chinese populace" clarifying its worldview limits. "urgency becomes even more heightened because of two facts:" + further proofs of pov in its raison d'etre "We wish to place the beginning of our mission on the internet under the protection of St. Francis Xavier, whose feast day we celebrate today (Dec. 3) and who died desiring to go to China. He is the patron of foreign missions and is venerated in China and throughout Asia." + "This effectiveness -at a distance- adapts well to our brand of news service, while being far yet near to the heart of the Church in China and her people."
Book Title: Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet Copyright 2002 to Author Richard Reames Richard Reames's publishing name Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087.
Good grief. I think the question is missing a very important part, what statement is the book being cited to support? #4 from the list at the top of this page. If there are only 17 practitioners of the field in the world, then the difference between "expert opinion" and "practitioner opinion" is quite likely going to be academic. What is this mysterious statement that we require "Reames, acknowledged expert tree shaper, writes ..." but not "Reames, one of the only 17 tree shapers in the world, writes ..."? --
GRuban (
talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this cite http://pakistanthinktank.org/component/k2/item/749-imran-farooq-was-a-ruthless-operator is being added to support a single ethnic claim that the subject is a Muhajir. The user wants to add that Farooq was a Muhajir(immigrant) and has struggled to find a RS calling him one, his father was one but Imran was born in Karachi (son of an immigrant but Pakistani born). The cite is imo very opinionated and an attack cite full of extreme claims, checking on the usage of it it is only used in one other place, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fpakistanthinktank.org%2F is it wiki reliable and is it undue to use such an attacking opinionated cite to cite a single word in an article? The article is written by Maheen Bashir Adamjee who it says is an editorial assistant with Newsline - I can't see any evidence of editorial control or suchlike but I found this author FAQ . Off2riorob ( talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got two problems with the use of a particular source being used at State terrorism. The citation is to a 2005 article on IPS News by Thalif Deen called "U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism", and the statement it is supposed to be backing is:
My first problem is that the source cited doesn't seem to support the statement referencing it. (It seems to only support the notion that there was disagreement at a particular UN meeting.) My second problem is that this is a news article that is disagreeing with 3 high-quality academic sources including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which all define the term "state terrorism" in pretty much the same way. I don't feel that this news story from IPS News should be given as much weight as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and books from Cambridge University Press and Rowman & Littlefield.
What are your opinions on this? Does the source support the statement in question, and if so should we say that there is "no international consensus" on the definition of the term, in spite of the fact that the academic sources cited all have the same definition?
Thanks -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If one editors considers a source to be reliable/suitable for use, but another doesn't - how should they resolve the issue? I ask in relation to this here above. Alinor ( talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A few days ago, our illustrious (co)founder, Jimbo Wales appeared on the Daily Show. In that program Jon Stewart asked Jimbo how long the "information" that "John Stuart is Batman" would remain in the article. Jimbo correctly noted that it would not last more than a few seconds... and went on to ask Jon if there were any reliable sources that said he was Batman. Now... this exchange raises an interesting and amusing thought. Jimbo's comment would allow us to say "Jimbo Wales questions whether Jon Stewart may be Batman" (an example of twisting the source, but "technically" it is an accurate statement... keep it in mind for April 1st.) Blueboar ( talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Is Film.com a RS? It seems a number of WP pages link to synopses, cast/crew info, and reviews there, e.g. Keddie, Lisa (2009-08-03). "'G.I. Joe: The Rise Of The Cobra' UK Review". Film.com. Retrieved 2009-09-28. at GI_Joe:_The_Rise_of_Cobra#cite_note-104. While anybody can post comments there, reviews appear to be only by staff, but I couldn't determine what sort of editorial oversight there might be and am not sure of the site's reputation for film criticism. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The ref in question: "The "Black Swan" Hedge Fund Returns Aren't So Hot", by Joe Weisenthal [7]. On that page is a Scribd link to an image of a financial statement from Empirica Capital LLC, run by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, detailing returns from a hedge fund. In that image is a table of "monthly performance".
This is an issue at Talk:Empirica Capital. Please see the discussion there for background.
Actual numbers for that fund are hard to come by, and this is the most comprehensive set of numbers available. A few numbers are available from more prominent sources, but none of the other sources provide enough data to build a table of yields. This is a hedge fund, so there are no SEC findings or public financial statements to provide definitive numbers. Taleb has released some numbers, but primarily for the "good years" when the fund went up. Using those creates an illusory image of the actual returns.
This is an issue because much of the reputation of Taleb rests on his performance as a fund manager. -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Concerning whether the Business Insider article is a reliable source, anyone has some idea what editorial oversight Business insider have? It would be good if more editors would participate in this discussion! Ulner ( talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Related to discussion at Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#John_V._Whitbeck_source. There are two sources by authors who User:Night w consider to be 'reputable experts' over the issue, but I find a particular part of the content of these sources to be suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia page these sources were added to.
Background - as documented on the same page at the end of 2010 a few countries recognized the State of Palestine (SoP) - Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador (in that order). With each subsequent announcement the Wikipedia page was updated accordingly (using sources other than those in question here). As can be seen at the page the question of "total number of states recognizing SoP" is not so easy to answer, because A] some sources are conflicting/inconclusive and B] there are sources stating "about/over 130" without giving the names of these ~130 states and we have sources with the names of only 108-118 (presented in the list at the article).
Now, the two sources in question here:
Even up to here the two sources appear to be WP:CIRCULAR, because they cite exactly the number of the first part of the Wikipedia table ("sure thing") - not counting any of the entries listed in Wikipedia as having "conflicting and inconclusive sources" (second part of the table). If we are to accept that the authors of the two sources in question here were using another information source different from Wikipedia - it's almost sure that they will come up with a different number than the "sure thing Wikipedia" figure (as do the sources that don't give a list of states - such as Boyle, Anat Kurz and others - they give 114, 117, 130, etc.). I wouldn't open this question if the two sources in question were giving a figure different by at least 1 from the "sure thing" Wikipedia figure.
But then, on 30 December 2010 Night w found multiple official sources showing that Dominican Republic has recognized SoP already in 2009. We added it to the article, but now it is obvious that the two sources in question are wrong (because Argentina is 106th and Bolivia is 107th - not as the two sources in question state). I think that they are wrong, just because they are WP:CIRCULAR and had used the versions of the Wikipedia article before we corrected the Dominican Republic mistake there.
So, the question is: Are these two sources WP:CIRCULAR? Alinor ( talk) 14:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
At WikiProject Film, I have started a discussion about whether or not the website movie-censorship.com is appropriate to use in any capacity on Wikipedia. I wanted to inform this noticeboard's regulars about the discussion, and they are welcome to weigh in. The discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor used a reference from this organization as a cite for a recent change in the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article. I posted a question on the talk page, but thought it might also help to post here. I've seen this website used as a reference elsewhere, and I don't think it's a viable source as it appears to be a pure advocacy site. Thoughts about the site in general and the specific edit would be appreciated. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we've got:
I've removed the information sourced to ctka.com, and tweaked GoN's recent addition sourced to the Post-Gazette. I'm not totally sure that it meets the RS criteria, but overall it does add useful information to the article. It does provide a counterpoint to the claim about the lack of protection that seems to have some weight in the conspiracy theory world. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Jesus myth theory article, an encyclopedia entry written by G.A. Wells (an atheist) in the encyclopedia of unbelief is being used a source for the opinion of "mainstream church scholars". Using an atheist as a source for the opinion of church scholars seems highly problematic to me. Laker1988 ( talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Source:
Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of" Tom Flynn (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446.
Exact statement:
...although mainstream church scholars agree that material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value.
Talk page discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_theory#Robert_Price_is_not_a_reliable_source_for_the_opinion_of_.22mainstream_church_scholars.22 Laker1988 ( talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The opinion is question is that mainstream scholars think material about Jesus in the New Testament can't be taken at face value. This is a little like asking for another source for "Paris is the capital of France," when two have been provided, but because one of them isn't French he can't be trusted. Laker seems to believe that most mainstream biblical scholars believe Jesus was born to a virgin, that three wise men arrived at the stable, etc. But they don't. For a summary of what most scholars seem to believe now, see Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27 (visible on Amazon). SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not make assumptions about what I believe the scholarly opinion to be. I am perfectly fine with keeping the sentence, as long as you don't have to resort to using atheists as a source for what Christian scholars believe. Also, since you have seen the Stanton source, it would be immensely helpful to provide an exact quote at the article talk page. Laker1988 ( talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@FormerIP: a source's beliefs, religious or other, can be relevant in neutrality discussions, but this discussion is not being framed as a neutrality issue - and I do not just mean that it is on the wrong noticeboard for that. For example no argument has been made that the citation is giving un-due weight to a particular theory that is not mainstream. The complaint being made seems to be that "on principle" non-Christians should not be used as sources for Christian subjects, and that if there are no sources saying otherwise a literal understanding of the Bible can be assumed to be mainstream. I think the responses so far show that there is a clear consensus that such a principle is not compatible with how Wikipedia works. If on the other hand there is a real neutrality concern it needs to be framed in a very different way (and not on this particular forum).-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: This discussion bears some similarities to one going on here. Involved parties might be interested in checking it out. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Most, if not all, sources have a POV. The question here is whether or not they are reliable, not whether they have a POV. We do not reject sources on church history simply because they are atheists. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Our Sunday Visitor Publishing is a Catholic press whose main output is "religious periodicals, religious books and religious-education materials." Are they a reliable source for the claim that the anti-Catholic book American Freedom and Catholic Power is popular in atheist circles? I argue firstly that a publisher with an explicitly religious affiliation and an explicitly religious agenda is unlikely to be a reliable source on what atheists like to do in their spare time, whatever their actual opinions are about atheists; and secondly that the press's open hostility to atheists makes it an even less reliable source. Mamalujo and Haymaker say that it is a reliable source, although I can't reproduce their arguments here as they haven't given any - hopefully they'll stop by. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(can't indent that much) My $.02: we need a consistent rule for this and the other case. I probably wouldn't find an atheist writer WP:RS for the proposition that church sources doubt Jesus' historicity, or a Catholic group reliable for even "some" atheists endorsing a particular attack on the Catholic church. If either quoted a reliable, neutral secondary source, I'd go directly to that, or leave the material out of the article entirely. The moment we start trying to justify the first instance while criticizing the second, I think we we are on very dubious ground. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing on WP:BLPN about whether this article meets BLP standards, but I have a collateral question. Much of the information about alleged criminal activities by the otherwise private individuals is sourced to a single investigative article in TheSmokingGun.com. Other newspaper sources seem to echo that article. I suspect there have been prior discussions as to the circumstances under which Smoking Gun is WP:RS, and would like to hear what other editors say about its use in this context. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In a recent deletion nomnination the reasoning was given by someone who voted to delete that most of the sources were not accessable on the internet (books and magazines NOT online), so they doubted them and voted delete. What is Wikipedia policy on the bias against non-online sources? Mathewignash ( talk) 11:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the sources in question do not mention who published them or have a page number for the statemtn they are referencing. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the site http://www.oafe.net/ a reliable source for fictional character bios? Mathewignash ( talk) 14:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
At http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?p=388596#post388596 one of the writers for the 2007 Transformers film posts how he wrote the movie. This is the official message board for the film. Is this a reliable source for the writer? Mathewignash ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So the movie writer says that the aliens arrived in a space ship, then the novel prequel for the says the aliens arrived in a space ship and names it, and you are not sure that it's the SAME space ship. I suppose I could cite prequel novel instead. Mathewignash ( talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
We've had a discussion on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus ( link) concerning whether this source could be used to source the notion that the expulsion of Palestinians would "widely" be considered to have involved ethnic cleansing. The document is an article by the Guardian's middle-east editor, Ian Black where he writes:
Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved.
