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 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
Comments invited please:
http://www.thejsho.com/ Richard Malter, James Woessner, Alan Loader, Helen Tyrrell 'Complete Reversal of Stage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma' Vol. 3 No.10, Jan. 2011
" A clinical application of the BDORT that achieved 100% remission of an advanced stage cancer that is generally considered incurable and fatal by mainstream medicine has been independently published by an international peer-reviewed medical-scientific journal. The clinical result was confirmed by pre and post treatment PET and CT scans. http://thejsho.com/default.aspx http://www.richardmalter.net/26thICAETweb.pdf " http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=BDORT&oldid=416316304
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BDORT#Journal_of_the_Science_of_Healing_Outcomes_.28JSHO.29 , to the bottom of the talk page. 202.63.58.223 ( talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments that this particular source is a primary source and a case study specifically disallowed by WP:MEDRS. I would not matter what publication the source was contained in. I would go further. Notwithstanding the claims of the publishers that they engage in not merely peer review but what they call "super peer review" (that claim alone raises a red flag for me!), JSHO is not a "reputable medical journal". Peer review alone does not establish that a journal is reputable; is necessary, but not sufficient. JSHO is a new publication only a couple of years old, and as near as I can tell, not a single article has ever been cited by another scholarly publication. The lack of citation is an objective indication that it is not (as of now) accepted in the medical or scientific community as a reputable source. It may or may not gain that acceptance at some point in the future, but as of now, I would not accept any article from JSHO as a source for a medically-related Wikipedia article. Fladrif ( talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This page on a website has been used to cite a huge number of claims on Friendly fire, see [1]. Same editor has also used this source for a number of edits.
Not sure if this is an over enthusiastic newbie but the editor has repeatedly ignored reverts of inappropriate use of supporting cites. Outside opinions on these sources would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have a good deal of citations to the news site DigitalJournal.com. DigitalJournal.com is a citizen journalism site like NowPublic or OhmyNews where "regular Joes and Janes" can contribute stories. The site is slightly different, however, in that it claims to employ "quality-control mechanisms" and all writers have to be approved by the editorial board before they can start publishing stories. It is not clear, however, what these "quality-control mechanisms" are, or if there is any actual editorial oversight for individual stories. I'm asking here since there are potential BLP issues and it needs to be established whether this is a reliable source or not. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kaldari ( talk) 01:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a long discussion at Dosa about whether cook books can be used as a reference about the history of the food. Would a cook book be considered as a reliable secondary source about the history of a food by an expert in the field? See Talk:Dosa#Origin of Masala Dosa? from 4th feb 2009 onwards in the talk page seems to be about related matters and the article has references being added and subtracted every so often all this time. Dmcq ( talk) 10:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry but I see now from searching that practically this exact question was raised six months ago in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Dosa. I think the answer then was cook books were okay but it wasn't stated in black and white like that, anyway it isn't a reason to straightforwardly remove citations on its own that I can see. Dmcq ( talk) 10:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
as i pointed out, i find it silly to even write that Dosa "originated" in some place. is it just me? i guess i should remove "Their works do not mention the reference to Dosa in Tamil Sangam literature" from the second bullet. That was added by me as part of a consensus long time ago. i dont think it is needed though. -- CarTick ( talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
An ongoing bone of contention for your attention here. The article was [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Parga sent to AfD] where it was kept as no consensus--puzzling, in my mind, and I wasn't the only one who was surprised--and after that, the creator saw fit to remove the "unsourced BLP tag". I reinstated the tag, and then another editor removed it.
This is also a BLP issue, of course, but I'm here specifically because the last editor stated "removed unreferenced template - references have been added." It is my contention that not a single one of the sources counts even remotely as a reliable source. The AfD might be revisited soon, but in the meantime I'd like to know how reliable you all think those sources are, especially given that they are supposed to verify BLP information. Please note that the actual biographies on many of them are copy and past jobs, no doubt supplied by the same editor who claims to have permission from Parga's management. Here they are:
Thanks in advance. Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the website feldgrau.com considered a reliable source? I've just encountered an ip user which insists on replacing info based on book sources (published by the UK government) with info from feldgrau.com pages (specifically www.feldgrau.com/stats.html and www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html) over at Norwegian Campaign. Are these considered reliable? Manxruler ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I get a view please, on the reliability of the sites Browse Biography and Incredible People. They both [3] [4] have a biography of Golding Bird which I would like to use, but I see no source information. The fact that both sites are carrying word-for-word identical articles leads me to suspect that the material has been lifted from some RS, but I can't work out what it is. SpinningSpark 12:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has been messing with the imformation. There is no poopington elementary school in Crofton. The elementary school that is missing is The Crofton Elementary School. It would be nice if it could be corrected. Thank-you
I have searched through the archives and found a couple of examples where Google Snippets was discussed. Several have focused on Google snippets, where their reliability has been discussed but in those cases editors did in fact have the source to hand. The consensus that I have seen thus far is that provided an editor has the source available then use of Google snippets is perfectly acceptable to illustrate a proposed edit. I've done so myself.
However, when Google snippets is the sole source used to support an edit and the editor does not possess the source, I do not believe this is a reliable or accurate way to source edits. Unless you have the ability to see the source and to discuss it in the whole I do not believe this is a reliable way to source an edit.
As an example:
This was given as justification of an edit to support a claim the British controlled Gibraltar in the period 1704-1713.
"And, most important in the early days, there was the succession of British Governors who recognised that their position as dictators of Gibraltar gave them unprecedented opportunities for plunder." (Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar, Allen Andrews, p 55
The editor who made this claim searched for the name of the Governor who was appointed in 1707, Shrimpton. This is the Google snippet they used [6].
Unfortunately, the editor wasn't in posession of the source, that part of the book is dealing with the period 1713-1727 after Utrecht when Gibraltar was ceded to Britain.
My second concern is that of the potential for confirmation bias. Rather than reading sources and composing a neutral point of view edit, the editor decides the content they wish to write, then looks for sources to justify the text and can all too easily mislead themselves that they've reliably sourced an edit. As shown above, it is far from reliable.
