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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I have the following questions about the use of Marquis "Who's Who", and in particular, "Who's Who in America" (in case there is reason to distinguish between the different Who's Who publications):
These questions arised due to a discussion on a user's Talk page. While the noble goal of this publication is to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry, this article here claims the contrary. FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It apparently has a very low bar to entry, so is not suitable to establish notability. Generally entrants submit their own biogs, so it should essentially be used much like a self-published source, i.e. it's OK for non-contentious basic facts about the subject. Tyrenius ( talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My own thinking about the matter was this: A single negative article (which is not even a piece of reliable information itself) about Who's Who cannot prove that Who's Who failed its stated mission to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry. It would be like claiming that the 9/11 Commission report failed its mission to provide the results of a straight investigation, based on a single debunking article. If the number of those articles increases, the situation somehow changes, but I think WP editors shouldn't have the authority to decide which side is right, since they have to maintain the neutral point of view. I found Who's Who volumes up to the present in a university library, which indicates to me that Who's Who is still a respected source of good reputation despite the debunking article. However, if there is serious concern, that readers might be misguided by the reference, it might be worth to cite the negative article about Who's Who as well, so that readers can make up their own mind without being too much impressed by the Who's Who citation. It all boils down to the fact that EVERY source can be discredited somehow. Corruption and/or false accusations can be found everywhere. FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Now what about notability? I know it's difficult, but just imagine a case, in which there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that you're unable to find a significant amount of other(reliable) sources. Maybe this is not a well-chosen example now, but let's imagine that you find a historic Who's Who entry from 1930 about a Jewish political activist, but all the books and newspapers citing him have been burned by the Nazis (except Who's Who of course). The only other information you find about him are his own books, preserved by his family and friends. Would this man be notable enough to get a (short) WP article? I would say yes, but where do you draw the line? Once again, I would say, it's not up to WP editors to decide. If there is some kind of reasonable explanation, why somebody has not been mentioned frequently by easily accessible sources despite his/her notability, lack of notability would be a weak argument, i.e. for deleting an article. Does my logic make any sense? FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PublishAmerica is basically a disguised vanity press with little to no editorial control. Yet, books published by them have been used as sources or "further reading" entries; sometimes pretty extensively (For example, Voynich manuscript, a Featured Article, uses a book from PublishAmerica as a source for some claims). Since PublishAmerica has no editorial control, shouldn't all PublishAmerica publications be considered, by default, dubious as far as WP:RS is considered, in topics unrelated to PublishAmerica? As I see it, this is definitely the case. And secondly, how do we tackle this mess, anyway?
(The site was again brought to my attention a few days back, apparently someone at PublishAmerica message board wanted to use Wikipedia as a marketing device. That, however, is another matter. I was just surprised to find that PublishAmerica books are actually used as a source in many articles!) -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On the article on the nation of Colombia, there is an "internet references" section.
See: Colombia#Internet
Every citation is on a website and none of the books in the "further reading" section are used as sources.
Is this standard procedure? If so, is there some reason internet sources should actually be preferred over non-internet sources? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this an unreliable source? It appears to be a fansite, yet it has a wealth of information about its subject that could easily be used to improve the article. I don't want to make the same mistakes as I did with Family (band), as I may try to get Traffic (band) to GA status.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This issue is being moved to the Sri Lanka Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation The forum which deals with this issue and other issues related to Sri Lanka in particular the Sri Lankan Civil War. There is 1 edit restriction and how sources are to be taken particurly in the Sri Lankan context is better.The edit war has come down after the project was started.Please put your comments there. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Is an e-mail a reliable source? Discussion. I say nope, but just in case...
Odd that there's apparently no mention on WP:RS, but I saw it as common sense. Unless people are willing to hand out their e-mail addresses and passwords to all editors, there's no real way to verify. It would be a WP:SPS and any expert who writes an e-mail should be expert enough to point to reliable sources rather than opinion. WLU ( talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone tried to insert an image from sajed.ir in this article: Iran_Air_Flight_655
See: Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Sajed.ir_as_a_reliable_source.3F
Is the photo of a girl from a reliable source? I doubt it, but who knows. WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This source has been used in the Home and Away article. I've tried to work out if it's reliable or not but im not sure. I guess it's a third party source but theres 2 questions im not sure about.. would you deem it to be reliable and because it's a online community is it classed as self published??
The specific article also concerns me . http://www.throng.com.au/home-and-away/mark-furze-ric-dalby-leaving-home-and-away As it contains little information about the subject and no claims on how this information came to light.
What do you think? thanks Printer222 ( talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor deleted material from Prem Rawat referenced from the Los Angeles Times saying it was "extremely poorly sourced". [1] The Times article in question is a report on an announcement by the subject's organization, and apparently just quotes their information. Are mainstream, award-winning newspapers like the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times reliable source for the purposes of a biography of a living person? I asked user:Jossi, but he hasn't been able to give an answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Both sources are without fail reliable sources, the cult book as well as the LA Times. List that one says this, one says that, to indicate the disconnect, and readers can click on the links in the refs to make their own decision unless further sourcing comes up. As said above, the LA Times is functionally going to be almost always a reliable source, and pinning it on context isn't valid, nor to question if the content is encyclopediac. It's about Rawat, it's in a de facto reliable source, and the information is not something which would or could be considered as contentious under any established neutral consensus here. I'd go so far as to say anyone challenging a fine source like the LA or NY Times should at all times have the burden on them to demonstrate why it should not be used, and to gain acceptance for that view. Lawrence § t/ e 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For a different take on this, German Wikipedia (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Q) has for some time now explicitly favoured academic sources over journalistic sources; the use of the latter is, according to current policy, only permissible where no scholarly sources are available. In addition, the journalistic source in question must be held to have been solidly researched. The idea has merit, since an encyclopedia should be compiled according to scientific criteria. We are not trying to produce a press review. In the field of New Religious Movements especially, a number of academics have seen it necessary to point out that many newspaper accounts, even those in quality newspapers, have been factually incorrect, polemical, or biased. Jayen 466 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think that, on a policy level which is interesting, that a good newspaper article -- especially one like this that is focused on the subject -- will in many cases have more detail and sometimes accuracy than a passing mention in an encyclopedia (especially), which necessarily has to drastically summarize. Again, context and the specifics are very important. I see some people (not you) trying to argue that a scholarly article or even an encyclopedia automatically trumps journalism, and that's the part I am uncomfortable with. Msalt ( talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a dispute going on at the Flyleaf on the bands genre. These links that I have list them as Christian rock:
But some editors refuse to acknowledge them saying they are all not valid. Please help settle this! Hoponpop69 ( talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to utilise the following links, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], as sources for the various sections in Jidaigeki. Do any or all pass Wikipedia:Reliability? And I found this site. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article describes an organisation in language which I don't consider conforms to NPOV. Edits by another user, perhaps misconceived but which at least aim to introduce neutral language, are regularly reverted as "vandalism" by an editor who defends the description of the organisation as a "racist hate group". He asserts that he is accurately reproducing what the sources [12] [13] [14] say, and that WP considers the source websites as reliable (although I can find no mention of them in any WP policy or guideline document). Yet the sites belong to interest groups with agendas which do not predispose them to neutral descriptions of the organisation. They produce unsourced and sometimes vague claims out of thin air without references to back them up, and I have reliable academic sources which contradict the websites on some specific points.
I don't consider that an encyclopaedic article can be written in this way or style. But even if I write up my own sources in neutral language, this will not address the bias already in the article, deriving from claims on the websites which are difficult to confirm or deny. The other editor obviously doesn't intend to address them, either. Is he correct that Wikipedia considers the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Centre to be reliable? And if so, is this a proper way to use them? Or, as I think, do non-neutral descriptions in even "reliable" sources have to be reported in neutral language? Gnostrat ( talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks : ) I'll take all that into consideration. Gnostrat ( talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the middle power article, is a single source citing info from the mid to late 90s a good enough to include a country on the list of "middle powers"? I opted to delete Russia from the list, since Russia has gone through some massive changes over the past 20 years, hitting an absolute low point at around the time this article was published. The info on that source citing Russia as a middle power is dated as 1997. It doesn't at all reflect current day reality, and I could find no recent articles that consider Russia a middle power today. Here's the source [15] 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently, on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article (possibly to be renamed " Controversies over the September 11, 2001 attacks" or something) there is a discussion over Thomas Eager's statements made in The Utah News (and a couple other papers in the USA). In the article, he explains the methodology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "the 'reverse scientific method'" and a number of other statements which are cited in the article.