Editors who oppose saying in the article that the expulsions would be widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing point to this source ("Muslims in Australia"), which says that many place the expulsions in context of war, rather than ethnic cleansing.
The author of "Muslims in Australia" is Dr Halim Rane, who appears to be a sociologist by training. Further, sources in Ethnic cleansing frequently do place ethnic cleansing in the context of war, in apparent conflict with Rane's implication that they are mutually exclusive. Comments? I'm not an uninvolved editor and am of the opinion that the Guardian is a RS and using it here is straightforward, "Muslims in Australia" nonwithstanding. -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec):::::::I disagree. That phrase itself may not be widely used, but there are many sources that link ethnic cleansing to the expulsion, as one would expect given the nature of the conflict. "Widely" does not mean "mostly", and this is a contentious subject, so it should not be a surprise that that linkage is made in many sources. I also assume there are many sources that refute the linkage--indeed, Rane's work alludes to some of those. It is not an issue for this noticeboard, but my suggestion would be to take care to document what is said, and not try to document what it true. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read too deeply into this particular discussion, but as far as sources supporting "widely considered ethnic cleansing", here's a few:
I'm sure more sources can be found. Perhaps the wording of the statement should be changed, but it's fairly clear that whether or not this is a majority idea, it is certainly a widespread idea. I don't think the Guardian source should be used, though. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed BLP John Graham (racing driver) as a DYK nomination and said Racing-reference.info was an unreliable source. In 2008 in this discussion an editor said it was "sort of like the IMDb of racing."
The statement, "Graham, born on October 22, 1955 in Belfast, Northern Ireland, began his professional career in 1986, when he competed in one Firestone Indy Lights Series race," is attributed to this page.
-- Pnm ( talk) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider Behind the Voice Actors.com as reliable source A competent admin damned well be familiar with that policy if they are involved in RS or AfD issues at all! of voice actors? Content appears to be scrutinised and edited. Voice actors are quite hard to source as they rarely attract mainstream news coverage.-- Plad2 ( talk) 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A collection of shared college newspaper articles by student reporters. Useable for citing? Mathewignash ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The quoted relation in the remark (wikipedia « carbonic acid ») gives the concentration in ions H+ at equilibrium. We have noticed that author results give the concentration in ions H+ from a very crude approximation. Such an approximation can be in fact avoided with a more precise calculation. This leads finally to very different values of carbonate concentrations at equilibrium when one compares with quoted relationship in this remark. In fact the relation giving the concentration in H+, in the remark , appears to be of the second order in H+ concentration but, due to the denominator, is only of first order term in H+ .So the secondary equation which must be solved yields an undetermined expression for concentration in H+ ( Hopital rule ) this leads finally to the following expression
Concentration in H+= - O.5 10 power -14 – y .10 power -14 +y. power two – 2.y power three. (With y= carbonate concentration)
Thus, when carbonate concentration, is ten to the minus four, the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six pH corresponding is six. The carbonate concentrations are found of several orders of magnitude greater than the values proposed above. This result may have a particular interest in the evaluation of carbonate concentration when we are concerned with the effect of acidification of see water due to CO2 dissolution.
It must also be noted that two ways are possible in expressing: One where the system is open (which means in contact with the atmosphere-this is surely the case presented in the article) and the other where the system is a closed liquid solution of electrolyte. The ion carbonate concentrations at equilibrium obtained from these two ways are found to be identical.
(Furthermore, very recently I have noticed that the table giving carbonate concentrations were quite different when compared with the previous quoted values by the same author; this is one of the reasons why the calculation leading to H+ concentration has been reconsidered).
The quoted relation in the remark (wikipedia « carbonic acid ») gives the concentration in ions H+ at equilibrium. We have noticed that author results give the concentration in ions H+ from a very crude approximation. Such an approximation can be in fact avoided with a more precise calculation. This leads finally to very different values of carbonate concentrations at equilibrium when one compares with quoted relationship in this remark. In fact the relation giving the concentration in H+, in the remark , appears to be of the second order in H+ concentration but, due to the denominator, is only of first order term in H+ .So the secondary equation which must be solved yields an undetermined expression for concentration in H+ ( Hopital rule ) this leads finally to the following expression
Concentration in H+= - O.5 10 power -14 – y .10 power -14 +y. power two – 2.y power three. (With y= carbonate concentration)
Thus, when carbonate concentration, is ten to the minus four, the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six pH corresponding is six. The carbonate concentrations are found of several orders of magnitude greater than the values proposed above. This result may have a particular interest in the evaluation of carbonate concentration when we are concerned with the effect of acidification of see water due to CO2 dissolution.
It must also be noted that two ways are possible in expressing: One where the system is open (which means in contact with the atmosphere-this is surely the case presented in the article) and the other where the system is a closed liquid solution of electrolyte. The ion carbonate concentrations at equilibrium obtained from these two ways are found to be identical.
(Furthermore, very recently I have noticed that the table giving carbonate concentrations were quite different when compared with the previous quoted values by the same author; this is one of the reasons why the calculation leading to H+ concentration has been reconsidered). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beranay ( talk • contribs)
This paper How to subsidize contributions to public goods - Does the frog jump out of the boiling water? [34] (pdf mirror [35]) by Theo Offerman is listed as a "seminar paper". Does this paper fall under WP:SPS? Looking at google scholar, the author appears to have a number of widely cited articles published in peer reviewed journals: [36] but all the articles appear to be in the field of economics. The paper is currently used to source biological material in the Boiling frog article regarding experiments from the 1800s, which the paper gives an overview of. Is this appropriate? Previous discussion at Talk:Boiling frog Any thoughts? Thank you. Siawase ( talk) 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As per the title, are these articles considered secondary review sources?
These three articles (among others) show up on a pubmed search when you type in spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak and then click on "Review" on the right side. I am curious to know as I am preparing an article on this topic for a FA candidacy and would like to overcome the hurdle of a lack of 2econdary sources. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What use is being proposed for these sources? -- Ronz ( talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Question If PubMed is classifying the above listed articles as "review articles" then why/how can we classify them as primary articles? Basket of Puppies 08:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The crucial question has been asked several times and not answered: what material are these sources being used to support? To answer the general question: no, the short 'literature review' section that comprises part of the introduction to every research report is not a "literature review" in the usual sense. It's simply a standard convention in research writing that you start by citing the prior research that's been done on the specific question, establishing the line of inquiry that led to your research. By the logic used here, every single primary research report ever written could be called a "literature review" since every research report should include this brief citation of prior research. Citation of research leading to a particular question is not a review; a review is a systematic critical analysis of all the research that pertains to a particular question or topic area. In other words, a research report is primary; the obligatory introductory citation of prior research included in a research report does not change its primary status. Woonpton ( talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It should go without saying that the far-left Alternet is not a reliable source, no? THF ( talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal. [37] and as such all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited. AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media, especially “hate talk” media. is clear. Collect ( talk) 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I just spent some time with this. Cannot decide on its notability. There are some 50,000 google hits at least, and it is clearly a term in active use in self-defence circles, even though a neologism. Otoh, hardly any quotable third party references. Black Belt Magazine is the best one so far, and that was a column by the person selling this.
Since I spent some time on this, please don't just send it to AfD, try to talk to me first. I am not sure this should remain an article (which is why I am posting here), but I am confident that the term should be glossed somewhere on Wikipedia, so the title should be merged rather than deleted. -- dab (𒁳) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've discussed this site at least twice before but just cannot get anything out of anyone about it. Songfacts seems to rely almost entirely on user submitted content ( "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors."), and yet it's still linked from over 1000 articles. Is there some reason we're still using such a patently unreliable site? Also, can someone help me prune the many links to it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
How is an interview with a songwriter not a reliable source? There are comments and forums on Songfacts that might not be reliable sources, but many RS sites have blogs or other areas that should not be cited.
I beefed up the "Dar Williams on songwriting" section of the Dar Williams entry using the Songfacts interview with Dar Williams ( http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/dar_williams/). The reference was deleted, but my information is still there. So is it OK that Songfacts does the work to interview Dar Williams so that Wikipedia can publish the content without citing the source? Yahoo Music just yesterday cited Songfacts in their discussion of a Britney Spears song and if she stole it: http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/ourcountry/90036/does-britneys-hold-it-against-me-rip-off-the-bellamy-brothers/
It's not fair to the websites generating the original, reliable content (interviews) to not cite them as sources. Ndugu ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is [38] a "reliable source" for a statement that the Daily Mail is known as the "Daily Hate"? Is this of sufficient import to be listed in the article on the Daily Mail in any case? Is [39] sufficient for such a claim? Is [40] sufficient for such a claim? Is the claim that Julie Birchill called it the "Daily Hate" sufficiently supported as a claim? Are these particular sources "opinion pieces" which are not really utile for a statement of fact? Is use of "Daily Heil", "Daily Fail" etc. also thus admissible in the main article because they have also been found in "reliable sources"? Many questions - all I seek is that WP policies about what is opinion and what is fact be carefully maintained. Collect ( talk) 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion has been launched a bit prematurely, since there hasn't really been time for discussion on the talkpage of the range of sources that might be available. Still, since a positive outcome might obviate the need for that legwork, okay then.
It's also part of a wider issue really. The Daily Mail has a very clear an well-documented reputation for front pages specialising in what some would see as scare stories about things like immigration and what gives you cancer. Part of that reputation is the Daily Hate nickname, but it's not even really the main thing. I think it is well sourced and it certainly only needs a passing mention in itself.
This source is a biography of the Mail's editor and a fifth of it is dedicated to discussion of this reputation and the Daily Hate name: [41]. In my view, that on its own is enough to show significance.
In response to the request for examples of the name in use as opposed to being discussed: [42] [43] [44] [45] -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A web page by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S (apparently the author uses both names) titled Jesus as the Sun throughout History appears on the website of Stellar House Publishing. According to the "About" tab in that website, it was founded by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. This article is being put forward at the Revised Julian calendar article as a source to support statements about the attitude of the Orthodox Church concerning the date on which Christmas should be celebrated. I would like to know if Stellar House Publishing is a reliable publisher, and whether this particular article having been written by the founder of the publisher raises a concern about a self-published source. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is http://www.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=101881 a reliable source for the claim that an actress has ADHD? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article about the Japanese art historian Ichimatsu Tanaka, Tanakasthename disputes one sentence here:
For purposes of comparison and contrast at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Selected works, I suggested we consider a similar sentence in the "Selected works" section of the article about Nobel laureate Kenzaburo Ōe:
Tanakasthename's rejection was unambiguous here, arguing "I think the Oe example actually supports my original position that the inclusion of this data is terribly misleading, if not downright false."