My question for this board, is are Google Snippets, alone suitable for sourcing edits? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You can actually get a lot of text out of Google Snippet View through a combination of searching the book and searching the database. It's just tedious. I see no problem with assuming they're as reliable as any other book citation; contested citations can be dealt with on an individual basis. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of google snippets should be discouraged as a rule. We expect that when people add references to entries they have fully verified the contents of the sources. This simply cannot be done from a snippet view because the full context is not there. It is much better to have a citation needed tag in the entry than to have a possibly erroneous citation coming from someone's google snippet view of a book. At least then we know that it hasn't yet been fully verified. There is another bad side-effect of snippet view entry writing. During content disputes and AfDs editors who are hoping to find their view supported in the available literature, or hoping to prove that something is notable often search google books and quickly return with out of context quotes. These quotes might be quite misleading and might not actually support the claims being made, but that can only be determined in full context. We should never allow such out of context quotes to be satisfactory. Allowing snippet views in some contexts would be a slippery slope into the wrong end of that scenario. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that topic is, that it is somewhat outside our control. Since the reference that should be cited is of course not the link to the google snippet but a proper the proper citation of the books or journal the snippet belongs to. The snippet merely might be offered as a convenience link. Now when looking at a proper citation, there is no way to tell whether the editor has read the whole book, a few pages of it, whether he read it at home or in a library, via a digitized copy or maybe just a snippet. We can of course explicitly recommend that an editor should know more than 2 lines of the source he's referencing, but on the other hand imho that follows from common sense alone. The fact that occasionally editors will do nonsensical things, is something we have to live with anyhow and it is not a good idea to formulate guidelines against various conceivable nonsensical things (see WP:CREEP).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Google snippet view is NOT enough for verification. To see why, read through the sordid details at Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park) where snippet view was being used by editors to insert contentious epitaphs into an article on a Soviet war memorial. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has added this source to the article Sex and psychology to suggest that Stereotype threat may be controversial. I believe that the scientific consensus is that stereotype threat is an established phenomenon and there isn't any scientific controversy on its existence (see sources such as: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). I'm not aware of any scientific criticism and a quick Google Scholar search shows how much research already exists on it. The critical article above is by law professor Amy Wax and published in a law journal, so I think it's particularly inappropriate in an article about psychological research. According to her bio [6], she doesn't have any expertise or experience evaluating psychological studies, so I think she is a completely unreliable source for this topic and does not represent notable scientific criticism of stereotype threat. Per wp:undue, I think it should only be mentioned briefly in the article that's actually about Stereotype threat (Amy Wax is already mentioned there), or possibly not included in Wikipedia as a source at all. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in my position on this source. Thanks. -- Aronoel ( talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is definitely reliable. A school like that would not publish this without having it peer reviewed by experts in the area, and the author is qualified to write on the subject. AerobicFox ( talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The SSRN link is just a convenience link. The actual citation appear to be Wax, Amy L., Stereotype Threat: A Case of Overclaim Syndrome?. THE SCIENCE ON WOMEN AND SCIENCE, Christina Hoff Sommers, ed., American Enterprise Institute, 2009; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-14 We all assumed that it came from U. Penn law review but it appears to be from a book published by American Enterprise and possibly also issued separately as a research paper by the law school. My .02c: she clearly is reliable for an assertion along the lines "Law professor and neurologist Amy Wax states...." The people trying to exclude this are attempting to hold it to an impossibly high standard. Even if we treated it as falling under WP:SPS, she has been previously published by reliable third parties on issues at the intersection of law, psychology and sociology. So if this were an opinionated blog post, we would let it in but people are arguing for the exclusion of a research paper? Doesn't make sense. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
SOMEONE PLEASE ADDRESS WHAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, DO NOT IGNORE THIS. I am talking to you aronoel and Yobol. You have failed to address this very vital point and it should be at the heart of your argument. It is in fact the single most important aspect of whether or not to include the article. If you cannot provide a single reason or study to refute what she is saying then it is hard to imagine what the foundation of your argument is based on. Character attacks simply are not sufficient. PhoenisMeanis ( talk) 02:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have one question:
1. How come there is no mentioning of optimus primes City Commander Upgrade Armor Set and G3 Trailer that was made by fansproject and the Mobile Command Center by BTS Toys on the profile of "Transformers Classics" & "Optimus Prime (Transformers)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.30.150 ( talk • contribs)
Am i posting in the right place? Anyway, a book i am trying to cite has "in associaction with London's Transport Museum". Is there a field in {{ citebook}} which would allow me to add this to the reference? Simply south.... .. 10:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I am bringing up this issue again because there are now more quality and quantity of sources as evidence:
There has been a raging debate on the fractional reserve banking page on the issue of whether or not the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply in practice. The *textbooks* state that the reserve requirements *does* place a limit on the money supply but it appears that in the world of peer-reviewed-journal-papers the consensus is that the money supply does *not* place a limit on the money supply. For example “Understanding the Remarkable Survival of Multiplier Models of Money Stock Determination” by Raymond E. Lombra. and “Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?” by by Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp. One of the papers is even published on the Fed's own website.
As supporting evidence (not taken from a peer reviewed paper) Prof. Steve Keen said "Basil [Moore] is the venerable father of the proposition that the money supply is endogenously determined, rather than set exogenously by the Central Bank, as is still taught (in wild conflict with both the empirical data and actual Central Bank knowledge and practice) in almost all macroeconomics courses"
As I understand it, wikipedia policy is that peer-reviewed-journal papers trump textbooks and so unless someone can find a peer reviewed paper that defends the money-multiplier-as-limit theory, then I suggest that the wikipedia page on fractional reserve banking should state that the money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit is now the currently accepted mainstream view.
I have been begging the editors of the page to find a peer-reviewed-paper defending the money-multiplier-as-limit theory for many months now and they appear not to be able to find a single one. I have even offered a $250 reward if they can find one - still nothing. I even posted on a variety of popular economics forums that I was offering the prize, several hundred people have read the postings - and still nothing.
In conclusion - if there are several unchallenged peer-reviewed journal papers suggesting that money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit then that is what wikipedia should report as the current expert view.
Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Alternative_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_multiplier_second_break Reissgo ( talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently the section describing the textbook process is listed first under the titles "Example of deposit multiplication"&"Money multiplier" and contains about 1,200 words, two pictures and one table. The journal view is listed later under the title "Alternative views" and contains 87 words and just to emphasize the alternative-ness of the views the wording also points out that the views are "outside of the mainstream". Do you think this treatment represents NPOV? Reissgo ( talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There is also "A simple approach to modelling endogenous money" by Steve Keen. Reissgo ( talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
...and if you want to argue that text from certain books can compete with papers then I'll put forward that in Moore (1979, p.539) he quotes a Fed economist who said "in the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later". Reissgo ( talk) 09:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
...and in the book "Towards True Monetarism" by Geoffrey Gardiner it states on page 4: "conventional textbook theory needs a slight clarification. Popular textbooks even modern ones seem to imply that there can be shortages of funds in which the Bank of England can supply only by creating new money. There authors may have somewhat misinterpreted the practicalities of the situation through incomplete mastery of the principles of double entry book keeping. They failed to see that all money is debt and that if debt has been created by a bank the money for a balancing deposit has inevitably been created too. Any funds needed to eliminate a shortage must already be on there way to the bank of England because any surplus must show up in the books once the systems brief time-lag has been overcome a permanent creation of new money should therefore never be necessary judging by their private statements bank treasurers well understand this principle[1]" then he gives as the reference: "In a lecture the head of treasury operations of a large clearing bank was most emphatic: 'If we are short of funds we know they have to be around somewhere: it is just a question of finding where they are and then paying the price to get them'". Reissgo ( talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
I noticed that there have been at least three discussion pertain to this site. But I'm more leaning towards the idea that this site is unreliable due to the case of their announcement of the series Dragon Ball Z Kai finale in Japan. They state that their source was the fansite Kanzentai as seen here. Sarujo ( talk) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I question the use of this website for its sources for Benedictum. A disclaimer on the website states that anything posted there is not checked for accuracy. Is this source usable?
The website http://palestineremembered.com/ does not indicate who runs or edits it, or what level/type of oversight it has. The "Contact Us" page leads to a Post Office Box, and the website itself apparently hasn't been updated since mid-2007. It's an advocacy site, and obviously has a very strong POV. As far as I can tell, though it has many "members", it is run by one individual, Salah Mansour. Does it qualify as a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hadawi has written considerable about the conflict and was very much involved and doubtless an RS for certain things. However, I would question this book published by the PLO and is the one used as a reference in the Dayh al-Shayk article. The PLO, which the Jewish Virtual Library refers to as "one of the best known terrorist organizations in the world", and is sworn to the destruction of Israel [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] might be analogous to using reference material published by Al-Qaeda about the United States. If the JDL, found here, published reference material about the conflict, would we consider that neutral and reliable reference material? Also, I would say that material that can only be found on PalestineRemembered would perhaps be similar to using material that can only be found at the ZOA or CAMERA. At the very least, a LARGE grain of salt is in order. 172.190.40.223 ( talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Journal of Cosmology is a fringe/vanity journal which publishes weird/fringe ideas in several fields of science. Particularly on quantum consciousness, panspermia/ origins of life, steady state theory, and on the colonization of Mars.
These articles use Journal of Cosmology as a references (based on the January 15 database dump). The claims should be checked against better sources, or simply removed from the article per WP:RS.
I've notified WP:AST, WP:BIOL and WP:PHYS. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This source appears to fall under Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the "Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies" website ( http://www.ineas.org/) a reliable source on the Near East and Africa? The website states it's
"an independent, tax-exempt, educational and cultural organization with the mission to educate the Arab, African, Middle Eastern and Muslim communities and offer them services, and to educate the American public and inform the media on issues related to Africa and Asia with a focus on the Arab and Islamic worlds and the non-Arab / non-Moslem Communities within the Arab world".
However, it appears to be mostly the work of Wafaa' Al-Natheema, and the people listed on the "About" page all have yahoo e-mail addresses. Her lengthy CV (linked from the website) lists a wide variety of accomplishments, including bachelor degrees in Civil Engineering and Political Science and a real estate license, along with an on-going interest in variety of Near Eastern and African topics, but doesn't seem to indicate any particular expertise in the latter. The Special Reports section provides a small number of brief descriptions of various vacations taken in different countries, mostly by Wafaa' herself. The Projects section lists an even smaller number of issues Wafaa' has been interested in (one of them, International Seed Day, is duplicated), and documentary she is working on, for which she solicits contributions. The Press section lists fairly brief descriptions of INEAS in three sources in 1998 and one in 2004. The Archives section lists 5 newsletters produced in 1997 and 1998, and 3 different performance pieces that have been done (and are still done?) for young people in classrooms, libraries, etc. The Events section lists "Tai Chi, Indian Martial Arts and Bollywood Dancing" classes INEAS gave on October 10, 2010. I could go on, but in summary everything I can find on the website tells me it's a part-time activity of one activist. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Vahakn Dadrian's books are widely used as sources in articles about Armenian Genocide. But I doubt whether he is a reliable source. We can see it from the article about him, which says that he was criticised by many historians and researchers because of his willful mistranslations, biased use of only selective sources and selective quotations, and many historians say that he should not be considered as a reliable source. At the moment, he is working at the Zoryan Institute. This institute was founded by Dr. Libaridian, who took the position of Director of the Department of Research and Analysis of the Presidium of the Parliament of Armenian. And the last thing which makes me doubt seriously about the reliability of his work is that he was given a medal (the highest medal of the Ministry) by the Ministry of Diaspora of Armenia. [13] Why is that? Because he has made "immense contribution over more than fifty years to the scholarly study of the Armenian Genocide, at the same time raising awareness of it in international circles as a prime example of the “ultimate crime.” The Minister particularly emphasized the invaluable nature of Dadrian’s legal studies on the Armenian Genocide." We can easily see that the Armenian government thinks just in the same the way Dadrian thinks, and that he is biased and writes from an Armenian POV. -- Seksen iki yüz kırk beş ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm having problems with an editor at two articles. In particular, at Pepi II Neferkare the editor insists on a section saying "It is thought that Ipuwer the sage served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare's reign.[14][15]. Archaeological evidence from Syrian button seals supports this interpretation.[16] The Ipuwer Papyrus describes the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the dark age known as the First Intermediate Period.[17]"
Source 14 is the Britannica which says 'perhaps'. Source 15 says " "Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II. J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). " Source 16 is discussing opinions in the first part of the 20th century. The article "The Dark Ages in Ancient History. I. The First Dark Age in Egypt" says " Although van Seters (1964, JEA 50) presents arguments for assigning the work to the Second Intermediate Period, most Egyptologists consider it more probably belongs to the First." Van Seters is [[ John Van Seters. The IP also deleted from the Ipuwer Papyrus article a reputable and reliable source that calls the papyrus ""romanticised historical fiction" of the Middle Kingdom. [12]" [14], a view that isn't incorporated in the paragraph. Basically, the dating and purpose of this document are disputed and this seems to be a misuse and cherry-picking of sources. Dougweller ( talk) 10:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
hardcoregaming101.net - This site is used across many pages, but it doesn't seem very reliable. They get a lot of their information from babel-fish translated forums and other similar sources. A big problem is that they don't always say what their source is unless they are skeptical or are not sure how to interpret it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Philippi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippi, an article on an ancient Greek city, contains a substantial section relating as historical fact certain biblical accounts, in particular that a demon was exorcised from a woman there, that the exorcist (Paul) was taken to jail, and that an earthquake then split the jail open, prompting the jailer to convert to being one of the first Christians in Europe. None of these claims are cited to any source other than the biblical account. I have asked on the article's talk page whether there is any independent and contemporaneous evidence of these events, and the only reply I have received is that the biblical account must be true. Do we have any policy for determining how and when an otherwise uncorroborated account of a biblical story should be reported in the history of the place where it is said to have occurred? bd2412 T 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently had to finesse this, see here. I thought in an article on a Christian service, it would be pointless to throw in a bunch of "allegedly" and "supposedly"s.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently an IP editor added new content to the article International child abduction in Japan from the following website:
The source appears to be an advocacy group, so brings flags of WP:NPOV, but that is not what I am coming here for. My concern is that this source may fall under WP:SPS, but I would like to receive comments about the source first. If consensus finds that this is a reliable source the content will be reformatted as it has been added haphazardly, but if it fails, I will undo the change all together. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the Wikipedia page Insite where another contributor has a number of times removed a paragraph of text [15] on the grounds that it is somehow in breach of Wikipedia:Third party sources, although he has not stated how it is in breach.