However, a number of editors have moved to exclude this material on the basis that:
None of these statements have been sourced to anything beyond primary sources, so far. With that said, is it acceptable to use Eager's statements in the article? -- Haemo ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the CSM reported today [16] that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes [17] that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Wikipedia. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait, the Mailing list gets to challenge WP:SPS without on-wiki discussion and consensus? And we listen to that challenge and not WP:SPS? -- Thin boy 00 @009, i.e. 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not saing any specific names yet, because I suppose it could influence the response, so just keep on this NEUTRAL facts here please: There is an 8 track, 51:05 minutes long record by a band. It was their first record, only 1000 copies were made and so it is rare now. I made a research in the internet and I found out that the large majority of sources and the RELIABLE SOURCES (professional websites) cite it as their first, debut ALBUM and include it in the discography of the band. But the BAND MEMBERS ignore or disown this record in some ways or call it a DEMO and generally do not see it as their first album on their homepage, and in their interviews and so it is also on their today's label's homepage. Also the third album after the first release (the disputed one) has number 3 in its name what indicates that the band does not see it as their first album. Are the reliable proffesional cources OR the band members' stetements and attitude the reliable and verifiable sources for Wikipedia? Which Wikipedia's rules could be cited as a reason?--Lykantrop ( Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We've got a discussion going on at Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier. There's an entire section that cites only this page for its sourcing. Aside from this section ( here) having a very unencyclopedic tone, I'm questioning the reliability of the source. The page is rather inflammatory and comes off as a fringe essay - it blames "The Corporate Media's agenda" and how "For the media it is soley about profit." The group that runs the page, the National Terriers Club LLC, seems dubious. It only yields 26 google hits ( 113 without the LLC) and no news articles for either. What do you guys think? Should this article be using this source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The Management and Ownership of registries talk to many people. Infact, anyone can call or e-mail just about any registry and ask to speak to the owner/s of them. Its called customer service. Working terriers ( talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
When is livejournal acceptable as a source of material? In the case of Russian presidential election, 2008, someone posted two pictures of "alleged fraud" [18] [19] which are sourced to a livejournal in Russian. I found this to be highly suspicious, considering there were no official reports in the media or by any of the election monitoring groups about election fraud. This sort of thing would have been widely reported after all the pre-election speculation by western media. I removed the pictures on the grounds that they're not reliably sourced and don't actually add anything useful to the article (and in fact contradict all of the sourced, reliable information in the election fairness section), but I have a feeling this is an edit war waiting to happen. Sbw01f ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
seems self-evident to me that blogcritic.org constitutes an agglomeration of blogs, thus, as blogs, they fail as reliable sources. an editor is referencing a blog on blogcritic as a RS, claiming that blogcritic is 'an online magazine' (which is how they bill themselves, conveniently). i don't see any evidence that blogcritic has any reputation for fact checking and reliability. am i right or wrong that this is not a reliable source? from the blogcritic 'about' page: "Bloggers publish their stories at Blogcritics.org because of the immense value and benefits that are offered." Anastrophe ( talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
.
A edit war on the OOXML Standardization page has been going on over the use of a open letter on a Microsoft website. The letter describes Microsofts opinions about IBM's actions. IMHO the page is a self published source that has claims about a 3rd party. As such I do not believe the page is usable as a reference to prove "IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process". Here is a link to a previous version since the section gets deleted and added quite a bit. Here is a link to the Microsoft page that is used as a reference. Kilz ( talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? Thank you.
Wanderer57 ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious whether people think this USA Today article is a reliable source regarding a controversial article in a medical journal. (This issue arose at the Wikipedia article titled " fetus.") Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The stuff I put in the footnote simply said, "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." I guess you're saying that it would be better to specifically say who is accusing. How about if I say the following? "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." Would that be better? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I came across a Greenpeace report that gave a list of USN ships involved in Gulf War I that had been equipped with nuclear missiles. This does explain why some ABL-equiped ships did not fire their entire complement of tomahawk missiles during Gulf War I, but I am not sure if Greenpeace is a reliable source on the matter, in particular since the official USN position is that they do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear ordinance on thier ships. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to clean up one of those "In popular culture" sections and am looking for sources. I found an excellent article on the Onion's A/V Club, which--unlike The Onion itself--is not a satirical publication. Does this seem like an acceptable website to use as source when describing critical opinion about a pop culture subject?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am writing another question about OOXML. One Im sure I already know the answer to, but I need to point someone to the answer. WP:VER, more specifically WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable sources except in some limited ways, like if the blog is an interactive news article on a news site. I do not believe that The blog of Jason Matuso can be used as a reference for the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. But some anonymous editors and one registered user believe that it can be. The problem is that Jason Matusow is an employee of Microsoft, as such it is expected that he will have a pro Microsoft bias. The site has no editorial oversight. No fact checking by anyone. He is not a third party, he is involved. Not only that he gives opinions about things he didnt personally see. An admin has recently stepped in and removed this blog and others. Now someone is trying to add it again. The simple question is this, Can or should this blog be used as a reference and source for Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Kilz ( talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently a user has added a great dal of negative information to the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and sourcing it to what appears to be a University of Wisconsin mailing list. Here's a few of the quotes and references:
"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. [22]"
"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [23]"
"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [24]"
I've brought this up on the article's talk page, but there appears to be an edit war percolating on this page. I'd like clarification on the validity of the sources. It seems to be similar to a blog, but I'd like the opinions of more experienced editors. Thanks! Redrocket ( talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the forum list redrocket refers to is a legitimate source of citations. Many different people's posts on that list are cited in the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and those posters are clearly experts on Hoofers. Further, as Redrocket correctly notes above, much of the Hoofer Sailing article is not referenced/cited at all. (Of course this is true for many WP articles because it is often difficult to find authoritative third party references for non-scientific subjects.) In fact, some of the best-referenced parts of the Hoofer article are the criticisms. Most of the rest of the article is "supported" by links to the Hoofer Sailing Club's own website, which of course is not much of a supporting reference for itself. Certainly a Forum open to anyone is more objective than the club's own website..!
Further, Redrocket seems to have a vested interest in seeing that the Hoofer Sailing Club article is as favorable as possible. That may indicate that Redrocket is a Hoofer himself, perhaps a Hoofer leader with a free club membership and lots of extra privileges. If so, then Redrocket may be biased, or worse, may be trying to exercise censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the article to be objective (NPOV), it requires criticisms along with all the happitudes. I am in the process of adding more supporting references. ( Tortugadillo ( talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
Recently I have been giving more attention to patrolling new pages. I nearly always add an {{unreferenced}} tag to any article that has no references or external links of any kind. I am starting to get a certain amount of resistance and would like some guidance. These are the kinds of things I am hearing:
I believe providing sources for almost all articles is important. Articles I don't tag include disamiguation pages and some lists.
I'm asking for suggestions. Is there a general rule of thumb for the type of article that never needs a source so I can save myself and others needless trouble? ✤ JonHarder talk 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin a reliable source on news reports (that may or may not be reported elsewhere)?
The bulletin features headlines like "Abbas rejects Jewishness of Israel...proud to have taught terror to world" [27] which is a very contentious allegation. Bless sins ( talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965] ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in the 60s and 70s]."
— Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008
A slight issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I see these are 'largely not acceptable'. However, when the person who owns the website is an acknowledged authority within his field, eg a well known archaeologist, historian, or anthropologist, with loads of peer-reviewed publications, etc, do I assume that their blogs or websites are acceptable? As an example, John Hawks Anthropology Weblog. I hasten to add that I agree with the policy, but when the owner of the site has the qualifications, peer review, etc....-- Doug Weller ( talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well this encyclopedia, the "National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh", has some articles, particularly those written about the Bangladesh Liberation War have an editorial tone which seems to be Bengali nationalistic in nature
And so forth. Does this cheerleading style make this encyclopedia a non-RS for Bengali history? Opinions? Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually kind of embarrassed to bring this somewhat trivial here, but I'm involved in a stale dispute here and would require some "official" clarification on the quality and use of a quote.
The text in question is a passage in the Hamas article which reads:
Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to Robert Wistrich,
"Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant [18 August 1988], there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace." [33]
As I state in the article talk page, this quote has several problems:
The most pertinent problems are the first and the third. The first is trivial and regarding the third, the quoted text is part of an ellipsis stretching, in the source, from "Not only that..." to the end of the quote and is therefore presumably not in the original, which was read at a meeting of the UNCHR.
Now, judging by the language in other ellipses in the text, it is probable that Robert Wistrich himself penned those lines. If this is effectively the case, however, the source should be rejected as self-published, since, as the initial page of the hosting site itself states, Robert Wistrich is the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, which published the document in question.
Any thoughts? Am I completely wrong in this assessment?
Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 08:30
Is Yahoo! Movies a reliable source? I know IMDb isn't, since—akin to a wiki—it's a user-generated production; but I was under the impression Y!M isn't. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Section edit to prevent archival. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Further section edit to prevent archival.
Does anybody know one way or another whether Yahoo! Movies' biographical and film statistical information constitutes a reliable source? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Is http://www.emporis.com/ a reliable source for building data? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what people think of the sources used for this article about a now deceased Noah's Ark searcher. In particular,
These books appear to be books written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push. What could or should these be used for in referencing the article.-- Slp1 ( talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
."Still, those closest to him note that before his death he believed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark, including fellow ark researchers like Don Patten and David Allen Deal. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote: He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark."
Is the Handbook of Texas ( http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/) a reliable source? It's an online archive from the Texas State Historical Association, and their articles do provide bibliogaphies, presumably of sources. I want to beef up the Ima Hogg article. Corvus cornix talk 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, it is reliable, and it has passed FAC before (can't recall where). But ... please don't use that citation template, as it doesn't return a complete citation (no last accessdate). Do you have quick plans for Ima Hogg? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the epitome of historically reliable. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am inquiring whether the following tertiary or secondary sources are valid or "reliable" for use on Wikipedia, specifically in the article French people. Two users, User:Ramdrake and User:Enric Naval, have been pushing their POV by keeping these sources in one part of the article but removing it from another part. Here are the following links to the sources in question: CIA Factbook - France and Background Note: France. Epf ( talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 ( talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for sourcing re: the Postcards from Buster controversy. Is this [37] a reliable source? Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Issue_with_H-Games, I'm trying to figure out if http://www.visual-news.net can be considered a reliable source with regards to news about the existence of unauthorized translations of various visual novel-style games (like Utawarerumono and Tsukihime). I believe this site to be a reliable (if small and specialized) gaming news site, as opinion seems to be relegated to a separate review section. (Alternatively, would it be appropriate to cite the translator's web site?) — PyTom ( talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Tired light#Fringe sources removed, pro-fringe editors have been insisting that certain sources from extremely low impact factor journals are acceptable for inclusion in the article despite not having received any notice from the scientific community. I insist that we only use papers from high impact-factor journals and comments from notable astrophysicists. I beleive that pandering to the fringe elements in the way that is being done for the last year in article space is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. What do you think about the sources? Should low-impact sources be used when high-impact sources are available?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARA&A, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Wikipedia. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the list:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, the issue is not whether these journals are "academic". They are. They simply are so fringe as to be questionable for citation sources for major content in the article. I'm not comfortable even having them simply cited as they direct readers to simply awful papers when there are much better ones available. Certainly if we write an article on plasma cosmology, citing to IEEE Plasma Transactions makes sense to give an idea what the people who believe in plasma cosmology say, but in the tired light article, the notability of the topic is derived from Zwicky and Tolman's interest in the idea in the mid-part of the last century. It is an obsolete theory and has only been "resurrected" by fringe elements grasping at straws. Their efforts have gone unnoticed by the mainstream community including people that usually pay attention to such things (e.g. E. L. Wright whose critique of tired light cosmology refers to earlier versions and not the Marmet, Accardi, Masreliez nonsense). ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to cite an otherwise WP:RS-worthy book that you only have access to via Google Books preview? The library the book came from and the date it was scanned are noted in the preview page - should that be included in the cite template somehow? I'm talking about full page previews, of course, not the 'snippet view' that only gives you a few lines. -- Vary | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Alexander, and I'm the owner of the Aerobatic Teams web site http://aerobaticteamsDOTnet. My site is dedicated to Modern Aerobatic Teams, like yours same section. Why my site is blocked to adding links. This is not spam, because my site is relevant to wikipedia Aerobatic Teams section. Exaple: in you Blue Angels page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels have External link http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html which is relevant with this thematics, but my Blue Angels http://www.aerobaticteamsDOTnet/BlueAngels.html is relevant too, but my site is blocked. Also my page is more informatible then this page, but this page not blocked, only my site. How can I receive rull from you to adding links to all aerobatic teams pages in Wikipedia? As you can see my site is not commercial. I know that you media is not web site promotion tool, but you are education organization and peoples must have access to more inmormation that needed. My site is education site and have education role about Aerobatic Teams past and present. For that reason I think that must have link to my site in you Aerobatic Teams pages. You passed a lot of unuseful site links, but not mine. Can you help, and help to aerobatic teams fans to learn more about this teams joining to my site.
Thanks Alexander— 84.1.47.21 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
Dr. Patricia Jasen, Professor of History at Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, wrote a paper entitled, "Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States." [41]
On one hand, the paper contains a considerable amount of useful historical information about research into an hypothesized link between abortion and breast cancer ("ABC"), and numerous citations to other sources, many of which are certainly reliable sources.
But, on the other hand, the paper contains numerous severe inaccuracies, and editorializes strongly for a particular POV: namely that the pro-life movement is characterized by a strategy of violence, and that the supposed ABC link is mainly just a political strategy of right-wing fundamentalist Christian political activists.
My question is: can such a paper be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles?
Here are some examples of the inaccuracies in the article:
1) "...the coalition was founded with the support of Concerned Women for America, a national right-wing Christian organization which defines itself as anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education (as well as anti-Harry Potter)..."
2) "The evangelical leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their support to the violent strategies of such groups as Operation Rescue."
3) "Conclusion... As the [political] conflict [over abortion] intensified and anti-abortionists replaced violent strategies with a more acceptable “woman-centred” approach, they adopted the “ABC link” as a means of fighting abortion in Congress, state legislatures and courts of law."
4) "in the early 1990s... the anti-abortion campaign had reached a stage in its increasingly violent history when new strategies were needed"
5) "...supporters of direct action rose to prominence [in the anti-abortion movement], first employing tactics, such as sit-ins, inherited from the tradition of civil disobedience, but moving on by the mid-1980s to clinic break-ins and bombings."
6) "Before abortion was legalized, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been the force behind most of the lobbying [against abortion] but, following Roe v Wade, they were joined by increasingly militant, and increasingly numerous, Protestant fundamentalists dedicated to the anti-abortion cause."
7) "...by [1988] a majority of Americans had come to accept the right of adults to seek early abortion."
8) "Within a year of the publication of Daling's report, legislation had been passed in two states and proposed in several others, either directing authorities to investigate the cancer link or taking the form of “Women's Right to Know” acts requiring that women be advised of a possible cancer risk."
9) This example is less obviously inaccurate, but it is the most insidiously misleading. After describing a study which found an apparent link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, Jasen wrote,
So how does WP:RS apply to a paper like this? NCdave ( talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP was generally trying to avoid citing to on-line EB as a source - otherwise WP simply becomes "EB lite," and editors will not do the real work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources. Is there a guideline/policy that addresses this question?
Second, on-line EB is paid, and I was under the impression that WP was steering away from paid sites. Again, any guidelines/policies on this topic? Thx! NorCalHistory ( talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - is there a WP policy/guideline somewhere that sets out that tertiary sources are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available? NorCalHistory ( talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is http://FromOccupiedPalestine.org a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal website. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is justice4lebanon.wordpress.com a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and there's currently a citation of a Google Video (it's the last paragraph in this section). What's the consensus as to the reliability of this source? Should it be allowed as a statement of the author's belief, or removed as unencylopaedic? Sheffield Steel talk stalk 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
On the section Documentary above. Please? pschemp | talk 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Problems at the Ronald Kessler article. Kessler's in the news currently for a story he wrote about Barack Obama; that rebounded pretty badly and then User:KesslerRonald turned up and removed the criticism section from his own bio. (The section was pretty badly sourced and overly negative at the time.) The website Talking Points Memo Election Central picked up on this, and someone wrote a post/article, which was then cited in the Kessler article. (Following all this?)
I came along to the article in response to a complaint and did some cleanup. Most of my changes have stuck, but objections have been raised on the talkpage to my removal of the TPM-EC article about Kessler and WP.
These objections are:
As this is too much information for my brain when St. Patrick's Day is barely over, I'm bringing it here for advice. Relata refero ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest reading this recent New York Times article about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights:
Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) Northwesterner1 ( talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
←I agree with Blueboar, regretfully. Without some scientific process to gauge how TPM's writing is influenced by the real or perceived needs of their readership, it's hard to know where to draw the line, and we've dealt with that so far by not drawing the line at all. I invite people to join the discussions at the wikiquality mailing list about ways to measure how accurate a source is. Generally the discussion there is about ways to implement WP:FLAGGED, as early as next month, but the same methods could apply to any source, such as TPM. WP:SPADE requires me to say: I hope we will find a way to better judge our sources at Wikipedia, because TV news sucks, and TPM doesn't. The announcer on CBS News on Logo last night said that the number of casualties in Iraq just reached 4000. TPM would never make any one of the many mistakes in that statement: they wouldn't confuse deaths with casualties, or imagine that deaths of contractors, or allies, or enemies, or civilians don't count. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a documentary, composed of interviews from published academics and experts, and a little bit of filler material in between. Is this a reliable source? I can list out and name all the experts interviewed, and what they published.