We disagree because I construe WorldCat identities as a reliable source — not "terribly misleading" and not "downright false".
IMO, this kind of overview sentence provides a necessary and useful context for a dynamic list of selected works. I have added similar sentences in many articles, e.g., compare Japanese mathematics#Select mathematicians.
IMO, we don't know how to move beyond talking past each other. I hope this thread can become a constructive step in a process which helps mitigate an awkward impasse. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is. Tanakasthename has not yet explained. This has nothing to do with "unanalyzed search results".
The WorldCat Identities project summarizes a writer's output in terms of a number of "works" in a number of "publications" in a number of "languages" and in a number of "library holdings". IMO, this reasonably provides a introductory foundation for the dynamic list which follows. This sentence becomes an introduction and an invitation to investigate further. Can you see that this is a quite different matter? -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Tanakasthename seems to explain that parsing issues about "reliable sources" is a non-issue. If so, perhaps another venue is preferred? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Technically "verifiable" and verifiably misconstrued. -- Tenmei ( talk) 03:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The words of Tanakasthename in this sub-section heading are a credible complaint. Summarizing the issues and history of the complaint:
" Tanakasthename is claiming that it fails a standard which is not a Wikipedia standard" and " Tanakasthename has not even raised a a WP-relevant challenge, much less supported such a challenge." (bold and italics added for emphasis)
Tanakasthename -- Thank you for investing both time and care. Our work together is an example of successful collaborative editing. This re-drafted sentence incorporates your fine-tuning perspective:
I will take it on myself to make changes in other articles with a similar sentence. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Could an hour long video interview in French be considered RS for a historical figure?
Allegations are made that Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza was a rapist here - in "(French video)" . I can understand a little French and it seems that the video about the Congo does mention Brazza, but I have not had the patience to sit through an hour long video to hear and attempt to translate what he says, nor do I think it reasonable. But this does not seem to be an encyclopaedic approach. None of the other language versions of WP carries this allegation, although a discussion in the French version suggested that it might have been originally mentioned in the French satirical magazine le canard enchaine (but no-one has given a reference or link.) I have asked for better substantiation in the article's talk page, but without response from the editor who has placed these allegations. Brazza was a major historical figure and this allegation does not appear in any of the major references to African colonialism that I have seen - I feel that something more substantial is needed in order to substantiate such a revisionist claim. Am I right to remove such references? Ephebi ( talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Obenga, the Teke royal court has dissimulated a significant episode in the 1880 encounter between Brazza and Iloo: the explorer’s rape of a royal Teke princess, a virgin in charge of keeping the kingdom sacred fire. ‘If you want to celebrate somebody who has raped a Congolese woman, be my guest! . . . De Gaulle knew very well that Brazza had raped a woman, this is a documented fact, an established, a banal fact that people hide. . . . This is a fact established by oral tradition, a fact that tells about the destruction of the Bateke kingdom, the destruction of the King.’
Obenga, ‘De Brazza, faux “humaniste”’. See also the video of the interview, <www.video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7116215169848427224>.
Are videos of Eastern Orthodox baptisms, published on Youtube, reliable as sources that show that those baptisms do not always involve total submersion of the child or adult being baptized? Are they less reliable than books or articles that describe such baptisms? See the citations and a discussion on them. Esoglou ( talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider CreativeSyria.com as reliable source. The source is being used in number of articles now. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Creative Syria is not the source, its only published there, the source is Joshua Landis who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma
[47]
"Joshua Landis Associate Professor, IAS Director of the Center of Middle East Studies
Joshua Landis is co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and Associate Professor of Middle East studies at the University of Oklahoma’s School of international and Area Studies. He writes www.SyriaComment.com, a daily newsletter on Syrian politics that is widely consulted by officials in Washington, Europe, and Syria, and read by over 3,000 people daily.
He is a frequent analyst on TV and radio, having recently appeared on the PBS News Hour, the Charlie Rose Show, al-Jazeera, NPR, and the BBC. Last year, he was quoted in over 100 news stories, including in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Times Magazine. His book, Democracy in Syria, will appear in the coming year, and he is author of numerous articles.
He was educated at Princeton (PhD), Harvard (MA), and Swarthmore (BA). He has lived over 14 years in the Middle East; having been brought up in Beirut, he returned to the region in the 1980s to teach in Beirut and study at universities in Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul. Most recently, he spent 2005 in Syria as a Senior Fulbright Research Fellow and lived several months in Damascus in 2007.
He teaches: Political Islam, International Relations in the Middle East, Islam, The Modern Middle East, Culture and Society in the Middle East, the US in the Middle East and other courses." -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, http://blonnet.com, http://www.idlebrain.com/index1.html and South Scope Magazine ( http://southscope.in) are being quoted as definitive sources of box office figures for Telugu films in order to rank the list by gross income. Are any of these sources reliable in an encyclopaedic sense to provide definitive statements of box-office income? Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you answer the assertion that every RS you provide from a variety of unrelated sources (be it newspaper, magazines, scholarly journals, published books, Royal BC Museum, etc) is unreliable because (according to another editor) they " ultimately ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source, namely the press kits of the Okanagan Wine Region, Nk'Mip Cellars, and the Osoyoos Tourism Board". Of course, this other editor is not providing any links or evidence of this collusion between sources like the The New York Times, Oxford Companion to Wine, Houston Chronicle, Toronto Sun, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, etc but he is adamant that these sources are not reliable because....well just because. I suppose the question really is....what is the burden of proof to establish that seemingly reliably sources aren't reliable? Agne Cheese/ Wine 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A marketing meme is a marketing meme, as Franamax has pointed out; the pervasiveness of a false bit of geography as a result of marketing campaigns (including inviting newspaper travel and wine editors to come and have some wine and dinner, and giving them press copy so they don't actually have to write articles themselves) do NOT constitute "reliable sources". Your word-picking and ongoing gamesmanshhip continues to avoid the core issue; by ALL authoritative sources, such as the EPA, Britannica, etc, the Sonoran Desert does NOT extend into Canada. It's THAT simple, and no amount of inaccurate references you provide can change that FACT, nor any nit-picking of Franamax's very wise and experienced knowledge of "what is and isn't a reliable source". I did a thorough search of BC Government websites, and the only three times the phrase "Sonoran Desert" appeared in relation to BC were all exactly the same phrasing, "the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, which extends from northern Mexico into Canada" (exactly); one was a tourism ministry blurb about the area, another was the local MLA saying it in the house, in relation to the wine industry, another was a legal case in which this local slogan/byline was cited as part of the description of the property under dispute. The only other mention of "Sonoran Desert" was in a Ministry of Environment master plan for Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park, near Kelowna (not Osoyoos and not in teh South Okanagan), which said that the some of the same plants and animals found in the Sonoran Desert are also found on Okanagan Mountain; it did NOT say that the Okanagan was "part of the Sonoran Desert", not did it say that desert "extends from northern Mexico to Canada".
That the phrase, as stated just above, was also used verbatim in the article, since removed as a falsehood (but twice or three times re-inserted by you), constitutes in fact a form of "copyvio", except that widely-disseminated marketing information is not copyrighted. Your refusal to admit that the authoritative sources do NOT say what you claim is real and true, and taht you have in fact said that because they don't say it's NOT, explicitly, means that it is true....well, that's just not in the wiki-ballpark, not as a reliable source, not as a verifiable source, and not as a FACT. It is a claim, a widely-circulated one, but not factual in the slightest, and clearly related to a standard pharse (often verbatim, as noted, or in only slightly-adjusted wording) - a standard phrase rooted in publciations coming out of Osoyoos. If Franamax used the terms "spell" and "infiltrated", he was meaning only figuratively; you, on the other hand, have accused me of having a "conspiracy theory", as if it were a conspiracy; no, it has just been a blind, unwitting, but totally inaccurate repetition of material in local brochures and wine/resort-marketing promotions; it is not a fact, never will be, and never was. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Boy, Agne, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to engage in personal attacks aren't you? I worked there two days (they wanted me to cut my ponytail off and I wouldn't), and COI would only apply if I still worked there; that was back in early summer of 2007. What's your COI? Because you're certainly determined to support the wine industry's literature on this, rather than listen to logic or authoritative sources? At least I openly disclose mine....My "editorial discretion" is to do with truth and reality, and actual geography, not made-up bad juxtapositions of similar plants and animals constituting proof this is a "desert", which very pointedly it's not....you've lost on the issue, so now personal attacks of any kind are what's on your menu. What else have you got in the bottom of the barrel? Skookum1 ( talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Agne, bringing the character of the other editor into things usually means that you are running out of valid arguments. I looked at 8 or so of your 30+ references and they are almost all travel articles, buying-a-second-home articles, wine articles. Yes, these all do rely on press-release type information. I don't have my CG access any more, but based on what I know of the magazine, that looks like something from either the "CG Travel" supplement or the "Explorations" segment. Email me the fulltext, I'll be glad to ask Rick Boychuk (EinC) for the supporting sources. The J. of Envir. Educ. source is notes on the cover art of the journal, the cover! You can't throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall and expect others to pick each piece off. The only remotely acceptable source I looked at was from RBC Museum, which calls it the Great Basin. Even the Osoyoos Desert Society goes to great lengths to specify it is not really a desert, only that many of the plants are similar. I'm not going through the rest of your list, please apply some critical thinking of your own and narrow it down to academic references which actually discuss geography and climate. You can send me fulltexts of the paywalled ones to evaluate. If you want to change your desired text to "often thought of as, but not really part of, the Sonoran Desert", then you have got a great set of sources there. Franamax ( talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
We're verging on WP:TL;DR territory here, so I'll try to keep this short.(Sick children, ponytails, and Indian tribes? Please?) We have a number of sources usually considered reliable saying the Sonoran Desert extends into Canada. The response to that is that in this case "they're not reliable ... because they're not true", and proposes other reliable sources that give a different definition. Well, we very rarely make judgments like that here. When reliable sources disagree, we very rarely pick one to side with, we almost always write: "(some sources) say X[ref][ref][ref]; though (other sources) say Y[ref][ref][ref]", so the reader can see both sides. I strongly recommend that here, rather than making a judgment that we must know better than the New York Times travel writers. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I just had a protracted and detailed discussion with the natural history curator/editor of the Royal British Columbia Museum, who is going to forward the articles in question (there are three and three only) to their authors for comment and clarification; his opinion is the plant-biologists may say one thing, geographers another, but he also pointed out that what seems most likely meant is that there are pockets of Sonoran-type conditions throughout the Intermontane West. He expects the authors to reply at length, i.e. in great detail, and concedes it may be necessary to amend the wordings so as to be more specific about what is meant and avoid confusion/extrapolation. NB of the three links on the Living Landscapes site:
TWO of them talk about the Cranbrook District (meaning its Forest District, by the wording) as being at the "the northern edge of the Great Basin (also called the Sonoran or high desert, a sagebrush-dominated biome that runs from British Columbia to Baja California". NONE of the three links mention Osoyoos, OR the Okanagan at all. The term "Columbia Basin", which is the context of all three, in its British Columbia usage, does not include the Okanagan (even though in abstract geographic watershed terms, the Okanagan and Similkameen are part of the Columbia's basin, as is the Kettle River basin of the Boundary Country, which also is not in the BC meaning of "Columbia Basin", which is entirely between the Monashees and the Rockies only. I don't know how long it will be before I get replies from the authors, but will post them on the wine region talkpage (rather than here, as protracted content discussions are not the purpose of this talkpage. I will similarly take things up with the Canadian Geographic and other academic-oriented sites as time and phone bills permit....NB a search at the Canadian Encyclopedia, a not-always-authoritative source in my experience, particularly for historical content, does not make mention of the Sonoran Desert, nor does Environment Canada...... Skookum1 ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I originally thought this issue was a NPOV issue, regarding the Shakespeare Authorship Question's peer-reviewed article by Tom Reedy, but have been advised that the RS Notice Board is more appropriate. I am a new editor and all these Notice Boards seem to apply. I had been met with obfuscation when I called for more neutral language. The ultimate root of the issue may be found in the article's selective sourcing, which then makes neutrality impossible.