My source regarding criticism of the Vancouver Insite Supervised Injection Facility is the online 'Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice' [16] which is funded by the US Department of Justice. The importance of this journal article is that the Canadian Health Minister, Tony Clement, cites the article's critique of journal studies commissioned by Insite as a major impetus for their ongoing efforts to close the facility - thus the importance of the Mangham article, which has influenced government. This source verifies the Tony Clement's reliance on Mangham's critique, although it incorrectly states that the online journal is not peer-reviewed. I have posted in Talk a verbatim e-mailed reply directly from the editor of that journal where she confirms that it is indeed peer-reviewed.
The contributor also cites WP:UNDUE but that is another matter unrelated to this forum. Interested in views on this one. Minphie ( talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors believe that a banner for self-published material is appropriate for the article but I believe that the self-published articles referenced are the most authentic source for the subject's views. Is the article lacking in secondary sources? Lambanog ( talk) 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I consider the phrase though according to other sources the city name may stem from an ancient Hungarian first name which begins with "Ko" such as Kokos-Kakas, Kolumbán-Kálmán, or Kopov-Kopó. is supported by an unreliable source, namely an ordinaty website ( WP:SPS). I think it should eliminated from the article,at least until a valid reference is provided, but User:Hobartimus keeps readding it. I see not clue that this would be a reliable source ( Iaaasi ( talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
A new editor WGR11 is working on an article Viral Decay Acceleration. I believe an earlier version may have been deleted. I had an exchange with the editor about sources, and offered to post to this board about some issues I could not answer. The editor identified the following potential sources:
My observation is that sources 1,4, and 6 have some issues with independence, but I wasn't familiar with:
So I did not know whether they meet our requirement for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for each of the four entries in the archives, and did not get a hit. Can I get some feedback from the experts here, either on the general sites themselves, or the specific links?
In
this edit
this edit another contributor excised a reference to a page on
http://www.globalsecurity.org. In their edit they called the reference an "unreliable primary source".
There are almost 10,000 references to this site on the project. It is my belief this wide use of globalsecurity reflects confidence in the reliability of the site, and that those responsible for the site exercise meaningful editorial control. This particular article seems to be a reprint of an article written by the American Forces Press Service. In general I believe that the American Forces Press Service is a reliable source. In this specific case those responsible for globalsecurity felt confident enough to reprint material from the AFPS, which I suggest would show this reference is reliable even if the AFPS was not trusted. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I only use globalsecurity.org when no other sources are available. It often has outdated info, ripped off from various sources. Often, who exactly is the author and what is the level of his expertise, is unclear. For example, this article currently on their main page, is cutpasted from a blog which is definitely not an RS. It is much, much better to rely on real security and military journals and articles by established military analysts published in the news media. That Forbes has mentioned globalsecurity.or in some list of "best" websites (would be interesting to know how many sites do they have this "list"; if it's 10,000, then I won't be impressed) really says nothing about the site's reliability as a source on military and security issues. I think it would be definitely wrong to regard globalsecurity.org as a true RS (meaning that everything they publish can be used), but some of their articles can certainly be used when better sources are not available. It all comes down to the article author or original publisher and their level of expertise. Nanobear ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
...very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
Some contributors here have repeated that primary sources are not prohibited, that they merely have to be used carefully, and in a way that complies with policy. I believe I had used the reference carefully, and that my use complied with policy. Sorry that I didn't supply the right diff in this discussion. I have fixed that. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I need more comments on commons file: [39], which was removed here by user:Zlqq [40] and commented by user:Benlisquare: here that VOA is American propaganda and thus it is not reliable source. Arilang talk 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I raised the issue of the reliability of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. I raised that issue because another contributor removed a reference where www.globalsecurity.org had republished an article from the American Forces Press Service.
The two respondents in the discussion above who objected to the use of practically all references from the US Department of Defense or the US Department of Justice, characterizing them as primary sources, and routinely making the mistake of asserting that primary sources are not allowed, when policy does allow them to be used, so long as they are used with appropriate care. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The DoD includes a number of colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. In addition to the service academies, the DoD runs the Navy Postgraduate School, the Navy War College, and other similar institutions. It also runs technical colleges, which teach skilled trades. If you counted them all up it wouldn't surprise me if there were over one hundred institutions where the staff and students were DoD employees.
Is there any reason to treat the journals published out of these institutions as any less reliable than any other academic journals? Do these journals have an inherent bias? Maybe. I don't know. I am not myself an expert in any of the fields these journals cover. It is my impression that the professors and instructors at these DoD institutions are proud of their qualifications and feel their scholarship, their reasoning, their arguments, can hold their own when compared with the work of civilian scholars.
Similarly, I think when a student or professor who is a DoD employee has a paper published in a civilian journal, or reasonable equivalent, it should, in general, be regarded as just as reliable as one published by a civilian.
Are there exceptions? I don't know. Maybe. But I don't believe there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I first raised the question on whether articles by reporters and journalists at the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. Some respondents offered their opinions there. I've read and used many articles by AFPS reporters and journalists, some of whom have worked there for years. As above, I think they write to inform, or to entertain, as some of their articles are lighter, human interest type articles. As above I do not think there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda.