I've been told this isn't good enough because the producer of the documentary isn't an academic. pschemp | talk 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously...some help here people? I am not on crack. pschemp | talk 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the links you provided, including the fact that the series aired on Channel 4 and is referenced (approvingly) in academic literature, I agree that the documentary qualifies as a reliable source for wikipedia, but may need to be used with care. Here are my comments and suggestions:
Please note that I haven't seen the doc. myself, so some of the above comments are based on a guesstimation of its content (I am imagining a series of interviews; snippets from historical works; and a voiceover). Anyway, I hope that helps. Abecedare ( talk) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For the purposes of propagating an actor's filmography, can the film itself (a primary source) be used as a reliable source the that actor's work? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, how pertinent is the accessibility of the source? If a film itself is referenced as a source for a fact, are others expected to rent the video (if available) to corroborate that sourcing? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Are references to tourism sites whether they be the likes of Fodors or Frommers, government tourism sites such as www.goisrael.com - an Israeli government site, or www.visit-tlv.com - a municipal site, or sites such as www.TravelGuides.com or www.telaviv-insider.co.il good enough to cite about sites or cultural events etc/general facts about the city. To what extent can they be used? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it's hard to find the etymology of words, especially in a (suitable?) online format. OED is a paid subscription. I'd like to submit the following two sources for scrutiny on reliability:
Is V2rocket.com RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Is discoverthenetworks.org a reliable soure? My instinct is to say no. Corvus cornix talk 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On the follow paragraph below, is the source from The Nation reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.
According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. [1] He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," [2] [1] and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." [3] [1]
- ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. " The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation ( 2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review ( 1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review ( 2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
Thanks.— Christopher Mann McKay talk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Wikipedia thinks of him. The Nation column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:
Note that McNeil's bionote on The Nation web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)In a column in The Nation, writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views. [1] McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most" [2] [1] and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers". [3] [1]
- ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. " The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation ( 2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review ( 1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review ( 2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
Hi all:
As I have recently been threatened with a block for posting here from an administrator with whom I have had frequent disagreements in the past, I can no longer comfortably contribute to this thread without the risk of what I think would be a huge, drama-creating incident that would drain far more resources than it would be worth. I’d like to both thank everyone who came here and contributed thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to what I wrote, and apologize for my inability to freely reply. IronDuke 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on List of Alpha Phi Omega members and have a question about linking two sources. Documentary maker focused on blacks states that St. Clair Bourne was a student at Georgetown in the 1960s before being expelled for participating in a Sit-in. The list of members of Alpha Phi Omega at Georgetown lists a St. Claire Bourne as a member of the Spring 1961 pledge class. I'm not that concerned about the difference between St. Claire with an e and without an e as the page at imdb shows him with the e, but having done work as St. Clair Bourne. Is this enough to fit the reliable sources for Wikipedia given that *theoretically* there could have been two different St. Claire Bourne's at Georgetown University at the same time. Yes, I know that this is *significantly* less likely that two Joseph Brown's there at the same time, but I'm trying to bend over backwards here... Thank You. Naraht ( talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone tell if the following RS or not?
I want use these for geographical location related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for some feedback about rotten.com, specifically its library section, regarding whether it's a reliable source.
It seems to me that this falls under the category of self-published websites. While the site is reasonably popular and has been mentioned in various newspaper articles, the library articles are written by an unknown person and there is no evidence of or reputation of fact checking and such. A question: how exactly do we go about distinguising between a popular website which is not considered reliable, and one which is? (Such as slate.com) -- Xyzzyplugh ( talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Newsgroup postings are considered lower than dirt as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. I think this case is an exception to the rule. In late 1994, the Intel Pentium FDIV bug played out mailing list and in the newsgroup comp.sys.intel. The posters were acoumplished scientist and engineers from major companies. While Intel was claiming the bug was minor, the readers of these newsgroups found out how serious the defect was. (I followed the posting at the time and was amazed at their quality.)
Tim Coe, a FPU (floating point unit) designer at Vitesse Semiconductor, read the reports of the Pentium division errors and was able to reverse engineer the cause of error. He wrote a C program to predict the errors. He did not own an Intel CPU, so he went to a local computer store to check his results. His error predictions were correct. He posted his results on the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, on November 16, 1994.
The original newsgroup posing can be found on Google groups. Here is a web site that has a good copy of Tim Coe's posting and some other valid links. [54]
His work was reported in the technical press at the time and here is a report from the MathWorks newsletter.
Tim Coe later wrote a paper in the peer reviewed journal, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) "The Pentium affair has been widely publicized. It started with an obscure defect in the floating-point unit of Intel Corporation's flagship Pentium microprocessor. This is the story of how the Pentium floating-point division problem was discovered, and what you need to know about the maths and computer engineering involved before deciding whether to replace the chip, install the workaround provided here, or do nothing. The paper also discusses broader issues of computational correctness."Can the Tim Coe's original posting to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, be used as a reference?
-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Andy Grove, the Intel CEO, responded to this newsgroup. [55] -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I got a copy of the IEEE Computational Science & Engineering paper today. In a sidebar, the journal editor states how important the internet was in uncovering the Pentium bug. The article mentions several specific posts to the newsgroup by various individuals. For example, "… reporters for major newspapers and news services had Xeroxed copies of faxed copies of Moler's posting." The newsgroup "comp.sys.intel" was part of the story. "At the height of the frenzy a month later, over 2000 messages a week were being posted to comp.sys.intel." All of the facts about the newsgroup posting can be referenced by traditional reliable sources. The 2 or 3 most significant posting themselves can be noted with a proper citation, {{cite newsgroup}}. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I have the following questions about the use of Marquis "Who's Who", and in particular, "Who's Who in America" (in case there is reason to distinguish between the different Who's Who publications):
These questions arised due to a discussion on a user's Talk page. While the noble goal of this publication is to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry, this article here claims the contrary. FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 08:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It apparently has a very low bar to entry, so is not suitable to establish notability. Generally entrants submit their own biogs, so it should essentially be used much like a self-published source, i.e. it's OK for non-contentious basic facts about the subject. Tyrenius ( talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
My own thinking about the matter was this: A single negative article (which is not even a piece of reliable information itself) about Who's Who cannot prove that Who's Who failed its stated mission to chronicle the lives of individuals whose achievements and contributions to society make them subjects of widespread reference interest and inquiry. It would be like claiming that the 9/11 Commission report failed its mission to provide the results of a straight investigation, based on a single debunking article. If the number of those articles increases, the situation somehow changes, but I think WP editors shouldn't have the authority to decide which side is right, since they have to maintain the neutral point of view. I found Who's Who volumes up to the present in a university library, which indicates to me that Who's Who is still a respected source of good reputation despite the debunking article. However, if there is serious concern, that readers might be misguided by the reference, it might be worth to cite the negative article about Who's Who as well, so that readers can make up their own mind without being too much impressed by the Who's Who citation. It all boils down to the fact that EVERY source can be discredited somehow. Corruption and/or false accusations can be found everywhere. FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Now what about notability? I know it's difficult, but just imagine a case, in which there is a reasonable explanation for the fact that you're unable to find a significant amount of other(reliable) sources. Maybe this is not a well-chosen example now, but let's imagine that you find a historic Who's Who entry from 1930 about a Jewish political activist, but all the books and newspapers citing him have been burned by the Nazis (except Who's Who of course). The only other information you find about him are his own books, preserved by his family and friends. Would this man be notable enough to get a (short) WP article? I would say yes, but where do you draw the line? Once again, I would say, it's not up to WP editors to decide. If there is some kind of reasonable explanation, why somebody has not been mentioned frequently by easily accessible sources despite his/her notability, lack of notability would be a weak argument, i.e. for deleting an article. Does my logic make any sense? FeelFreeToBe ( talk) 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PublishAmerica is basically a disguised vanity press with little to no editorial control. Yet, books published by them have been used as sources or "further reading" entries; sometimes pretty extensively (For example, Voynich manuscript, a Featured Article, uses a book from PublishAmerica as a source for some claims). Since PublishAmerica has no editorial control, shouldn't all PublishAmerica publications be considered, by default, dubious as far as WP:RS is considered, in topics unrelated to PublishAmerica? As I see it, this is definitely the case. And secondly, how do we tackle this mess, anyway?