In the lead paragraph of the article Shakespeare authorship question, it states "…all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]" As I understand it, this is a string of “exceptional claims”, requiring “exceptional” sourcing. My question concerns the sources supplied, and whether they are comprehensive enough to support the claims in question.
I would also like to ask whether WP:RS/AC is being followed, particularly "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."
The references cited in ref #3 are located here: [54]. To my eye, they seemed to me anecdotal, personal, rather than factual, and as personal statements could not be used to document the claim that "all but a few scholars" dismiss contrary scholarship as lacking hard evidence. For example, here are statements that are presented to justify the claim that Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian theories are without foundation:
As the presented sources seem to be speaking from a personal point of view respectively, the authoritative sounding 'All but a few' does not seem to be supported, and it amounts to a derogation which has no place in a neutral statement reliably sourced. And the one source containing the pejorative label of “fringe belief” does not discuss whether “all” scholars or any particular group of scholars have applied such a label, or whether this is just the individual opinion of the source, as referred to at WP:RS/AC.
Also there is the practical question, how is “a few” defined? Credentialed academics who have doubted the Stradfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship have been ostracized to the point that only one Ph.D. thesis has been successfully entered in the United States university system. There is no way of knowing what professional scholars might say if there weren't an unspoken but effective ban on expression in this subject area. This throws into doubt how few or how many literary professionals feel on the matter. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt indicates there are far more than a numerical few.
Thus, how would such a strong series of claims, attempting to prove “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians” be justified as citable, short of a scientific poll or survey? The only survey we do know about does not support the language.[See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html]
Consequently I want to suggest alternate wording, such as:
The remaining 18% of approximately 20,000 professors, (that number according to D. Allen Carroll) 3,600, would not be a "few".
or possibly
The remainder, 39%, ~8,000, would not constitute a "few".
Then, in order to evaluate their opinions fairly, it would be a matter of finding out if they had read that contrary body of scholarship in order to make a scholarly judgment, versus those who had not read any.
I’m wondering if some such wording as I have suggested above would be better supported by the sources cited here, which are far more factual, and therefore more reliable, than the quotations presented by the article, and whether in turn the article would be rendered more neutral as a result of the greater specificity added?
I would appreciate input from uninvolved editors, as the recent talk page conversations by the article author and friends have devolved into constant sniping at criticisms and suggestions of any kind whatsoever. [ [55]].
My previous contributions (except for an accepted minor expression or two) [ [56]] have been ignored with prejudice. [ [57]].
A lot of premature archiving is also going on before any conclusions are reached or agreements made. To be exact, there have been no departures from the original article's text. Is it the Wikipedia practice to archive after five days instead of the usual thirty before removing the current discussion from sight, when it is clearly a controversial subject? This contributes to the feeling of an ambition by the article author to establish what I would consider as factually dubious dogma as the official language on the Wikipedia site. In short, the situation a bit of a mess. That’s why we need help from uninvolved editors here. Thank you and with best wishes. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Zweigenbaum Thank you for the information. No, the 20,000 figure is not critical to my position or request for comments, or to the overall purpose of gaining greater reliabiity of sources and neutrality of tone in the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I used that number because D. Allen Carroll is a Stratfordian professor who opined at a public symposium on the topic in 2003, "In the interest of full disclosure, I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment', one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare--and some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare." (Tennessee Law Review,v. 71:2, page 278) So I took a figure offered by one respected guild member of the Stradfordian constituency by which to show an example of logical inconsistency in the conclusions expressed in the proposed article, in its first paragraph, as written by another member of that constituency. I assumed this should pass muster or at least avoid pretextual outrage among Stratfordians since he is one of their own and thus trustworthy to some extent; I do not know if his number corresponds to fact. If Carroll's calculation is exaggerated, I could make the same point with a lower or higher one, as the percentage is significant in either case, i.e., not a few, although I feel when seeking factuality here as elsewhere the utilization of what most or a few think should never be the prime determinant towards the goal. Such a utilization usually amounts to gratuitous conforming pressure upon the reader to be among the many as against "the few". It forces an effect rather than states a point and betrays an emotional drive behind the attempt. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The question of the reliability of these sources has been raised at at good article candidate. They all look borderline to me, but I admit this isn't necessarily something I know a great amount about. Thoughts? J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem. The Death Panel article is under a tight article probation and there are several editors there who, it seems to me, are using the probation to form a cabal to prevent changes which would restore balance to the article. Now an issue has arisen over a citation which to me is clearly not a RS even though it had at one time (apparently) been published.
I would not normally raise this here because to me, it seems so clearly an untrustworthy citation, but due to my having already received a ticking off by my fellow editors and others (including an Admin, and the fact that I have reverted this addition two or three times now (but not three times in the last 24) I am, possibly, in breach of the tight regulations at that article. I have risked doing this because I am fairly sure that this source is not reliable.
Here is the issue. Sarah Palin is on record for saying that when she was talking about Death Panels, she was referring to rationing which she thought would emerge from the Affordable Care Act, and in particular a body set up to control Medicare costs that was in that bill.
The Times newspaper it seems may have published a piece by a journalist claiming that Palin was talking about a British body known as NICE. Google it seems has the cache of the page, but as far as I can tell the link is not working. My guess is because the claim in that story is nonsense. Palin has not actually said that NICE was the target and in fact she has said something quite different. At least two editors, on an IP and the other a reguk editor has reverted my deletion of the claim that Palin was talking about NICE, the only evidence for which is the claim of the Times journalist. This is "The Times" and not "The New York Times"..
Here is the latest revert, this time by the IP editor who claims that the link is working.... But whether it is working or not, I fail to see how a journalist in London can claim to know what was in Palin's mind because it was several days before she clarified what she was talking about, failed initially to quell speculation that she was talking about provisions in the law for paid consultations in Medicare for living wills, and then settled on the IPAB (the new Medicare costs reduction board). It was NOT NICE despite what this journalist may (or may not) have written.
But in case I have missed a trick perhaps someone would be kind enough to cast a look and check it over.
Thanks Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a new inconsistency here too. Palin has NOT said the term death panel was a reference to NICE in but seemingly it IS allowed in WP because the editor using that reference rightly attributed the improbable reference. So the article is allowed to connect death panel with NICE even though it does not meet the definition we had of a death panel. Fast forward now to Palin's use of the is article is allowed because a source claimed . A few days ago Palin's recent use of the term blood libel to describe inflamed and allegedly inaccurate accusations made against her following the recent shootings. Suddenly the Palin crowd have managed to get OUT of the blood libel article Palin's use of that word which DID create huge news comments and which the fact that Palin had posted on her Facebook page a video of her using it. Palin clearly did use that term to accuse her opponents of attributing the shootin in Arizona to her. The Palinistas seem to have a lot of control here at Wikipedia. Hauskalainen ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Not at all. What Nuujinn is saying would be valid if the point of the text was to show that the journalist had said this thing. For example if Palin had complained about the article to the Press Complaints Commission. But it is not. Death Panel is a Palin term but she never connected it to NICE. If she had, we would have other sources for that. What we have here is wrongful use of a UNreliable source to get a claim into Wikipedia that Palin HAD made this connection. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG. It clearly IS and unreliable source for connecting PALIN to NICE via DEATH PANEL. I urge Nuujinn to think again and would welcome comments from other RS reviewers too. Hauskalainen ( talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Er... well as I recall it she said also that she was using hyperbole and that because she had heard that now an extra 30 or 40 million were going to be insured, the inevitable result was that health care would have to be rationed. We actually have three items that Palin has talked about I'm not sure which order they came in (the three being (1) the living wills funding provision, (2)the IPAB and (3) being the generalized "gosh. More insured people, so it will have to be rationed" argument - which completely ignores the fact that doctors are now going to have so much free time now that they will soon have a lot less time fighting with insurance companies over what is or is not essential coverage). The point is, that not ONE of these three stories she as had told herself or has allowed to be told in her name, actually mentions the British body which the British journalist, for no apparent reason, dreamt that Palin was talking about. A journalist that gets her facts wrong is not a reliable journalist in the case of this quotation. it is being dishonest to the reader if we allow this citation in without further explanation.. We know three things that Palin has definitely said, and one which she almost certainly did not say. That fourth one (about NICE) is not in fact attributable to NICE and should be removed. Hauskalainen ( talk) 16:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 80 | ← | Archive 84 | Archive 85 | Archive 86 | Archive 87 | Archive 88 | → | Archive 90 |
Could this [1] be used to write a brief summary of the production of the documentary in question in the Lindsay Lohan article? Siawase ( talk) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out WP:NEWSBLOG Jayjg, I hadn't seen that section before. Itsmejudith: that's sort of what I'm thinking. To be sure, there is a lot of gossip floating around about Lohan, but when UNICEF and anti-trafficking groups are involved it's a bit beyond that. I wrote the whole expansion as I intended and did a WP:BRD edit inserting it into the article so you can see the precide wording I chose and how the material sourced to the lost in showbiz blog comes off in context. [2] Siawase ( talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
i just came across this link on wikipedia at an ITN page (assassination of the pakistani figure) and tagged it as dubious, but i also had further concerns about its status as reasonable/reliable. Its about page cites its goal as "dedication is a missionary gesture," where a cursory glance at article also shows its one-sided view to portray persecution and push a pov. It also says its mission to start the chinese language page was because "Nowadays, curiosity about Christianity, the Church and pope John Paul II is widespread among the Chinese populace" clarifying its worldview limits. "urgency becomes even more heightened because of two facts:" + further proofs of pov in its raison d'etre "We wish to place the beginning of our mission on the internet under the protection of St. Francis Xavier, whose feast day we celebrate today (Dec. 3) and who died desiring to go to China. He is the patron of foreign missions and is venerated in China and throughout Asia." + "This effectiveness -at a distance- adapts well to our brand of news service, while being far yet near to the heart of the Church in China and her people."