The key passage from the AFPS article that triggered my question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org seems to have been: "In other news, Afghan and coalition forces have positively identified a Taliban leader detained during a Feb. 25 joint operation in Ghazni province as Mullah Shabir." The American Forces Press Service writer did what we would do -- they made clear who identified Shabir as a Taliban leader -- "Afghan and coalition forces". Sure, it is possible the individual was misidentified as a Taliban leader. And the American Forces Press Service writer used the same kind of careful wording as we would have used -- attributing the claim to "Afghan and coalition forces".
I do not believe there was a policy based reason to excise this reference as unreliable. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In the discussions above I asked for input on whether we should regard articles written by reporters and journalists employed by the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable.
A couple of the contributors who have weighed in there routinely object to the use of any material written by employees of the DoD. Well, when I first started contributing here I didn't realize how many journalists and reporters the DoD employs.
In this diff you can see three references excised with the edit summary "Eliminated primary sources and self promotion. Use secondary sources. Thank you."
The third reference excised was:
Many people think the bomb used by the Oklahoma City bombers was much larger than the car bomb used by the Khobar Towers bombers. Not so, according to Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, team chief of the Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability Assessment team that began their analysis of Osan this week.
I used this reference in an article about a USN Captain John F. Murphy (JAG). I used it to substantiate that, at one point in his career, he traveled as leader of a team that assessed the vulnerability of US bases to terrorist bomb threats. Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner, the author of the article, was not Murphy's subordinate. She had no reason to distort the truth in her coverage of Murphy. I don't see why her article should be considered any less reliable than if she was a civilian reporter.
Was Murphy's assessment of the Osan base's vulnerability reliable on some kind of deep level. I don't know. I don't care. As a wikipedia contributor who complies with WP:VER my opinion on the credibility of his team's assessment is irrelevant. And, in my use of this reference I am not concerned with the reliability of his team's conclusions -- only with the article's placement of Murphy on this team.
It turns out that lots of US bases, lots of US commands, have publications, generally published weekly, generally containing relatively light and uncontroversial material. Occasionally they will publish material that addresses a larger issue, that touches on that base, or command, and when those articles back up what is in the civilian media I think they can and should be regarded as just as reliable as civilian articles. Sometimes those occasional articles that address a broader issue covered in the civilian media will quote what is for them local officials, not quoted by the distant civilian media. And when they do so I think they should still generally be regarded as just as reliable as those by civilian reporters. Like any other reference information from them should be properly attributed to the source, not stated as a fact with no attribution. As with any other reference they could be misleading, if not used carefully. Well, when I use them, I will use them carefully.
I don't think they should be excised, as "primary sources", just because the writers work for the DoD. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: There is no blanket answer. In some contexts scholarly DoD-Publications can be considered relatively reliable, but in other they might not be. To the latter scenario belong in particular cases, where the DoD is an involved party in a current/ongoing event. If we are considering an ongoing case in which he DoD as an involved party, the reliability of DoD publication regarding it cannot be treated as realiable 3rd party sources, but they are in doubt not much different from lawyer statement regarding his client, a party spokesman regarding his party, etc.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.
I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman events of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.
The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order".
On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.
My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views, though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.
I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 ( talk • contribs)
Is silence over ethnic cleansing and massacre of pilgrims any good for "a reliable source of the highest order"? I don't think so. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 ( talk • contribs)
This link may help. http://www.economist.com/node/16213932. Though, questioning silence of those who should not be silent, is not too contradictory is it? http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html
Thanks for pointing out that the strong point of view is from a source and link to WP:NPOVN.
A previous discussion about Vigile.net declared that it was not to be used as a source of archived newspaper articles. In a contemporaneous AfD, one editor also said "I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source". French-language writings on Vigile.net, which are not copied from newspaper sites, are being used by a small group of editors on articles relating to the Canadian province of Quebec. My specific concern relates to the use of pseudonymous writings used to support statements in Vladimir De Thézier. Should Vigile.net be considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The following was recently added to Misogyny:
Those refs need to be filled out, of course, but I'm not sure that they actually are reliable. Both are reprints hosted by the "Council for Secular Humanism" website. The first, by Judith Hayes, originally appears in the Secular Humanist Bulletin. As the internal newsletter for an explicitly POV organization, this seems to definitely fail WP:RS to me for claims of facts about a religion. The second, by Ibn Warraq, originally appeared in Free Inquiry, which is also a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, although apparently in a more academic format. Our article on Warraq describes him as a "an anti-Islam polemicist of Pakistani origin who founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS). He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry." This seems a little more reliable than the first, but I'm still a bit skeptical. My personal inclination is to remove the first citation entirely, and to keep the second but attribute it more explicitly to Warraq with a shortened description of who he is. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The source is the single one that supports the Cuman origin. To compare, for the Vlach (Romanian) origin there are many sources. Leaving aside the fact that it may be a fringe theory, the source itself is questionable. I don't see anything about its authors ( Iaaasi ( talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
I've been the main editor working on keeping the 2011 Iranian protests page updated. There was a large protest on March 8 to commemorate International Women's Day, but the amount of information that has been reported on by news media has been extremely thin because of the journalist crackdown that the Iranian government has implemented. While searching for information in reliable sources, I found this, which is an opinion piece about what happened in terms of the protests on March 8, published by PBS' Tehran Bureau, having been written by a staff writer of said group. While it is stated to be an opinion piece, since it is written by a reliable reporter, can I use it for information about what happened on March 8? Silver seren C 20:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Siberiankiss1989 has been adding more than a few reviews to music article infoboxes. The site linked to is DEAD PRESS. User also tried to create a page for DEAD PRESS, but was A7'ed. I'd like to remove these reviews as non-notable/unreliable, but will wait for a second opinion before doing so. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed these links to DEAD PRESS. It very much appears to be a spamming effort on behalf of an amateur music site. If other editors feel strongly that this site is RS, I will take responsibility for rolling these removals back. Thanks AQFK for the list, much more efficient than my approach. I have notified Siberiankiss1989 of this discussion. The Interior (Talk) 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman. [43] He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.
The text added to the article reads:
"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today. [17]
There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.