(The site was again brought to my attention a few days back, apparently someone at PublishAmerica message board wanted to use Wikipedia as a marketing device. That, however, is another matter. I was just surprised to find that PublishAmerica books are actually used as a source in many articles!) -- wwwwolf ( barks/ growls) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On the article on the nation of Colombia, there is an "internet references" section.
See: Colombia#Internet
Every citation is on a website and none of the books in the "further reading" section are used as sources.
Is this standard procedure? If so, is there some reason internet sources should actually be preferred over non-internet sources? ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this an unreliable source? It appears to be a fansite, yet it has a wealth of information about its subject that could easily be used to improve the article. I don't want to make the same mistakes as I did with Family (band), as I may try to get Traffic (band) to GA status.-- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This issue is being moved to the Sri Lanka Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation The forum which deals with this issue and other issues related to Sri Lanka in particular the Sri Lankan Civil War. There is 1 edit restriction and how sources are to be taken particurly in the Sri Lankan context is better.The edit war has come down after the project was started.Please put your comments there. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Is an e-mail a reliable source? Discussion. I say nope, but just in case...
Odd that there's apparently no mention on WP:RS, but I saw it as common sense. Unless people are willing to hand out their e-mail addresses and passwords to all editors, there's no real way to verify. It would be a WP:SPS and any expert who writes an e-mail should be expert enough to point to reliable sources rather than opinion. WLU ( talk) 22:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone tried to insert an image from sajed.ir in this article: Iran_Air_Flight_655
See: Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Sajed.ir_as_a_reliable_source.3F
Is the photo of a girl from a reliable source? I doubt it, but who knows. WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This source has been used in the Home and Away article. I've tried to work out if it's reliable or not but im not sure. I guess it's a third party source but theres 2 questions im not sure about.. would you deem it to be reliable and because it's a online community is it classed as self published??
The specific article also concerns me . http://www.throng.com.au/home-and-away/mark-furze-ric-dalby-leaving-home-and-away As it contains little information about the subject and no claims on how this information came to light.
What do you think? thanks Printer222 ( talk) 12:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
An editor deleted material from Prem Rawat referenced from the Los Angeles Times saying it was "extremely poorly sourced". [1] The Times article in question is a report on an announcement by the subject's organization, and apparently just quotes their information. Are mainstream, award-winning newspapers like the L.A. Times and the N.Y. Times reliable source for the purposes of a biography of a living person? I asked user:Jossi, but he hasn't been able to give an answer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Both sources are without fail reliable sources, the cult book as well as the LA Times. List that one says this, one says that, to indicate the disconnect, and readers can click on the links in the refs to make their own decision unless further sourcing comes up. As said above, the LA Times is functionally going to be almost always a reliable source, and pinning it on context isn't valid, nor to question if the content is encyclopediac. It's about Rawat, it's in a de facto reliable source, and the information is not something which would or could be considered as contentious under any established neutral consensus here. I'd go so far as to say anyone challenging a fine source like the LA or NY Times should at all times have the burden on them to demonstrate why it should not be used, and to gain acceptance for that view. Lawrence § t/ e 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For a different take on this, German Wikipedia (see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Q) has for some time now explicitly favoured academic sources over journalistic sources; the use of the latter is, according to current policy, only permissible where no scholarly sources are available. In addition, the journalistic source in question must be held to have been solidly researched. The idea has merit, since an encyclopedia should be compiled according to scientific criteria. We are not trying to produce a press review. In the field of New Religious Movements especially, a number of academics have seen it necessary to point out that many newspaper accounts, even those in quality newspapers, have been factually incorrect, polemical, or biased. Jayen 466 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I do think that, on a policy level which is interesting, that a good newspaper article -- especially one like this that is focused on the subject -- will in many cases have more detail and sometimes accuracy than a passing mention in an encyclopedia (especially), which necessarily has to drastically summarize. Again, context and the specifics are very important. I see some people (not you) trying to argue that a scholarly article or even an encyclopedia automatically trumps journalism, and that's the part I am uncomfortable with. Msalt ( talk) 14:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a dispute going on at the Flyleaf on the bands genre. These links that I have list them as Christian rock:
But some editors refuse to acknowledge them saying they are all not valid. Please help settle this! Hoponpop69 ( talk) 02:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to utilise the following links, [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], as sources for the various sections in Jidaigeki. Do any or all pass Wikipedia:Reliability? And I found this site. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 06:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This article describes an organisation in language which I don't consider conforms to NPOV. Edits by another user, perhaps misconceived but which at least aim to introduce neutral language, are regularly reverted as "vandalism" by an editor who defends the description of the organisation as a "racist hate group". He asserts that he is accurately reproducing what the sources [12] [13] [14] say, and that WP considers the source websites as reliable (although I can find no mention of them in any WP policy or guideline document). Yet the sites belong to interest groups with agendas which do not predispose them to neutral descriptions of the organisation. They produce unsourced and sometimes vague claims out of thin air without references to back them up, and I have reliable academic sources which contradict the websites on some specific points.
I don't consider that an encyclopaedic article can be written in this way or style. But even if I write up my own sources in neutral language, this will not address the bias already in the article, deriving from claims on the websites which are difficult to confirm or deny. The other editor obviously doesn't intend to address them, either. Is he correct that Wikipedia considers the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Centre to be reliable? And if so, is this a proper way to use them? Or, as I think, do non-neutral descriptions in even "reliable" sources have to be reported in neutral language? Gnostrat ( talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks : ) I'll take all that into consideration. Gnostrat ( talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the middle power article, is a single source citing info from the mid to late 90s a good enough to include a country on the list of "middle powers"? I opted to delete Russia from the list, since Russia has gone through some massive changes over the past 20 years, hitting an absolute low point at around the time this article was published. The info on that source citing Russia as a middle power is dated as 1997. It doesn't at all reflect current day reality, and I could find no recent articles that consider Russia a middle power today. Here's the source [15] 99.240.27.210 ( talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Currently, on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article (possibly to be renamed " Controversies over the September 11, 2001 attacks" or something) there is a discussion over Thomas Eager's statements made in The Utah News (and a couple other papers in the USA). In the article, he explains the methodology of 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "the 'reverse scientific method'" and a number of other statements which are cited in the article.
However, a number of editors have moved to exclude this material on the basis that:
None of these statements have been sourced to anything beyond primary sources, so far. With that said, is it acceptable to use Eager's statements in the article? -- Haemo ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the CSM reported today [16] that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes [17] that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Wikipedia. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wait, the Mailing list gets to challenge WP:SPS without on-wiki discussion and consensus? And we listen to that challenge and not WP:SPS? -- Thin boy 00 @009, i.e. 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not saing any specific names yet, because I suppose it could influence the response, so just keep on this NEUTRAL facts here please: There is an 8 track, 51:05 minutes long record by a band. It was their first record, only 1000 copies were made and so it is rare now. I made a research in the internet and I found out that the large majority of sources and the RELIABLE SOURCES (professional websites) cite it as their first, debut ALBUM and include it in the discography of the band. But the BAND MEMBERS ignore or disown this record in some ways or call it a DEMO and generally do not see it as their first album on their homepage, and in their interviews and so it is also on their today's label's homepage. Also the third album after the first release (the disputed one) has number 3 in its name what indicates that the band does not see it as their first album. Are the reliable proffesional cources OR the band members' stetements and attitude the reliable and verifiable sources for Wikipedia? Which Wikipedia's rules could be cited as a reason?--Lykantrop ( Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
We've got a discussion going on at Talk:American Pit Bull Terrier. There's an entire section that cites only this page for its sourcing. Aside from this section ( here) having a very unencyclopedic tone, I'm questioning the reliability of the source. The page is rather inflammatory and comes off as a fringe essay - it blames "The Corporate Media's agenda" and how "For the media it is soley about profit." The group that runs the page, the National Terriers Club LLC, seems dubious. It only yields 26 google hits ( 113 without the LLC) and no news articles for either. What do you guys think? Should this article be using this source? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The Management and Ownership of registries talk to many people. Infact, anyone can call or e-mail just about any registry and ask to speak to the owner/s of them. Its called customer service. Working terriers ( talk) 06:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
When is livejournal acceptable as a source of material? In the case of Russian presidential election, 2008, someone posted two pictures of "alleged fraud" [18] [19] which are sourced to a livejournal in Russian. I found this to be highly suspicious, considering there were no official reports in the media or by any of the election monitoring groups about election fraud. This sort of thing would have been widely reported after all the pre-election speculation by western media. I removed the pictures on the grounds that they're not reliably sourced and don't actually add anything useful to the article (and in fact contradict all of the sourced, reliable information in the election fairness section), but I have a feeling this is an edit war waiting to happen. Sbw01f ( talk) 18:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
seems self-evident to me that blogcritic.org constitutes an agglomeration of blogs, thus, as blogs, they fail as reliable sources. an editor is referencing a blog on blogcritic as a RS, claiming that blogcritic is 'an online magazine' (which is how they bill themselves, conveniently). i don't see any evidence that blogcritic has any reputation for fact checking and reliability. am i right or wrong that this is not a reliable source? from the blogcritic 'about' page: "Bloggers publish their stories at Blogcritics.org because of the immense value and benefits that are offered." Anastrophe ( talk) 20:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
.