Book Title: Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet Copyright 2002 to Author Richard Reames Richard Reames's publishing name Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087.
Good grief. I think the question is missing a very important part, what statement is the book being cited to support? #4 from the list at the top of this page. If there are only 17 practitioners of the field in the world, then the difference between "expert opinion" and "practitioner opinion" is quite likely going to be academic. What is this mysterious statement that we require "Reames, acknowledged expert tree shaper, writes ..." but not "Reames, one of the only 17 tree shapers in the world, writes ..."? --
GRuban (
talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this cite http://pakistanthinktank.org/component/k2/item/749-imran-farooq-was-a-ruthless-operator is being added to support a single ethnic claim that the subject is a Muhajir. The user wants to add that Farooq was a Muhajir(immigrant) and has struggled to find a RS calling him one, his father was one but Imran was born in Karachi (son of an immigrant but Pakistani born). The cite is imo very opinionated and an attack cite full of extreme claims, checking on the usage of it it is only used in one other place, http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fpakistanthinktank.org%2F is it wiki reliable and is it undue to use such an attacking opinionated cite to cite a single word in an article? The article is written by Maheen Bashir Adamjee who it says is an editorial assistant with Newsline - I can't see any evidence of editorial control or suchlike but I found this author FAQ . Off2riorob ( talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got two problems with the use of a particular source being used at State terrorism. The citation is to a 2005 article on IPS News by Thalif Deen called "U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism", and the statement it is supposed to be backing is:
My first problem is that the source cited doesn't seem to support the statement referencing it. (It seems to only support the notion that there was disagreement at a particular UN meeting.) My second problem is that this is a news article that is disagreeing with 3 high-quality academic sources including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which all define the term "state terrorism" in pretty much the same way. I don't feel that this news story from IPS News should be given as much weight as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and books from Cambridge University Press and Rowman & Littlefield.
What are your opinions on this? Does the source support the statement in question, and if so should we say that there is "no international consensus" on the definition of the term, in spite of the fact that the academic sources cited all have the same definition?
Thanks -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
If one editors considers a source to be reliable/suitable for use, but another doesn't - how should they resolve the issue? I ask in relation to this here above. Alinor ( talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A few days ago, our illustrious (co)founder, Jimbo Wales appeared on the Daily Show. In that program Jon Stewart asked Jimbo how long the "information" that "John Stuart is Batman" would remain in the article. Jimbo correctly noted that it would not last more than a few seconds... and went on to ask Jon if there were any reliable sources that said he was Batman. Now... this exchange raises an interesting and amusing thought. Jimbo's comment would allow us to say "Jimbo Wales questions whether Jon Stewart may be Batman" (an example of twisting the source, but "technically" it is an accurate statement... keep it in mind for April 1st.) Blueboar ( talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Is Film.com a RS? It seems a number of WP pages link to synopses, cast/crew info, and reviews there, e.g. Keddie, Lisa (2009-08-03). "'G.I. Joe: The Rise Of The Cobra' UK Review". Film.com. Retrieved 2009-09-28. at GI_Joe:_The_Rise_of_Cobra#cite_note-104. While anybody can post comments there, reviews appear to be only by staff, but I couldn't determine what sort of editorial oversight there might be and am not sure of the site's reputation for film criticism. Шизомби (Sz) ( talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The ref in question: "The "Black Swan" Hedge Fund Returns Aren't So Hot", by Joe Weisenthal [7]. On that page is a Scribd link to an image of a financial statement from Empirica Capital LLC, run by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, detailing returns from a hedge fund. In that image is a table of "monthly performance".
This is an issue at Talk:Empirica Capital. Please see the discussion there for background.
Actual numbers for that fund are hard to come by, and this is the most comprehensive set of numbers available. A few numbers are available from more prominent sources, but none of the other sources provide enough data to build a table of yields. This is a hedge fund, so there are no SEC findings or public financial statements to provide definitive numbers. Taleb has released some numbers, but primarily for the "good years" when the fund went up. Using those creates an illusory image of the actual returns.
This is an issue because much of the reputation of Taleb rests on his performance as a fund manager. -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Concerning whether the Business Insider article is a reliable source, anyone has some idea what editorial oversight Business insider have? It would be good if more editors would participate in this discussion! Ulner ( talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Related to discussion at Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#John_V._Whitbeck_source. There are two sources by authors who User:Night w consider to be 'reputable experts' over the issue, but I find a particular part of the content of these sources to be suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia page these sources were added to.
Background - as documented on the same page at the end of 2010 a few countries recognized the State of Palestine (SoP) - Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador (in that order). With each subsequent announcement the Wikipedia page was updated accordingly (using sources other than those in question here). As can be seen at the page the question of "total number of states recognizing SoP" is not so easy to answer, because A] some sources are conflicting/inconclusive and B] there are sources stating "about/over 130" without giving the names of these ~130 states and we have sources with the names of only 108-118 (presented in the list at the article).
Now, the two sources in question here:
Even up to here the two sources appear to be WP:CIRCULAR, because they cite exactly the number of the first part of the Wikipedia table ("sure thing") - not counting any of the entries listed in Wikipedia as having "conflicting and inconclusive sources" (second part of the table). If we are to accept that the authors of the two sources in question here were using another information source different from Wikipedia - it's almost sure that they will come up with a different number than the "sure thing Wikipedia" figure (as do the sources that don't give a list of states - such as Boyle, Anat Kurz and others - they give 114, 117, 130, etc.). I wouldn't open this question if the two sources in question were giving a figure different by at least 1 from the "sure thing" Wikipedia figure.
But then, on 30 December 2010 Night w found multiple official sources showing that Dominican Republic has recognized SoP already in 2009. We added it to the article, but now it is obvious that the two sources in question are wrong (because Argentina is 106th and Bolivia is 107th - not as the two sources in question state). I think that they are wrong, just because they are WP:CIRCULAR and had used the versions of the Wikipedia article before we corrected the Dominican Republic mistake there.
So, the question is: Are these two sources WP:CIRCULAR? Alinor ( talk) 14:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
At WikiProject Film, I have started a discussion about whether or not the website movie-censorship.com is appropriate to use in any capacity on Wikipedia. I wanted to inform this noticeboard's regulars about the discussion, and they are welcome to weigh in. The discussion can be found here. Erik ( talk | contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
An editor used a reference from this organization as a cite for a recent change in the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article. I posted a question on the talk page, but thought it might also help to post here. I've seen this website used as a reference elsewhere, and I don't think it's a viable source as it appears to be a pure advocacy site. Thoughts about the site in general and the specific edit would be appreciated. Ravensfire ( talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we've got:
I've removed the information sourced to ctka.com, and tweaked GoN's recent addition sourced to the Post-Gazette. I'm not totally sure that it meets the RS criteria, but overall it does add useful information to the article. It does provide a counterpoint to the claim about the lack of protection that seems to have some weight in the conspiracy theory world. Ravensfire ( talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In the Jesus myth theory article, an encyclopedia entry written by G.A. Wells (an atheist) in the encyclopedia of unbelief is being used a source for the opinion of "mainstream church scholars". Using an atheist as a source for the opinion of church scholars seems highly problematic to me. Laker1988 ( talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Source:
Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of" Tom Flynn (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446.
Exact statement:
...although mainstream church scholars agree that material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value.
Talk page discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_theory#Robert_Price_is_not_a_reliable_source_for_the_opinion_of_.22mainstream_church_scholars.22 Laker1988 ( talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The opinion is question is that mainstream scholars think material about Jesus in the New Testament can't be taken at face value. This is a little like asking for another source for "Paris is the capital of France," when two have been provided, but because one of them isn't French he can't be trusted. Laker seems to believe that most mainstream biblical scholars believe Jesus was born to a virgin, that three wise men arrived at the stable, etc. But they don't. For a summary of what most scholars seem to believe now, see Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27 (visible on Amazon). SlimVirgin talk| contribs 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not make assumptions about what I believe the scholarly opinion to be. I am perfectly fine with keeping the sentence, as long as you don't have to resort to using atheists as a source for what Christian scholars believe. Also, since you have seen the Stanton source, it would be immensely helpful to provide an exact quote at the article talk page. Laker1988 ( talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@FormerIP: a source's beliefs, religious or other, can be relevant in neutrality discussions, but this discussion is not being framed as a neutrality issue - and I do not just mean that it is on the wrong noticeboard for that. For example no argument has been made that the citation is giving un-due weight to a particular theory that is not mainstream. The complaint being made seems to be that "on principle" non-Christians should not be used as sources for Christian subjects, and that if there are no sources saying otherwise a literal understanding of the Bible can be assumed to be mainstream. I think the responses so far show that there is a clear consensus that such a principle is not compatible with how Wikipedia works. If on the other hand there is a real neutrality concern it needs to be framed in a very different way (and not on this particular forum).-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: This discussion bears some similarities to one going on here. Involved parties might be interested in checking it out. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Most, if not all, sources have a POV. The question here is whether or not they are reliable, not whether they have a POV. We do not reject sources on church history simply because they are atheists. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Our Sunday Visitor Publishing is a Catholic press whose main output is "religious periodicals, religious books and religious-education materials." Are they a reliable source for the claim that the anti-Catholic book American Freedom and Catholic Power is popular in atheist circles? I argue firstly that a publisher with an explicitly religious affiliation and an explicitly religious agenda is unlikely to be a reliable source on what atheists like to do in their spare time, whatever their actual opinions are about atheists; and secondly that the press's open hostility to atheists makes it an even less reliable source. Mamalujo and Haymaker say that it is a reliable source, although I can't reproduce their arguments here as they haven't given any - hopefully they'll stop by. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(can't indent that much) My $.02: we need a consistent rule for this and the other case. I probably wouldn't find an atheist writer WP:RS for the proposition that church sources doubt Jesus' historicity, or a Catholic group reliable for even "some" atheists endorsing a particular attack on the Catholic church. If either quoted a reliable, neutral secondary source, I'd go directly to that, or leave the material out of the article entirely. The moment we start trying to justify the first instance while criticizing the second, I think we we are on very dubious ground. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing on WP:BLPN about whether this article meets BLP standards, but I have a collateral question. Much of the information about alleged criminal activities by the otherwise private individuals is sourced to a single investigative article in TheSmokingGun.com. Other newspaper sources seem to echo that article. I suspect there have been prior discussions as to the circumstances under which Smoking Gun is WP:RS, and would like to hear what other editors say about its use in this context. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
In a recent deletion nomnination the reasoning was given by someone who voted to delete that most of the sources were not accessable on the internet (books and magazines NOT online), so they doubted them and voted delete. What is Wikipedia policy on the bias against non-online sources? Mathewignash ( talk) 11:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the sources in question do not mention who published them or have a page number for the statemtn they are referencing. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the site http://www.oafe.net/ a reliable source for fictional character bios? Mathewignash ( talk) 14:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
At http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?p=388596#post388596 one of the writers for the 2007 Transformers film posts how he wrote the movie. This is the official message board for the film. Is this a reliable source for the writer? Mathewignash ( talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
So the movie writer says that the aliens arrived in a space ship, then the novel prequel for the says the aliens arrived in a space ship and names it, and you are not sure that it's the SAME space ship. I suppose I could cite prequel novel instead. Mathewignash ( talk) 00:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
We've had a discussion on Talk:1948 Palestinian exodus ( link) concerning whether this source could be used to source the notion that the expulsion of Palestinians would "widely" be considered to have involved ethnic cleansing. The document is an article by the Guardian's middle-east editor, Ian Black where he writes:
Abu Sitta is a leading expert on the nakbah and what is nowadays widely described as the "ethnic cleansing" it involved.