The essay can be found here [44]. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor. [45]
I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen ( talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). [Edit] Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location. BillMasen ( talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nuclear power accidents by country ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles make heavy use of the following source:
Sovacool, Benjamin K. 'A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40:3, 369 - 400
Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a923050767
This is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, i question its reliability and would like to hear a broader opinion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] •
contribs)
The article is a high quality reliable source. The author is employed as an expert at a world University (Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore). The journal is refereed. The article is recent, and contained in the refereed section of the journal.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
http://bleacherreport.com/ From what I understand it is user submitted articles which makes me think it it inappropriate. However it does have some attachment with CBS Sports. There are around 750+ links on Wikipedia with it.
Could I get a ruling? Crunk Cup ( talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Is Walter John Raymond's The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms a reliable source? It was published by Brunswick Publishing, a company apparently created by Raymond specifically to publish The Dictionary of Politics, which leads me to think no established publishers were interested in it. It's difficult to get any other information about Brunswick; Amazon carries no books by it, and it has no website (Google books has it as http://www.brunswickbooks.com/ , but that domain is for sale). Google books lists 8 books it published in the early 1990s, but the books have no other information about them, and appear to be short books of poetry, or short story collections. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
One editor recently claimed that the sources used in Bryan Haczyk (which I wrote) are are not reliable sources. The four sources used in the article are USCHO.com: [47], The Star-Ledger: [48], Collegehockeynews.com: [49], and The Nutley (NJ) Sun: [50]. These all look to me like reliable sources, but I'd like to get some feedback on this issue. Thanks, Qrsdogg ( talk) 20:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering whether this self-published website is a suitable reliable source for the article Line of succession to the British throne? The website was made by (the late) William Addams Reitwiesner, and is the primary source for the Wikipedia article, which attempts to list all living members of the British line of succession.
If you have noticed that Reitwiesner's list (which is over ten years old), differs from the Wikipedia article, that is because several Wikipedia editors have updated the list themselves, based on new births and deaths which come to their attention. The Wikipedia article also differs from Reitwiesner because he included Roman Catholics in his numbering, while the Wikipedia article does not. Mlm42 ( talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what the final result was regarding whether rootsweb.ancestry.com is considered a reliable source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This web news service, "Zurf Military Aircraft," is cited as the only source for a claim in 2011 Libyan uprising that planes from a a "Free Libyan Air Force" working for the Libyan rebels attacked 2 Libyan Navy ships March 15. I found no sources at Google News about a "Free Libyan Air Force." (Revied to add: I did finally ifind some mention of the reports elsewhere, but I still am trying to find out information as to whether thes website counts as a reliable source) Yet Zurf is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles: [54]. Are they or are they not a sufficient source, by themselves, for a major development in the 2011 Libyan uprising, as compared to, say "Jane's Fighting Ships"? Edison ( talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Zurf Military Aircraft I'm the editor of the article of Zurf Military Aircraft. The purpose of the article about the Libyan Uprising is to create an overview of all military aircraft related news in one article. In the timeline with the article its sources are listed. When the information is not confirmed it is mentioned in the article (On 15 March several sources (Al Jazeera and Reuters) reported ... Details and reliability of these reports are unknown.)
References are (which are present in the timeline):
Also some other snippets which weren't put in the timeline mentioned it. Original sources seem to be limited and originate mainly from the opposition website Libya al-Youm.
In the wikipedia-article Details and reliability of these reports are unknown were added because the reliability of the statements is doubted by us. It should be mentioned though, because the opposition has at least control over a Mi-24 helicopter (see bottom photograph of Mi-24 #854 and click to go to the source) and an attack by helicopters was mentioned in the articles above.
Zurf takes credibility and reliability seriously. To avoid confusion its probably better to list the references (similar to wikipedia) in the article on Zurf Military Aircraft?
There is an RfC here about whether or not a study by The Barna Group is reliably sourced for the article on Atheism. Please comment there, not here. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
ICorrect.com is a website where individuals pay an annual membership fee of US $1,000 for individuals and US $5,000 for companies to publically challenge posts on the Internet. ICorrect's http://www.icorrect.com/about_us describes itself as,
"ICorrect is the website to set the record straight. So far, the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides “words from the horses mouth”."
As detailed in the March 14, 2011 Wikipedia Signpost article
User:Whitepaw corrected the article on Sir John Bond on March 10, 2011 after seeing a December 7, 2010 request at ICorrect.com. ICorrect.com has other requests to correct Wikipedia. [61] A. Is ICorrect.com as used by Whitepaw a reliable source? B. Is ICorrect.com a reliable source in general? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
That's my speculation, of course, but it's reasonable speculation based on the way the real world actually works. If ICorrect is serious about being a conduit for necessary corrections for living people that have had information about them misrepresented, then it's up to them to publish specifics about their verification regime before we begin to take them at their word. (Online, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no idea who's behind those claimed real world identities.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care if we accept or ban iCorrect as a source, but would note your objection--that Bianca Jagger may not have been much involved personally--would also apply to any self published web site of a celebrity, official facebook page or Twitter feed. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 10:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 199.246.40.54 ( talk · contribs)) yesterday added a link to a blog post as a reference for this article. I reverted, and today the IP editor reverted back, with edit summary saying Undid revision 419029356 by Looie496 (talk) This is not journal but a wiki article. blog is one of oldest sources to explain this effect through experiments. In my view this reference should not be used because (a) it violates WP's policy against using blogs, and (b) it actually is not very useful in understanding the phenomenon in any case. Although I see this as an open-and-shut case, I have a personal policy of never multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I am bringing the problem here in the hope that somebody else will take a look at it. I will notify the IP editor of this request. Looie496 ( talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
hello,