A edit war on the OOXML Standardization page has been going on over the use of a open letter on a Microsoft website. The letter describes Microsofts opinions about IBM's actions. IMHO the page is a self published source that has claims about a 3rd party. As such I do not believe the page is usable as a reference to prove "IBM's "global campaign" in opposition to the Office Open XML standardization process". Here is a link to a previous version since the section gets deleted and added quite a bit. Here is a link to the Microsoft page that is used as a reference. Kilz ( talk) 05:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? Thank you.
Wanderer57 ( talk) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious whether people think this USA Today article is a reliable source regarding a controversial article in a medical journal. (This issue arose at the Wikipedia article titled " fetus.") Ferrylodge ( talk) 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
(undent) The stuff I put in the footnote simply said, "The authors of the study published in JAMA have been accused of bias." I guess you're saying that it would be better to specifically say who is accusing. How about if I say the following? "The journal's editor said she wishes two of the authors had disclosed their affiliations, but the editor says it would not have influenced her decision to publish the report." Would that be better? Ferrylodge ( talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I came across a Greenpeace report that gave a list of USN ships involved in Gulf War I that had been equipped with nuclear missiles. This does explain why some ABL-equiped ships did not fire their entire complement of tomahawk missiles during Gulf War I, but I am not sure if Greenpeace is a reliable source on the matter, in particular since the official USN position is that they do not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear ordinance on thier ships. Thoughts? TomStar81 ( Talk) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to clean up one of those "In popular culture" sections and am looking for sources. I found an excellent article on the Onion's A/V Club, which--unlike The Onion itself--is not a satirical publication. Does this seem like an acceptable website to use as source when describing critical opinion about a pop culture subject?-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I am writing another question about OOXML. One Im sure I already know the answer to, but I need to point someone to the answer. WP:VER, more specifically WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable sources except in some limited ways, like if the blog is an interactive news article on a news site. I do not believe that The blog of Jason Matuso can be used as a reference for the Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML page. But some anonymous editors and one registered user believe that it can be. The problem is that Jason Matusow is an employee of Microsoft, as such it is expected that he will have a pro Microsoft bias. The site has no editorial oversight. No fact checking by anyone. He is not a third party, he is involved. Not only that he gives opinions about things he didnt personally see. An admin has recently stepped in and removed this blog and others. Now someone is trying to add it again. The simple question is this, Can or should this blog be used as a reference and source for Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Kilz ( talk) 02:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Recently a user has added a great dal of negative information to the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and sourcing it to what appears to be a University of Wisconsin mailing list. Here's a few of the quotes and references:
"In 2005, in response to ongoing complaints about mismanagement and abuse at Hoofers, a Sailing club BOC member proposed a new Code of Ethics. However, the proposal was ultimately defeated when the Sailing Club president voted against. [22]"
"The Head of Instruction is hired (and re-hired) by the club's governing body, the Board of Captains (BOC), some of whom are paid staff. They in turn are hired (and re-hired) by the head instructor. It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [23]"
"It is a system that invites abuse of power and borders on illegality. [24]"
I've brought this up on the article's talk page, but there appears to be an edit war percolating on this page. I'd like clarification on the validity of the sources. It seems to be similar to a blog, but I'd like the opinions of more experienced editors. Thanks! Redrocket ( talk) 07:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe the forum list redrocket refers to is a legitimate source of citations. Many different people's posts on that list are cited in the Hoofer Sailing Club article, and those posters are clearly experts on Hoofers. Further, as Redrocket correctly notes above, much of the Hoofer Sailing article is not referenced/cited at all. (Of course this is true for many WP articles because it is often difficult to find authoritative third party references for non-scientific subjects.) In fact, some of the best-referenced parts of the Hoofer article are the criticisms. Most of the rest of the article is "supported" by links to the Hoofer Sailing Club's own website, which of course is not much of a supporting reference for itself. Certainly a Forum open to anyone is more objective than the club's own website..!
Further, Redrocket seems to have a vested interest in seeing that the Hoofer Sailing Club article is as favorable as possible. That may indicate that Redrocket is a Hoofer himself, perhaps a Hoofer leader with a free club membership and lots of extra privileges. If so, then Redrocket may be biased, or worse, may be trying to exercise censorship in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For the article to be objective (NPOV), it requires criticisms along with all the happitudes. I am in the process of adding more supporting references. ( Tortugadillo ( talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
Recently I have been giving more attention to patrolling new pages. I nearly always add an {{unreferenced}} tag to any article that has no references or external links of any kind. I am starting to get a certain amount of resistance and would like some guidance. These are the kinds of things I am hearing:
I believe providing sources for almost all articles is important. Articles I don't tag include disamiguation pages and some lists.
I'm asking for suggestions. Is there a general rule of thumb for the type of article that never needs a source so I can save myself and others needless trouble? ✤ JonHarder talk 22:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin a reliable source on news reports (that may or may not be reported elsewhere)?
The bulletin features headlines like "Abbas rejects Jewishness of Israel...proud to have taught terror to world" [27] which is a very contentious allegation. Bless sins ( talk) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965 [Fatah terror against Israel began in 1965] ,and having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world, defining it and when it is beneficial and when it is not... we had the honor of leading the resistance.We taught everyone what resistance is, including the Hezbollah, who were trained in our camps [i.e. PLO camps in the 60s and 70s]."
— Al-Dustur, February 28, 2008
A slight issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I see these are 'largely not acceptable'. However, when the person who owns the website is an acknowledged authority within his field, eg a well known archaeologist, historian, or anthropologist, with loads of peer-reviewed publications, etc, do I assume that their blogs or websites are acceptable? As an example, John Hawks Anthropology Weblog. I hasten to add that I agree with the policy, but when the owner of the site has the qualifications, peer review, etc....-- Doug Weller ( talk) 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well this encyclopedia, the "National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh", has some articles, particularly those written about the Bangladesh Liberation War have an editorial tone which seems to be Bengali nationalistic in nature
And so forth. Does this cheerleading style make this encyclopedia a non-RS for Bengali history? Opinions? Blnguyen ( vote in the photo straw poll) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually kind of embarrassed to bring this somewhat trivial here, but I'm involved in a stale dispute here and would require some "official" clarification on the quality and use of a quote.
The text in question is a passage in the Hamas article which reads:
Other articles of the Hamas Covenant refer to fighting the Jews. According to Robert Wistrich,
"Like other Islamists, the Hamas uses antisemitic language, full of hatred towards Jews, ever since its foundation in 1987. In its Sacred Covenant [18 August 1988], there are frequent references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which would have gladdened the hearts of Hitler and Goebbels. It is difficult to see what any of this has to do with spirituality, works of charity, dialogue or the search for peace." [33]
As I state in the article talk page, this quote has several problems:
The most pertinent problems are the first and the third. The first is trivial and regarding the third, the quoted text is part of an ellipsis stretching, in the source, from "Not only that..." to the end of the quote and is therefore presumably not in the original, which was read at a meeting of the UNCHR.
Now, judging by the language in other ellipses in the text, it is probable that Robert Wistrich himself penned those lines. If this is effectively the case, however, the source should be rejected as self-published, since, as the initial page of the hosting site itself states, Robert Wistrich is the director of the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, which published the document in question.
Any thoughts? Am I completely wrong in this assessment?
Cheers and thanks, pedro gonnet - talk - 14.03.2008 08:30
Is Yahoo! Movies a reliable source? I know IMDb isn't, since—akin to a wiki—it's a user-generated production; but I was under the impression Y!M isn't. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 15:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Section edit to prevent archival. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Further section edit to prevent archival.
Does anybody know one way or another whether Yahoo! Movies' biographical and film statistical information constitutes a reliable source? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 12:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Is http://www.emporis.com/ a reliable source for building data? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 09:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I wonder what people think of the sources used for this article about a now deceased Noah's Ark searcher. In particular,
These books appear to be books written from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, with a creationist (and pro Ark finding) point to push. What could or should these be used for in referencing the article.-- Slp1 ( talk) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
."Still, those closest to him note that before his death he believed the Durupınar site to be the location of the ark, including fellow ark researchers like Don Patten and David Allen Deal. His close Australian friend and biographer June Dawes wrote: He [Fasold] kept repeating that no matter what the experts said, there was too much going for the [Durupınar] site for it to be dismissed. He remained convinced it was the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark."