Editors who oppose saying in the article that the expulsions would be widely described as having involved ethnic cleansing point to this source ("Muslims in Australia"), which says that many place the expulsions in context of war, rather than ethnic cleansing.
The author of "Muslims in Australia" is Dr Halim Rane, who appears to be a sociologist by training. Further, sources in Ethnic cleansing frequently do place ethnic cleansing in the context of war, in apparent conflict with Rane's implication that they are mutually exclusive. Comments? I'm not an uninvolved editor and am of the opinion that the Guardian is a RS and using it here is straightforward, "Muslims in Australia" nonwithstanding. -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec):::::::I disagree. That phrase itself may not be widely used, but there are many sources that link ethnic cleansing to the expulsion, as one would expect given the nature of the conflict. "Widely" does not mean "mostly", and this is a contentious subject, so it should not be a surprise that that linkage is made in many sources. I also assume there are many sources that refute the linkage--indeed, Rane's work alludes to some of those. It is not an issue for this noticeboard, but my suggestion would be to take care to document what is said, and not try to document what it true. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 22:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read too deeply into this particular discussion, but as far as sources supporting "widely considered ethnic cleansing", here's a few:
I'm sure more sources can be found. Perhaps the wording of the statement should be changed, but it's fairly clear that whether or not this is a majority idea, it is certainly a widespread idea. I don't think the Guardian source should be used, though. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I reviewed BLP John Graham (racing driver) as a DYK nomination and said Racing-reference.info was an unreliable source. In 2008 in this discussion an editor said it was "sort of like the IMDb of racing."
The statement, "Graham, born on October 22, 1955 in Belfast, Northern Ireland, began his professional career in 1986, when he competed in one Firestone Indy Lights Series race," is attributed to this page.
-- Pnm ( talk) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider Behind the Voice Actors.com as reliable source A competent admin damned well be familiar with that policy if they are involved in RS or AfD issues at all! of voice actors? Content appears to be scrutinised and edited. Voice actors are quite hard to source as they rarely attract mainstream news coverage.-- Plad2 ( talk) 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A collection of shared college newspaper articles by student reporters. Useable for citing? Mathewignash ( talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
The quoted relation in the remark (wikipedia « carbonic acid ») gives the concentration in ions H+ at equilibrium. We have noticed that author results give the concentration in ions H+ from a very crude approximation. Such an approximation can be in fact avoided with a more precise calculation. This leads finally to very different values of carbonate concentrations at equilibrium when one compares with quoted relationship in this remark. In fact the relation giving the concentration in H+, in the remark , appears to be of the second order in H+ concentration but, due to the denominator, is only of first order term in H+ .So the secondary equation which must be solved yields an undetermined expression for concentration in H+ ( Hopital rule ) this leads finally to the following expression
Concentration in H+= - O.5 10 power -14 – y .10 power -14 +y. power two – 2.y power three. (With y= carbonate concentration)
Thus, when carbonate concentration, is ten to the minus four, the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six pH corresponding is six. The carbonate concentrations are found of several orders of magnitude greater than the values proposed above. This result may have a particular interest in the evaluation of carbonate concentration when we are concerned with the effect of acidification of see water due to CO2 dissolution.
It must also be noted that two ways are possible in expressing: One where the system is open (which means in contact with the atmosphere-this is surely the case presented in the article) and the other where the system is a closed liquid solution of electrolyte. The ion carbonate concentrations at equilibrium obtained from these two ways are found to be identical.
(Furthermore, very recently I have noticed that the table giving carbonate concentrations were quite different when compared with the previous quoted values by the same author; this is one of the reasons why the calculation leading to H+ concentration has been reconsidered).
The quoted relation in the remark (wikipedia « carbonic acid ») gives the concentration in ions H+ at equilibrium. We have noticed that author results give the concentration in ions H+ from a very crude approximation. Such an approximation can be in fact avoided with a more precise calculation. This leads finally to very different values of carbonate concentrations at equilibrium when one compares with quoted relationship in this remark. In fact the relation giving the concentration in H+, in the remark , appears to be of the second order in H+ concentration but, due to the denominator, is only of first order term in H+ .So the secondary equation which must be solved yields an undetermined expression for concentration in H+ ( Hopital rule ) this leads finally to the following expression
Concentration in H+= - O.5 10 power -14 – y .10 power -14 +y. power two – 2.y power three. (With y= carbonate concentration)
Thus, when carbonate concentration, is ten to the minus four, the corresponding pH is seven and when carbonate concentration is ten to the minus six pH corresponding is six. The carbonate concentrations are found of several orders of magnitude greater than the values proposed above. This result may have a particular interest in the evaluation of carbonate concentration when we are concerned with the effect of acidification of see water due to CO2 dissolution.
It must also be noted that two ways are possible in expressing: One where the system is open (which means in contact with the atmosphere-this is surely the case presented in the article) and the other where the system is a closed liquid solution of electrolyte. The ion carbonate concentrations at equilibrium obtained from these two ways are found to be identical.
(Furthermore, very recently I have noticed that the table giving carbonate concentrations were quite different when compared with the previous quoted values by the same author; this is one of the reasons why the calculation leading to H+ concentration has been reconsidered). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beranay ( talk • contribs)
This paper How to subsidize contributions to public goods - Does the frog jump out of the boiling water? [34] (pdf mirror [35]) by Theo Offerman is listed as a "seminar paper". Does this paper fall under WP:SPS? Looking at google scholar, the author appears to have a number of widely cited articles published in peer reviewed journals: [36] but all the articles appear to be in the field of economics. The paper is currently used to source biological material in the Boiling frog article regarding experiments from the 1800s, which the paper gives an overview of. Is this appropriate? Previous discussion at Talk:Boiling frog Any thoughts? Thank you. Siawase ( talk) 15:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
As per the title, are these articles considered secondary review sources?
These three articles (among others) show up on a pubmed search when you type in spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak and then click on "Review" on the right side. I am curious to know as I am preparing an article on this topic for a FA candidacy and would like to overcome the hurdle of a lack of 2econdary sources. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What use is being proposed for these sources? -- Ronz ( talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Question If PubMed is classifying the above listed articles as "review articles" then why/how can we classify them as primary articles? Basket of Puppies 08:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The crucial question has been asked several times and not answered: what material are these sources being used to support? To answer the general question: no, the short 'literature review' section that comprises part of the introduction to every research report is not a "literature review" in the usual sense. It's simply a standard convention in research writing that you start by citing the prior research that's been done on the specific question, establishing the line of inquiry that led to your research. By the logic used here, every single primary research report ever written could be called a "literature review" since every research report should include this brief citation of prior research. Citation of research leading to a particular question is not a review; a review is a systematic critical analysis of all the research that pertains to a particular question or topic area. In other words, a research report is primary; the obligatory introductory citation of prior research included in a research report does not change its primary status. Woonpton ( talk) 15:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It should go without saying that the far-left Alternet is not a reliable source, no? THF ( talk) 01:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Alternet by its own statement is an advocacy journal. [37] and as such all opinions should be treated as opinions from it, and it is proper to indicate its nature when such opinions are cited. AlterNet has developed a unique model of journalism to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media, especially “hate talk” media. is clear. Collect ( talk) 09:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I just spent some time with this. Cannot decide on its notability. There are some 50,000 google hits at least, and it is clearly a term in active use in self-defence circles, even though a neologism. Otoh, hardly any quotable third party references. Black Belt Magazine is the best one so far, and that was a column by the person selling this.
Since I spent some time on this, please don't just send it to AfD, try to talk to me first. I am not sure this should remain an article (which is why I am posting here), but I am confident that the term should be glossed somewhere on Wikipedia, so the title should be merged rather than deleted. -- dab (𒁳) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've discussed this site at least twice before but just cannot get anything out of anyone about it. Songfacts seems to rely almost entirely on user submitted content ( "The information on this site is gathered from a variety of sources, including contributions from users of the site. Songfacts, LLC does not guarantee the accuracy of the information posted, as it may contain technical and factual errors."), and yet it's still linked from over 1000 articles. Is there some reason we're still using such a patently unreliable site? Also, can someone help me prune the many links to it? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
How is an interview with a songwriter not a reliable source? There are comments and forums on Songfacts that might not be reliable sources, but many RS sites have blogs or other areas that should not be cited.
I beefed up the "Dar Williams on songwriting" section of the Dar Williams entry using the Songfacts interview with Dar Williams ( http://www.songfacts.com/blog/interviews/dar_williams/). The reference was deleted, but my information is still there. So is it OK that Songfacts does the work to interview Dar Williams so that Wikipedia can publish the content without citing the source? Yahoo Music just yesterday cited Songfacts in their discussion of a Britney Spears song and if she stole it: http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/ourcountry/90036/does-britneys-hold-it-against-me-rip-off-the-bellamy-brothers/
It's not fair to the websites generating the original, reliable content (interviews) to not cite them as sources. Ndugu ( talk) 20:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is [38] a "reliable source" for a statement that the Daily Mail is known as the "Daily Hate"? Is this of sufficient import to be listed in the article on the Daily Mail in any case? Is [39] sufficient for such a claim? Is [40] sufficient for such a claim? Is the claim that Julie Birchill called it the "Daily Hate" sufficiently supported as a claim? Are these particular sources "opinion pieces" which are not really utile for a statement of fact? Is use of "Daily Heil", "Daily Fail" etc. also thus admissible in the main article because they have also been found in "reliable sources"? Many questions - all I seek is that WP policies about what is opinion and what is fact be carefully maintained. Collect ( talk) 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion has been launched a bit prematurely, since there hasn't really been time for discussion on the talkpage of the range of sources that might be available. Still, since a positive outcome might obviate the need for that legwork, okay then.
It's also part of a wider issue really. The Daily Mail has a very clear an well-documented reputation for front pages specialising in what some would see as scare stories about things like immigration and what gives you cancer. Part of that reputation is the Daily Hate nickname, but it's not even really the main thing. I think it is well sourced and it certainly only needs a passing mention in itself.
This source is a biography of the Mail's editor and a fifth of it is dedicated to discussion of this reputation and the Daily Hate name: [41]. In my view, that on its own is enough to show significance.