please have a look at references 1 and 12. The first one is a blog, the second a standard website. Are they reliable? I red the about pages, but I see no issues to use them as a reliable source. However, it fails in the WP:FLC due to bad grammar in the lead, not much notability and possibly unreliable sourcing. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Larry Sanger cited them specifically in one of his responses to Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons. I'm wondering then, if its okay to use them in the article for their opinion because Sanger feels the need to pick them out in particular, specifically this article. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Both Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley have been the subject of "satire" which a reasonable person would find offensive but are well remembered in the UK from the 1980s. In Hattersley's case, I amended the article to show it was unfair but Jimbo Wales's edit .."unreferenced so per WP:BLP I am removing it for now", something I hadn't considered. In Kinnock's case, I've removed the uncited Private Eye reference to "Welsh windbag" on the same grounds. It might also now be deemed racist. Any thoughts or policy guidance appreciated. JRPG ( talk) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm actually posting this, but here goes. Are Joshua Levy's The Agony of the Promised Land (self-published through iUniverse) and Joshua Bloomfield's Palestine (self-published novel through AuthorHouse) reliable sources? I argue that they are not, because these are pay-to-publish services that require only money - rather than expertise, factual accuracy, or research skill - to publish, and because one is moreover fictional. Epeefleche argues that they are, because the facts in them are supposedly contained in "other" reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
An example for discussion: I'm currently using an ancillary source that was published by iUniverse, but it is a niche topic, reliable enough to be in circulation as a definitive source in my library system, and recognized as reliable enough by history and wildlife experts to be cited in reliable sources. I think the part about reliable third parties using them is important, and it is important to note that when we use sources like this, they should be used to illustrate and expand upon the topic on points that are either already accepted and published widely in other sources and/or are uncontroversial and not found elsewhere. In other words, removing them would not change or alter the topic, but including them is more of a service to the reader. For example, the work, Max Schlemmer, Hawaii's King of Laysan Island (2003), is a self-published biography of a fascinating subject written by his grandson, Tom E. Unger. According to reliable sources like Mark Rauzon, "Biologists are most interested in Max Schlemmer's Laysan years and Unger provides details and photos not found elsewhere in print." Unger is carefully cited, again, as an ancillary source, by a journal article published in Waterbirds (The International Journal of Waterbird Biology). [67] It is my understanding that many or most of the corroborating sources that Unger uses can be found listed on a circa 2000 annotated bibliography hosted by the USGS website, which was put together "because this material is scattered over hundreds of professional journals and other periodicals". The use of the SPS in this particular instance, provides a central repository of related, uncontroversial information that is recommended by third-parties. In this particular instance, this source is added to articles as more of a note or further reading suggestion that supports previously documented information found in other reliable sources. My position is that when a SPS is used in this way, it is perfectly acceptable. Viriditas ( talk) 03:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, in this case it isn't an issue as it doesn't apply to Levy, but in the past I've seen sources discounted because they were published through iUniverse, AuthorHouse or similar, when the case was they they were reprinted as self-published works after the initial print run with a traditional publisher expired. (It is getting to be a good alternative for some authors - when your work goes out of print, reclaim the rights and self-publish). Anyway, not, as mentioned, an issue here, but being printed by iUniverse isn't a guarantee that the work is self-published, only that the current edition is. - Bilby ( talk) 05:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Response: There's a cited, but unattributed quote from NYT reporter Deborah Sontag in the lead. For some reason, it is followed by a cite to a novel by Jonathan Bloomfield. Sontag doesn't mention the novel, [68] and unless Epeefleche can show otherwise, it should be removed per Roscelese. Second, the statement, "The Associated Press ran the story with the headline 'Jewish toddler dies in West Bank"'" needs to be directly cited with the appropriate link. You've got the ref following Levy, and it doesn't belong there. Third, Levy's quote about the AP story is polemical, and as it appears self-published and without any indication of importance by third parties, it doesn't belong there. Epeefleche, in controversial articles, we don't get to debate whether self-published and fictional citations are relevant; we remove them immediately and debate about whether they should be restored. As far as I can tell, Roscelese has made a good case for removal, and I agree with her. You may have a case for including them in a further reading section, but you will need to demonstrate their importance. Viriditas ( talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we consider TMZ reliable for the purposes of citation? Why or why not? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd post here to get further advice and guidance on the use of Governmental Tourist brochures on pages about towns and villages in Lebanon such as Kfar Qouq and Ehden.
The series of brochures in question can be found on a Ministry of Tourism website here [69]
An example of the one on Rashaya district is here [70]
They have been compiled by the Ministry of Tourism from the Mayors of the various towns and villages covered, along with the work of Anis Freiha [71] and an unidentifiable author I can't find called Tony Moufarrej.
The question that hangs in the balance is whether this source can be used or could be defined as promotional and therefore a questionable source.
I tend to argue for the use of information in these brochures on several grounds :
I think Lebanon's an amazing place that's chocked full of undiscovered wonders. I really want to bring them to Wikipedia but thought I'd check here first for comments about my approach and use of correct sourcing. Look forward to your opinions. Thanks! Paul Bedson ( talk) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The website seems like a WP:SPS to me, and is being used to source "According to Scottish Friends of Israel in Egypt the murder of two boys was reported, "that the two boys were "Zionist Nazis put to death for crimes against humanity"; in Iran the killing was reported as "capture and execution of two terrorists"." in the article Stoning murder of Israeli teens. Passionless -Talk 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Is Hans-Ake Lilja, and his site, Lilja's Library, a reliable source for material on Stephen King? The site identifies itself as a fan site, however, Lilja has written a book, Lilja's Library: The World of Stephen King, which was published by Cemetery Dance Publications, which is not indicated in the Cemetary Dance Wikipedia article to be a vanity press or self-publishing company. The publication info for that book on Amazon indicates that the book includes over 40 of Lilja's interviews with King. Can Lilja's website be used as a source for articles on King and his works? Nightscream ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The user who relied upon that site and wishes to continue using it, Jmj713, has explained that most of the info on that site is derived from King's official site, stephenking.com, and that the reason he uses Lilja's Library is because the bulletins on stephenking.com are not placed in discrete posts with individualized or archived permalinks, but scroll off the page as it is gradually updated. This is also a problem with the Bulletins page of Asia Carrera's official site, which is also something I've been wanting to address, as Ms. Carrera or her webmaster have not responded to my email queries about whether her site has the bulletins archived, and some of the material in her article is supported by past bulletins. What do we do when material comes from a subject's official site, but it is removed when the page is updated? Nightscream ( talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is http://lowculture.co.uk/ a reliable source in the context it being used for reception/critical analysis? Lowculture has a wiki page. On there there are three refs provided, BFI - Independent and The Guardian three reputable sources mentioned it in good faith. Think there is more on the net. Like I said, in the context it's used in fictional character's reception info as a source. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I just want to know if you would use Lowculture as a source anywhere on wikipedia. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.
Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.