Is the Handbook of Texas ( http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/) a reliable source? It's an online archive from the Texas State Historical Association, and their articles do provide bibliogaphies, presumably of sources. I want to beef up the Ima Hogg article. Corvus cornix talk 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
To my knowledge, it is reliable, and it has passed FAC before (can't recall where). But ... please don't use that citation template, as it doesn't return a complete citation (no last accessdate). Do you have quick plans for Ima Hogg? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the epitome of historically reliable. TuckerResearch ( talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I am inquiring whether the following tertiary or secondary sources are valid or "reliable" for use on Wikipedia, specifically in the article French people. Two users, User:Ramdrake and User:Enric Naval, have been pushing their POV by keeping these sources in one part of the article but removing it from another part. Here are the following links to the sources in question: CIA Factbook - France and Background Note: France. Epf ( talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to use text from a lawsuit that was made against someone who is the subject of a BLP in their BLP? I believe that the contents of lawsuits would constitute orginal research. If the contents of lawsuit complaints could always be taken at face value then there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits. Also, a lawsuit complaint is designed to clearly represent the plaintiffs POV only and are often written to embarrass and threaten a defendant into settling. In a civil case they can contain hearsay and can take as an extreme POV as allowed by law against the defendant. I don't think they should be allowed. David Starr 1 ( talk) 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for sourcing re: the Postcards from Buster controversy. Is this [37] a reliable source? Thanks! Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Issue_with_H-Games, I'm trying to figure out if http://www.visual-news.net can be considered a reliable source with regards to news about the existence of unauthorized translations of various visual novel-style games (like Utawarerumono and Tsukihime). I believe this site to be a reliable (if small and specialized) gaming news site, as opinion seems to be relegated to a separate review section. (Alternatively, would it be appropriate to cite the translator's web site?) — PyTom ( talk) 00:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
At Talk:Tired light#Fringe sources removed, pro-fringe editors have been insisting that certain sources from extremely low impact factor journals are acceptable for inclusion in the article despite not having received any notice from the scientific community. I insist that we only use papers from high impact-factor journals and comments from notable astrophysicists. I beleive that pandering to the fringe elements in the way that is being done for the last year in article space is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. What do you think about the sources? Should low-impact sources be used when high-impact sources are available?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In tightly-knit communities like astronomy and cosmology there are only a handful of journals that really get notice. MNRAS, ApJ, ARA&A, AJ. Then there are the journals that are the journals that are ignored. These are the journals the fringe-promoters want to see used, even though we have journal citations from the more credible journals. It's not like this article is hurting for sources. It looks to me like someone is shilling for discredited crackpots like Paul Marmet. I have made this argument, but it falls on deaf ears. No one wants to hear that their favorite crackpot is really a crackpot and so shouldn't be included at Wikipedia. So here we are. How do I convince people that these sources are no good? ScienceApologist ( talk) 15:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the list:
ScienceApologist ( talk) 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
For clarification, the issue is not whether these journals are "academic". They are. They simply are so fringe as to be questionable for citation sources for major content in the article. I'm not comfortable even having them simply cited as they direct readers to simply awful papers when there are much better ones available. Certainly if we write an article on plasma cosmology, citing to IEEE Plasma Transactions makes sense to give an idea what the people who believe in plasma cosmology say, but in the tired light article, the notability of the topic is derived from Zwicky and Tolman's interest in the idea in the mid-part of the last century. It is an obsolete theory and has only been "resurrected" by fringe elements grasping at straws. Their efforts have gone unnoticed by the mainstream community including people that usually pay attention to such things (e.g. E. L. Wright whose critique of tired light cosmology refers to earlier versions and not the Marmet, Accardi, Masreliez nonsense). ScienceApologist ( talk) 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to cite an otherwise WP:RS-worthy book that you only have access to via Google Books preview? The library the book came from and the date it was scanned are noted in the preview page - should that be included in the cite template somehow? I'm talking about full page previews, of course, not the 'snippet view' that only gives you a few lines. -- Vary | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, My name is Alexander, and I'm the owner of the Aerobatic Teams web site http://aerobaticteamsDOTnet. My site is dedicated to Modern Aerobatic Teams, like yours same section. Why my site is blocked to adding links. This is not spam, because my site is relevant to wikipedia Aerobatic Teams section. Exaple: in you Blue Angels page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Angels have External link http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html which is relevant with this thematics, but my Blue Angels http://www.aerobaticteamsDOTnet/BlueAngels.html is relevant too, but my site is blocked. Also my page is more informatible then this page, but this page not blocked, only my site. How can I receive rull from you to adding links to all aerobatic teams pages in Wikipedia? As you can see my site is not commercial. I know that you media is not web site promotion tool, but you are education organization and peoples must have access to more inmormation that needed. My site is education site and have education role about Aerobatic Teams past and present. For that reason I think that must have link to my site in you Aerobatic Teams pages. You passed a lot of unuseful site links, but not mine. Can you help, and help to aerobatic teams fans to learn more about this teams joining to my site.
Thanks Alexander— 84.1.47.21 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
Dr. Patricia Jasen, Professor of History at Lakehead University, in Thunder Bay, Ontario, wrote a paper entitled, "Breast Cancer and the Politics of Abortion in the United States." [41]
On one hand, the paper contains a considerable amount of useful historical information about research into an hypothesized link between abortion and breast cancer ("ABC"), and numerous citations to other sources, many of which are certainly reliable sources.
But, on the other hand, the paper contains numerous severe inaccuracies, and editorializes strongly for a particular POV: namely that the pro-life movement is characterized by a strategy of violence, and that the supposed ABC link is mainly just a political strategy of right-wing fundamentalist Christian political activists.
My question is: can such a paper be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles?
Here are some examples of the inaccuracies in the article:
1) "...the coalition was founded with the support of Concerned Women for America, a national right-wing Christian organization which defines itself as anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-feminism and anti-sex education (as well as anti-Harry Potter)..."
2) "The evangelical leaders Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave their support to the violent strategies of such groups as Operation Rescue."
3) "Conclusion... As the [political] conflict [over abortion] intensified and anti-abortionists replaced violent strategies with a more acceptable “woman-centred” approach, they adopted the “ABC link” as a means of fighting abortion in Congress, state legislatures and courts of law."
4) "in the early 1990s... the anti-abortion campaign had reached a stage in its increasingly violent history when new strategies were needed"
5) "...supporters of direct action rose to prominence [in the anti-abortion movement], first employing tactics, such as sit-ins, inherited from the tradition of civil disobedience, but moving on by the mid-1980s to clinic break-ins and bombings."
6) "Before abortion was legalized, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had been the force behind most of the lobbying [against abortion] but, following Roe v Wade, they were joined by increasingly militant, and increasingly numerous, Protestant fundamentalists dedicated to the anti-abortion cause."
7) "...by [1988] a majority of Americans had come to accept the right of adults to seek early abortion."
8) "Within a year of the publication of Daling's report, legislation had been passed in two states and proposed in several others, either directing authorities to investigate the cancer link or taking the form of “Women's Right to Know” acts requiring that women be advised of a possible cancer risk."
9) This example is less obviously inaccurate, but it is the most insidiously misleading. After describing a study which found an apparent link between abortion and subsequent breast cancer, Jasen wrote,
So how does WP:RS apply to a paper like this? NCdave ( talk) 01:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that WP was generally trying to avoid citing to on-line EB as a source - otherwise WP simply becomes "EB lite," and editors will not do the real work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources. Is there a guideline/policy that addresses this question?
Second, on-line EB is paid, and I was under the impression that WP was steering away from paid sites. Again, any guidelines/policies on this topic? Thx! NorCalHistory ( talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - is there a WP policy/guideline somewhere that sets out that tertiary sources are to be avoided if primary or secondary sources are available? NorCalHistory ( talk) 23:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is http://FromOccupiedPalestine.org a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal website. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Is justice4lebanon.wordpress.com a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and there's currently a citation of a Google Video (it's the last paragraph in this section). What's the consensus as to the reliability of this source? Should it be allowed as a statement of the author's belief, or removed as unencylopaedic? Sheffield Steel talk stalk 19:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
On the section Documentary above. Please? pschemp | talk 06:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Problems at the Ronald Kessler article. Kessler's in the news currently for a story he wrote about Barack Obama; that rebounded pretty badly and then User:KesslerRonald turned up and removed the criticism section from his own bio. (The section was pretty badly sourced and overly negative at the time.) The website Talking Points Memo Election Central picked up on this, and someone wrote a post/article, which was then cited in the Kessler article. (Following all this?)