In response to the request for examples of the name in use as opposed to being discussed: [42] [43] [44] [45] -- FormerIP ( talk) 14:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
A web page by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S (apparently the author uses both names) titled Jesus as the Sun throughout History appears on the website of Stellar House Publishing. According to the "About" tab in that website, it was founded by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S. This article is being put forward at the Revised Julian calendar article as a source to support statements about the attitude of the Orthodox Church concerning the date on which Christmas should be celebrated. I would like to know if Stellar House Publishing is a reliable publisher, and whether this particular article having been written by the founder of the publisher raises a concern about a self-published source. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is http://www.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=101881 a reliable source for the claim that an actress has ADHD? Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
In the article about the Japanese art historian Ichimatsu Tanaka, Tanakasthename disputes one sentence here:
For purposes of comparison and contrast at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Selected works, I suggested we consider a similar sentence in the "Selected works" section of the article about Nobel laureate Kenzaburo Ōe:
Tanakasthename's rejection was unambiguous here, arguing "I think the Oe example actually supports my original position that the inclusion of this data is terribly misleading, if not downright false."
We disagree because I construe WorldCat identities as a reliable source — not "terribly misleading" and not "downright false".
IMO, this kind of overview sentence provides a necessary and useful context for a dynamic list of selected works. I have added similar sentences in many articles, e.g., compare Japanese mathematics#Select mathematicians.
IMO, we don't know how to move beyond talking past each other. I hope this thread can become a constructive step in a process which helps mitigate an awkward impasse. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is. Tanakasthename has not yet explained. This has nothing to do with "unanalyzed search results".
The WorldCat Identities project summarizes a writer's output in terms of a number of "works" in a number of "publications" in a number of "languages" and in a number of "library holdings". IMO, this reasonably provides a introductory foundation for the dynamic list which follows. This sentence becomes an introduction and an invitation to investigate further. Can you see that this is a quite different matter? -- Tenmei ( talk) 02:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Tanakasthename seems to explain that parsing issues about "reliable sources" is a non-issue. If so, perhaps another venue is preferred? Please consider Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Technically "verifiable" and verifiably misconstrued. -- Tenmei ( talk) 03:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The words of Tanakasthename in this sub-section heading are a credible complaint. Summarizing the issues and history of the complaint:
" Tanakasthename is claiming that it fails a standard which is not a Wikipedia standard" and " Tanakasthename has not even raised a a WP-relevant challenge, much less supported such a challenge." (bold and italics added for emphasis)
Tanakasthename -- Thank you for investing both time and care. Our work together is an example of successful collaborative editing. This re-drafted sentence incorporates your fine-tuning perspective:
I will take it on myself to make changes in other articles with a similar sentence. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Could an hour long video interview in French be considered RS for a historical figure?
Allegations are made that Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza was a rapist here - in "(French video)" . I can understand a little French and it seems that the video about the Congo does mention Brazza, but I have not had the patience to sit through an hour long video to hear and attempt to translate what he says, nor do I think it reasonable. But this does not seem to be an encyclopaedic approach. None of the other language versions of WP carries this allegation, although a discussion in the French version suggested that it might have been originally mentioned in the French satirical magazine le canard enchaine (but no-one has given a reference or link.) I have asked for better substantiation in the article's talk page, but without response from the editor who has placed these allegations. Brazza was a major historical figure and this allegation does not appear in any of the major references to African colonialism that I have seen - I feel that something more substantial is needed in order to substantiate such a revisionist claim. Am I right to remove such references? Ephebi ( talk) 12:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Obenga, the Teke royal court has dissimulated a significant episode in the 1880 encounter between Brazza and Iloo: the explorer’s rape of a royal Teke princess, a virgin in charge of keeping the kingdom sacred fire. ‘If you want to celebrate somebody who has raped a Congolese woman, be my guest! . . . De Gaulle knew very well that Brazza had raped a woman, this is a documented fact, an established, a banal fact that people hide. . . . This is a fact established by oral tradition, a fact that tells about the destruction of the Bateke kingdom, the destruction of the King.’
Obenga, ‘De Brazza, faux “humaniste”’. See also the video of the interview, <www.video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=7116215169848427224>.
Are videos of Eastern Orthodox baptisms, published on Youtube, reliable as sources that show that those baptisms do not always involve total submersion of the child or adult being baptized? Are they less reliable than books or articles that describe such baptisms? See the citations and a discussion on them. Esoglou ( talk) 08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider CreativeSyria.com as reliable source. The source is being used in number of articles now. AgadaUrbanit ( talk) 14:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Creative Syria is not the source, its only published there, the source is Joshua Landis who is a professor at the University of Oklahoma
[47]
"Joshua Landis Associate Professor, IAS Director of the Center of Middle East Studies
Joshua Landis is co-director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and Associate Professor of Middle East studies at the University of Oklahoma’s School of international and Area Studies. He writes www.SyriaComment.com, a daily newsletter on Syrian politics that is widely consulted by officials in Washington, Europe, and Syria, and read by over 3,000 people daily.
He is a frequent analyst on TV and radio, having recently appeared on the PBS News Hour, the Charlie Rose Show, al-Jazeera, NPR, and the BBC. Last year, he was quoted in over 100 news stories, including in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, and Times Magazine. His book, Democracy in Syria, will appear in the coming year, and he is author of numerous articles.
He was educated at Princeton (PhD), Harvard (MA), and Swarthmore (BA). He has lived over 14 years in the Middle East; having been brought up in Beirut, he returned to the region in the 1980s to teach in Beirut and study at universities in Damascus, Cairo, and Istanbul. Most recently, he spent 2005 in Syria as a Senior Fulbright Research Fellow and lived several months in Damascus in 2007.
He teaches: Political Islam, International Relations in the Middle East, Islam, The Modern Middle East, Culture and Society in the Middle East, the US in the Middle East and other courses." -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Currently, http://blonnet.com, http://www.idlebrain.com/index1.html and South Scope Magazine ( http://southscope.in) are being quoted as definitive sources of box office figures for Telugu films in order to rank the list by gross income. Are any of these sources reliable in an encyclopaedic sense to provide definitive statements of box-office income? Thanks, Fæ ( talk) 18:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you answer the assertion that every RS you provide from a variety of unrelated sources (be it newspaper, magazines, scholarly journals, published books, Royal BC Museum, etc) is unreliable because (according to another editor) they " ultimately ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source, namely the press kits of the Okanagan Wine Region, Nk'Mip Cellars, and the Osoyoos Tourism Board". Of course, this other editor is not providing any links or evidence of this collusion between sources like the The New York Times, Oxford Companion to Wine, Houston Chronicle, Toronto Sun, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, etc but he is adamant that these sources are not reliable because....well just because. I suppose the question really is....what is the burden of proof to establish that seemingly reliably sources aren't reliable? Agne Cheese/ Wine 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
A marketing meme is a marketing meme, as Franamax has pointed out; the pervasiveness of a false bit of geography as a result of marketing campaigns (including inviting newspaper travel and wine editors to come and have some wine and dinner, and giving them press copy so they don't actually have to write articles themselves) do NOT constitute "reliable sources". Your word-picking and ongoing gamesmanshhip continues to avoid the core issue; by ALL authoritative sources, such as the EPA, Britannica, etc, the Sonoran Desert does NOT extend into Canada. It's THAT simple, and no amount of inaccurate references you provide can change that FACT, nor any nit-picking of Franamax's very wise and experienced knowledge of "what is and isn't a reliable source". I did a thorough search of BC Government websites, and the only three times the phrase "Sonoran Desert" appeared in relation to BC were all exactly the same phrasing, "the northern tip of the Sonoran Desert, which extends from northern Mexico into Canada" (exactly); one was a tourism ministry blurb about the area, another was the local MLA saying it in the house, in relation to the wine industry, another was a legal case in which this local slogan/byline was cited as part of the description of the property under dispute. The only other mention of "Sonoran Desert" was in a Ministry of Environment master plan for Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park, near Kelowna (not Osoyoos and not in teh South Okanagan), which said that the some of the same plants and animals found in the Sonoran Desert are also found on Okanagan Mountain; it did NOT say that the Okanagan was "part of the Sonoran Desert", not did it say that desert "extends from northern Mexico to Canada".
That the phrase, as stated just above, was also used verbatim in the article, since removed as a falsehood (but twice or three times re-inserted by you), constitutes in fact a form of "copyvio", except that widely-disseminated marketing information is not copyrighted. Your refusal to admit that the authoritative sources do NOT say what you claim is real and true, and taht you have in fact said that because they don't say it's NOT, explicitly, means that it is true....well, that's just not in the wiki-ballpark, not as a reliable source, not as a verifiable source, and not as a FACT. It is a claim, a widely-circulated one, but not factual in the slightest, and clearly related to a standard pharse (often verbatim, as noted, or in only slightly-adjusted wording) - a standard phrase rooted in publciations coming out of Osoyoos. If Franamax used the terms "spell" and "infiltrated", he was meaning only figuratively; you, on the other hand, have accused me of having a "conspiracy theory", as if it were a conspiracy; no, it has just been a blind, unwitting, but totally inaccurate repetition of material in local brochures and wine/resort-marketing promotions; it is not a fact, never will be, and never was. Skookum1 ( talk) 07:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Boy, Agne, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel to engage in personal attacks aren't you? I worked there two days (they wanted me to cut my ponytail off and I wouldn't), and COI would only apply if I still worked there; that was back in early summer of 2007. What's your COI? Because you're certainly determined to support the wine industry's literature on this, rather than listen to logic or authoritative sources? At least I openly disclose mine....My "editorial discretion" is to do with truth and reality, and actual geography, not made-up bad juxtapositions of similar plants and animals constituting proof this is a "desert", which very pointedly it's not....you've lost on the issue, so now personal attacks of any kind are what's on your menu. What else have you got in the bottom of the barrel? Skookum1 ( talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Agne, bringing the character of the other editor into things usually means that you are running out of valid arguments. I looked at 8 or so of your 30+ references and they are almost all travel articles, buying-a-second-home articles, wine articles. Yes, these all do rely on press-release type information. I don't have my CG access any more, but based on what I know of the magazine, that looks like something from either the "CG Travel" supplement or the "Explorations" segment. Email me the fulltext, I'll be glad to ask Rick Boychuk (EinC) for the supporting sources. The J. of Envir. Educ. source is notes on the cover art of the journal, the cover! You can't throw a bunch of spaghetti against the wall and expect others to pick each piece off. The only remotely acceptable source I looked at was from RBC Museum, which calls it the Great Basin. Even the Osoyoos Desert Society goes to great lengths to specify it is not really a desert, only that many of the plants are similar. I'm not going through the rest of your list, please apply some critical thinking of your own and narrow it down to academic references which actually discuss geography and climate. You can send me fulltexts of the paywalled ones to evaluate. If you want to change your desired text to "often thought of as, but not really part of, the Sonoran Desert", then you have got a great set of sources there. Franamax ( talk) 00:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
We're verging on WP:TL;DR territory here, so I'll try to keep this short.(Sick children, ponytails, and Indian tribes? Please?) We have a number of sources usually considered reliable saying the Sonoran Desert extends into Canada. The response to that is that in this case "they're not reliable ... because they're not true", and proposes other reliable sources that give a different definition. Well, we very rarely make judgments like that here. When reliable sources disagree, we very rarely pick one to side with, we almost always write: "(some sources) say X[ref][ref][ref]; though (other sources) say Y[ref][ref][ref]", so the reader can see both sides. I strongly recommend that here, rather than making a judgment that we must know better than the New York Times travel writers. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I just had a protracted and detailed discussion with the natural history curator/editor of the Royal British Columbia Museum, who is going to forward the articles in question (there are three and three only) to their authors for comment and clarification; his opinion is the plant-biologists may say one thing, geographers another, but he also pointed out that what seems most likely meant is that there are pockets of Sonoran-type conditions throughout the Intermontane West. He expects the authors to reply at length, i.e. in great detail, and concedes it may be necessary to amend the wordings so as to be more specific about what is meant and avoid confusion/extrapolation. NB of the three links on the Living Landscapes site:
TWO of them talk about the Cranbrook District (meaning its Forest District, by the wording) as being at the "the northern edge of the Great Basin (also called the Sonoran or high desert, a sagebrush-dominated biome that runs from British Columbia to Baja California". NONE of the three links mention Osoyoos, OR the Okanagan at all. The term "Columbia Basin", which is the context of all three, in its British Columbia usage, does not include the Okanagan (even though in abstract geographic watershed terms, the Okanagan and Similkameen are part of the Columbia's basin, as is the Kettle River basin of the Boundary Country, which also is not in the BC meaning of "Columbia Basin", which is entirely between the Monashees and the Rockies only. I don't know how long it will be before I get replies from the authors, but will post them on the wine region talkpage (rather than here, as protracted content discussions are not the purpose of this talkpage. I will similarly take things up with the Canadian Geographic and other academic-oriented sites as time and phone bills permit....NB a search at the Canadian Encyclopedia, a not-always-authoritative source in my experience, particularly for historical content, does not make mention of the Sonoran Desert, nor does Environment Canada...... Skookum1 ( talk) 23:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I originally thought this issue was a NPOV issue, regarding the Shakespeare Authorship Question's peer-reviewed article by Tom Reedy, but have been advised that the RS Notice Board is more appropriate. I am a new editor and all these Notice Boards seem to apply. I had been met with obfuscation when I called for more neutral language. The ultimate root of the issue may be found in the article's selective sourcing, which then makes neutrality impossible.
In the lead paragraph of the article Shakespeare authorship question, it states "…all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians consider it a fringe belief with no hard evidence, and for the most part disregard it except to rebut or disparage the claims.[3]" As I understand it, this is a string of “exceptional claims”, requiring “exceptional” sourcing. My question concerns the sources supplied, and whether they are comprehensive enough to support the claims in question.
I would also like to ask whether WP:RS/AC is being followed, particularly "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."
The references cited in ref #3 are located here: [54]. To my eye, they seemed to me anecdotal, personal, rather than factual, and as personal statements could not be used to document the claim that "all but a few scholars" dismiss contrary scholarship as lacking hard evidence. For example, here are statements that are presented to justify the claim that Oxfordian or anti-Stratfordian theories are without foundation:
As the presented sources seem to be speaking from a personal point of view respectively, the authoritative sounding 'All but a few' does not seem to be supported, and it amounts to a derogation which has no place in a neutral statement reliably sourced. And the one source containing the pejorative label of “fringe belief” does not discuss whether “all” scholars or any particular group of scholars have applied such a label, or whether this is just the individual opinion of the source, as referred to at WP:RS/AC.
Also there is the practical question, how is “a few” defined? Credentialed academics who have doubted the Stradfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship have been ostracized to the point that only one Ph.D. thesis has been successfully entered in the United States university system. There is no way of knowing what professional scholars might say if there weren't an unspoken but effective ban on expression in this subject area. This throws into doubt how few or how many literary professionals feel on the matter. The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt indicates there are far more than a numerical few.
Thus, how would such a strong series of claims, attempting to prove “all but a few Shakespeare scholars and literary historians” be justified as citable, short of a scientific poll or survey? The only survey we do know about does not support the language.[See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/education/edlife/22shakespeare-survey.html]
Consequently I want to suggest alternate wording, such as:
The remaining 18% of approximately 20,000 professors, (that number according to D. Allen Carroll) 3,600, would not be a "few".
or possibly
The remainder, 39%, ~8,000, would not constitute a "few".
Then, in order to evaluate their opinions fairly, it would be a matter of finding out if they had read that contrary body of scholarship in order to make a scholarly judgment, versus those who had not read any.
I’m wondering if some such wording as I have suggested above would be better supported by the sources cited here, which are far more factual, and therefore more reliable, than the quotations presented by the article, and whether in turn the article would be rendered more neutral as a result of the greater specificity added?
I would appreciate input from uninvolved editors, as the recent talk page conversations by the article author and friends have devolved into constant sniping at criticisms and suggestions of any kind whatsoever. [ [55]].
My previous contributions (except for an accepted minor expression or two) [ [56]] have been ignored with prejudice. [ [57]].
A lot of premature archiving is also going on before any conclusions are reached or agreements made. To be exact, there have been no departures from the original article's text. Is it the Wikipedia practice to archive after five days instead of the usual thirty before removing the current discussion from sight, when it is clearly a controversial subject? This contributes to the feeling of an ambition by the article author to establish what I would consider as factually dubious dogma as the official language on the Wikipedia site. In short, the situation a bit of a mess. That’s why we need help from uninvolved editors here. Thank you and with best wishes. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Zweigenbaum Thank you for the information. No, the 20,000 figure is not critical to my position or request for comments, or to the overall purpose of gaining greater reliabiity of sources and neutrality of tone in the Shakespeare Authorship Question. I used that number because D. Allen Carroll is a Stratfordian professor who opined at a public symposium on the topic in 2003, "In the interest of full disclosure, I am an academic, a member of what is called the 'Shakespeare Establishment', one of perhaps 20,000 in our land, professors mostly, who make their living, more or less by teaching, reading, and writing about Shakespeare--and some say, who participate in a dark conspiracy to suppress the truth about Shakespeare." (Tennessee Law Review,v. 71:2, page 278) So I took a figure offered by one respected guild member of the Stradfordian constituency by which to show an example of logical inconsistency in the conclusions expressed in the proposed article, in its first paragraph, as written by another member of that constituency. I assumed this should pass muster or at least avoid pretextual outrage among Stratfordians since he is one of their own and thus trustworthy to some extent; I do not know if his number corresponds to fact. If Carroll's calculation is exaggerated, I could make the same point with a lower or higher one, as the percentage is significant in either case, i.e., not a few, although I feel when seeking factuality here as elsewhere the utilization of what most or a few think should never be the prime determinant towards the goal. Such a utilization usually amounts to gratuitous conforming pressure upon the reader to be among the many as against "the few". It forces an effect rather than states a point and betrays an emotional drive behind the attempt. Zweigenbaum ( talk) 09:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The question of the reliability of these sources has been raised at at good article candidate. They all look borderline to me, but I admit this isn't necessarily something I know a great amount about. Thoughts? J Milburn ( talk) 22:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a problem. The Death Panel article is under a tight article probation and there are several editors there who, it seems to me, are using the probation to form a cabal to prevent changes which would restore balance to the article. Now an issue has arisen over a citation which to me is clearly not a RS even though it had at one time (apparently) been published.
I would not normally raise this here because to me, it seems so clearly an untrustworthy citation, but due to my having already received a ticking off by my fellow editors and others (including an Admin, and the fact that I have reverted this addition two or three times now (but not three times in the last 24) I am, possibly, in breach of the tight regulations at that article. I have risked doing this because I am fairly sure that this source is not reliable.
Here is the issue. Sarah Palin is on record for saying that when she was talking about Death Panels, she was referring to rationing which she thought would emerge from the Affordable Care Act, and in particular a body set up to control Medicare costs that was in that bill.
The Times newspaper it seems may have published a piece by a journalist claiming that Palin was talking about a British body known as NICE. Google it seems has the cache of the page, but as far as I can tell the link is not working. My guess is because the claim in that story is nonsense. Palin has not actually said that NICE was the target and in fact she has said something quite different. At least two editors, on an IP and the other a reguk editor has reverted my deletion of the claim that Palin was talking about NICE, the only evidence for which is the claim of the Times journalist. This is "The Times" and not "The New York Times"..
Here is the latest revert, this time by the IP editor who claims that the link is working.... But whether it is working or not, I fail to see how a journalist in London can claim to know what was in Palin's mind because it was several days before she clarified what she was talking about, failed initially to quell speculation that she was talking about provisions in the law for paid consultations in Medicare for living wills, and then settled on the IPAB (the new Medicare costs reduction board). It was NOT NICE despite what this journalist may (or may not) have written.
But in case I have missed a trick perhaps someone would be kind enough to cast a look and check it over.
Thanks Hauskalainen ( talk) 00:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a new inconsistency here too. Palin has NOT said the term death panel was a reference to NICE in but seemingly it IS allowed in WP because the editor using that reference rightly attributed the improbable reference. So the article is allowed to connect death panel with NICE even though it does not meet the definition we had of a death panel. Fast forward now to Palin's use of the is article is allowed because a source claimed . A few days ago Palin's recent use of the term blood libel to describe inflamed and allegedly inaccurate accusations made against her following the recent shootings. Suddenly the Palin crowd have managed to get OUT of the blood libel article Palin's use of that word which DID create huge news comments and which the fact that Palin had posted on her Facebook page a video of her using it. Palin clearly did use that term to accuse her opponents of attributing the shootin in Arizona to her. The Palinistas seem to have a lot of control here at Wikipedia. Hauskalainen ( talk) 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Not at all. What Nuujinn is saying would be valid if the point of the text was to show that the journalist had said this thing. For example if Palin had complained about the article to the Press Complaints Commission. But it is not. Death Panel is a Palin term but she never connected it to NICE. If she had, we would have other sources for that. What we have here is wrongful use of a UNreliable source to get a claim into Wikipedia that Palin HAD made this connection. THAT IS WHAT IS WRONG. It clearly IS and unreliable source for connecting PALIN to NICE via DEATH PANEL. I urge Nuujinn to think again and would welcome comments from other RS reviewers too. Hauskalainen ( talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Er... well as I recall it she said also that she was using hyperbole and that because she had heard that now an extra 30 or 40 million were going to be insured, the inevitable result was that health care would have to be rationed. We actually have three items that Palin has talked about I'm not sure which order they came in (the three being (1) the living wills funding provision, (2)the IPAB and (3) being the generalized "gosh. More insured people, so it will have to be rationed" argument - which completely ignores the fact that doctors are now going to have so much free time now that they will soon have a lot less time fighting with insurance companies over what is or is not essential coverage). The point is, that not ONE of these three stories she as had told herself or has allowed to be told in her name, actually mentions the British body which the British journalist, for no apparent reason, dreamt that Palin was talking about. A journalist that gets her facts wrong is not a reliable journalist in the case of this quotation. it is being dishonest to the reader if we allow this citation in without further explanation.. We know three things that Palin has definitely said, and one which she almost certainly did not say. That fourth one (about NICE) is not in fact attributable to NICE and should be removed. Hauskalainen ( talk) 16:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)