I came along to the article in response to a complaint and did some cleanup. Most of my changes have stuck, but objections have been raised on the talkpage to my removal of the TPM-EC article about Kessler and WP.
These objections are:
As this is too much information for my brain when St. Patrick's Day is barely over, I'm bringing it here for advice. Relata refero ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest reading this recent New York Times article about Talking Points Memo. Among the highlights:
Sounds like a pretty clear case for reliability to me. (More reliable in this case than the Bill Kristol column that started the whole thing.) Northwesterner1 ( talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
←I agree with Blueboar, regretfully. Without some scientific process to gauge how TPM's writing is influenced by the real or perceived needs of their readership, it's hard to know where to draw the line, and we've dealt with that so far by not drawing the line at all. I invite people to join the discussions at the wikiquality mailing list about ways to measure how accurate a source is. Generally the discussion there is about ways to implement WP:FLAGGED, as early as next month, but the same methods could apply to any source, such as TPM. WP:SPADE requires me to say: I hope we will find a way to better judge our sources at Wikipedia, because TV news sucks, and TPM doesn't. The announcer on CBS News on Logo last night said that the number of casualties in Iraq just reached 4000. TPM would never make any one of the many mistakes in that statement: they wouldn't confuse deaths with casualties, or imagine that deaths of contractors, or allies, or enemies, or civilians don't count. - Dan Dank55 ( talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a documentary, composed of interviews from published academics and experts, and a little bit of filler material in between. Is this a reliable source? I can list out and name all the experts interviewed, and what they published.
I've been told this isn't good enough because the producer of the documentary isn't an academic. pschemp | talk 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously...some help here people? I am not on crack. pschemp | talk 05:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the links you provided, including the fact that the series aired on Channel 4 and is referenced (approvingly) in academic literature, I agree that the documentary qualifies as a reliable source for wikipedia, but may need to be used with care. Here are my comments and suggestions:
Please note that I haven't seen the doc. myself, so some of the above comments are based on a guesstimation of its content (I am imagining a series of interviews; snippets from historical works; and a voiceover). Anyway, I hope that helps. Abecedare ( talk) 02:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
For the purposes of propagating an actor's filmography, can the film itself (a primary source) be used as a reliable source the that actor's work? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, how pertinent is the accessibility of the source? If a film itself is referenced as a source for a fact, are others expected to rent the video (if available) to corroborate that sourcing? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Are references to tourism sites whether they be the likes of Fodors or Frommers, government tourism sites such as www.goisrael.com - an Israeli government site, or www.visit-tlv.com - a municipal site, or sites such as www.TravelGuides.com or www.telaviv-insider.co.il good enough to cite about sites or cultural events etc/general facts about the city. To what extent can they be used? Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 09:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it's hard to find the etymology of words, especially in a (suitable?) online format. OED is a paid subscription. I'd like to submit the following two sources for scrutiny on reliability:
Is V2rocket.com RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 12:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
See Request for comment on the inclusion of McGrew's blog. Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Is discoverthenetworks.org a reliable soure? My instinct is to say no. Corvus cornix talk 20:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
On the follow paragraph below, is the source from The Nation reliable for what it is being used for? Another user said because the author of the article does not have other articles online published and is not a scholar, that it is an unreliable source. And obviously the article, like many on Fox News, is written with a bias--but that doesn't make it unreliable for the context it is used in. I just need more opinion as to if the source is unable or not.
According to journalist Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. [1] He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," [2] [1] and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." [3] [1]
- ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. " The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation ( 2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review ( 1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review ( 2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
Thanks.— Christopher Mann McKay talk 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would allow the McNeil column to be used as a representation of what some of Pipes' critics think about him rather than as a representation of what Wikipedia thinks of him. The Nation column does include the quotes from Pipes that are claimed to be there, and the reader can verify that those quotes actually came from Pipes' columns by referring to the columns themselves, which are linked (one to Pipes' own web site, and the other to NationalReview.com, where the column was published). However, I would rephrase the passage as follows:
Note that McNeil's bionote on The Nation web site describes her occupation as "writer" (as opposed to "journalist"), and my proposed rephrasing is intended to indicate that this is all based on McNeil's characterization of Pipes' comments rather than our own. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)In a column in The Nation, writer Kristine McNeil described Pipes as having "anti-Arab" views. [1] McNeil cited columns in which Pipes described the customs of Muslim immigrants as being "more troublesome than most" [2] [1] and referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers". [3] [1]
- ^ a b c McNeil, Kristine. " The War on Academic Freedom". The Nation ( 2002-11-11). Retrieved on 2007-10-21.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " The Muslims are Coming! The Muslims are Coming!". National Review ( 1990-11-19). Retrieved on 2008-03-13.
- ^ Pipes, Daniel. " Bin Laden Is a Fundamentalist". National Review ( 2001-10-22). Retrieved on 2008-03-12.
Hi all:
As I have recently been threatened with a block for posting here from an administrator with whom I have had frequent disagreements in the past, I can no longer comfortably contribute to this thread without the risk of what I think would be a huge, drama-creating incident that would drain far more resources than it would be worth. I’d like to both thank everyone who came here and contributed thoughtful and thought-provoking responses to what I wrote, and apologize for my inability to freely reply. IronDuke 23:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on List of Alpha Phi Omega members and have a question about linking two sources. Documentary maker focused on blacks states that St. Clair Bourne was a student at Georgetown in the 1960s before being expelled for participating in a Sit-in. The list of members of Alpha Phi Omega at Georgetown lists a St. Claire Bourne as a member of the Spring 1961 pledge class. I'm not that concerned about the difference between St. Claire with an e and without an e as the page at imdb shows him with the e, but having done work as St. Clair Bourne. Is this enough to fit the reliable sources for Wikipedia given that *theoretically* there could have been two different St. Claire Bourne's at Georgetown University at the same time. Yes, I know that this is *significantly* less likely that two Joseph Brown's there at the same time, but I'm trying to bend over backwards here... Thank You. Naraht ( talk) 03:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone tell if the following RS or not?
I want use these for geographical location related articles. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 09:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking for some feedback about rotten.com, specifically its library section, regarding whether it's a reliable source.
It seems to me that this falls under the category of self-published websites. While the site is reasonably popular and has been mentioned in various newspaper articles, the library articles are written by an unknown person and there is no evidence of or reputation of fact checking and such. A question: how exactly do we go about distinguising between a popular website which is not considered reliable, and one which is? (Such as slate.com) -- Xyzzyplugh ( talk) 17:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Newsgroup postings are considered lower than dirt as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. I think this case is an exception to the rule. In late 1994, the Intel Pentium FDIV bug played out mailing list and in the newsgroup comp.sys.intel. The posters were acoumplished scientist and engineers from major companies. While Intel was claiming the bug was minor, the readers of these newsgroups found out how serious the defect was. (I followed the posting at the time and was amazed at their quality.)
Tim Coe, a FPU (floating point unit) designer at Vitesse Semiconductor, read the reports of the Pentium division errors and was able to reverse engineer the cause of error. He wrote a C program to predict the errors. He did not own an Intel CPU, so he went to a local computer store to check his results. His error predictions were correct. He posted his results on the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, on November 16, 1994.
The original newsgroup posing can be found on Google groups. Here is a web site that has a good copy of Tim Coe's posting and some other valid links. [54]
His work was reported in the technical press at the time and here is a report from the MathWorks newsletter.
Tim Coe later wrote a paper in the peer reviewed journal, IEEE Computational Science & Engineering
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) "The Pentium affair has been widely publicized. It started with an obscure defect in the floating-point unit of Intel Corporation's flagship Pentium microprocessor. This is the story of how the Pentium floating-point division problem was discovered, and what you need to know about the maths and computer engineering involved before deciding whether to replace the chip, install the workaround provided here, or do nothing. The paper also discusses broader issues of computational correctness."Can the Tim Coe's original posting to the newsgroup, comp.sys.intel, be used as a reference?
-- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that Andy Grove, the Intel CEO, responded to this newsgroup. [55] -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I got a copy of the IEEE Computational Science & Engineering paper today. In a sidebar, the journal editor states how important the internet was in uncovering the Pentium bug. The article mentions several specific posts to the newsgroup by various individuals. For example, "… reporters for major newspapers and news services had Xeroxed copies of faxed copies of Moler's posting." The newsgroup "comp.sys.intel" was part of the story. "At the height of the frenzy a month later, over 2000 messages a week were being posted to comp.sys.intel." All of the facts about the newsgroup posting can be referenced by traditional reliable sources. The 2 or 3 most significant posting themselves can be noted with a proper citation, {{cite newsgroup}}. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 01:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)