The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true that no one is asking for this board's opinion on citing these sources, but it wasn't me who brought this dicussion here, and to three (!) other noticeboards simultaneously, without any apparent notification of involved editors. Or did I miss one? I can't find one in Slim's contributions history. Now that we are here, let's note that sources that have described LaRouche as an economist include:
Most people on this board would agree that these qualify as reliable sources. LaRouche taught "Elementary Marxist Economics" at the "Free University" in New York, he published a book based on his course through a reputable publisher, and his writings on the IMF were noted by, and affected the decision making of, at least a half dozen heads of government. -- JN 466 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll jump in again. As I wrote earlier in this thread, trivial mentions in reliable sources don't carry weight. This isn't really an issue for RSN. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources, and there doesn't appear to be any argument about the reliability of the sources mentioned. Rather, this is a Wikipedia:Notability concern. LaRouche is notable, but is he notable as an economist? WP:SIGCOV is applicable here, and WP:SIGCOV excludes trivial mentions. That's why I suggested finding reliable sources that actually discuss LaRouche as an economist, or provide critical reviews of his theories of economics. Such sources likely do exist, and may be included in those mentioned above if they were accessible (such as AER). ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | → | Archive 95 |
Comments invited please:
http://www.thejsho.com/ Richard Malter, James Woessner, Alan Loader, Helen Tyrrell 'Complete Reversal of Stage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma' Vol. 3 No.10, Jan. 2011
" A clinical application of the BDORT that achieved 100% remission of an advanced stage cancer that is generally considered incurable and fatal by mainstream medicine has been independently published by an international peer-reviewed medical-scientific journal. The clinical result was confirmed by pre and post treatment PET and CT scans. http://thejsho.com/default.aspx http://www.richardmalter.net/26thICAETweb.pdf " http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=BDORT&oldid=416316304
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BDORT#Journal_of_the_Science_of_Healing_Outcomes_.28JSHO.29 , to the bottom of the talk page. 202.63.58.223 ( talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the above comments that this particular source is a primary source and a case study specifically disallowed by WP:MEDRS. I would not matter what publication the source was contained in. I would go further. Notwithstanding the claims of the publishers that they engage in not merely peer review but what they call "super peer review" (that claim alone raises a red flag for me!), JSHO is not a "reputable medical journal". Peer review alone does not establish that a journal is reputable; is necessary, but not sufficient. JSHO is a new publication only a couple of years old, and as near as I can tell, not a single article has ever been cited by another scholarly publication. The lack of citation is an objective indication that it is not (as of now) accepted in the medical or scientific community as a reputable source. It may or may not gain that acceptance at some point in the future, but as of now, I would not accept any article from JSHO as a source for a medically-related Wikipedia article. Fladrif ( talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
This page on a website has been used to cite a huge number of claims on Friendly fire, see [1]. Same editor has also used this source for a number of edits.
Not sure if this is an over enthusiastic newbie but the editor has repeatedly ignored reverts of inappropriate use of supporting cites. Outside opinions on these sources would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
We seem to have a good deal of citations to the news site DigitalJournal.com. DigitalJournal.com is a citizen journalism site like NowPublic or OhmyNews where "regular Joes and Janes" can contribute stories. The site is slightly different, however, in that it claims to employ "quality-control mechanisms" and all writers have to be approved by the editorial board before they can start publishing stories. It is not clear, however, what these "quality-control mechanisms" are, or if there is any actual editorial oversight for individual stories. I'm asking here since there are potential BLP issues and it needs to be established whether this is a reliable source or not. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kaldari ( talk) 01:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a long discussion at Dosa about whether cook books can be used as a reference about the history of the food. Would a cook book be considered as a reliable secondary source about the history of a food by an expert in the field? See Talk:Dosa#Origin of Masala Dosa? from 4th feb 2009 onwards in the talk page seems to be about related matters and the article has references being added and subtracted every so often all this time. Dmcq ( talk) 10:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I am very sorry but I see now from searching that practically this exact question was raised six months ago in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Dosa. I think the answer then was cook books were okay but it wasn't stated in black and white like that, anyway it isn't a reason to straightforwardly remove citations on its own that I can see. Dmcq ( talk) 10:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
as i pointed out, i find it silly to even write that Dosa "originated" in some place. is it just me? i guess i should remove "Their works do not mention the reference to Dosa in Tamil Sangam literature" from the second bullet. That was added by me as part of a consensus long time ago. i dont think it is needed though. -- CarTick ( talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
An ongoing bone of contention for your attention here. The article was [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Parga sent to AfD] where it was kept as no consensus--puzzling, in my mind, and I wasn't the only one who was surprised--and after that, the creator saw fit to remove the "unsourced BLP tag". I reinstated the tag, and then another editor removed it.
This is also a BLP issue, of course, but I'm here specifically because the last editor stated "removed unreferenced template - references have been added." It is my contention that not a single one of the sources counts even remotely as a reliable source. The AfD might be revisited soon, but in the meantime I'd like to know how reliable you all think those sources are, especially given that they are supposed to verify BLP information. Please note that the actual biographies on many of them are copy and past jobs, no doubt supplied by the same editor who claims to have permission from Parga's management. Here they are:
Thanks in advance. Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the website feldgrau.com considered a reliable source? I've just encountered an ip user which insists on replacing info based on book sources (published by the UK government) with info from feldgrau.com pages (specifically www.feldgrau.com/stats.html and www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html) over at Norwegian Campaign. Are these considered reliable? Manxruler ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I get a view please, on the reliability of the sites Browse Biography and Incredible People. They both [3] [4] have a biography of Golding Bird which I would like to use, but I see no source information. The fact that both sites are carrying word-for-word identical articles leads me to suspect that the material has been lifted from some RS, but I can't work out what it is. SpinningSpark 12:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone has been messing with the imformation. There is no poopington elementary school in Crofton. The elementary school that is missing is The Crofton Elementary School. It would be nice if it could be corrected. Thank-you
I have searched through the archives and found a couple of examples where Google Snippets was discussed. Several have focused on Google snippets, where their reliability has been discussed but in those cases editors did in fact have the source to hand. The consensus that I have seen thus far is that provided an editor has the source available then use of Google snippets is perfectly acceptable to illustrate a proposed edit. I've done so myself.
However, when Google snippets is the sole source used to support an edit and the editor does not possess the source, I do not believe this is a reliable or accurate way to source edits. Unless you have the ability to see the source and to discuss it in the whole I do not believe this is a reliable way to source an edit.
As an example:
This was given as justification of an edit to support a claim the British controlled Gibraltar in the period 1704-1713.
"And, most important in the early days, there was the succession of British Governors who recognised that their position as dictators of Gibraltar gave them unprecedented opportunities for plunder." (Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar, Allen Andrews, p 55
The editor who made this claim searched for the name of the Governor who was appointed in 1707, Shrimpton. This is the Google snippet they used [6].
Unfortunately, the editor wasn't in posession of the source, that part of the book is dealing with the period 1713-1727 after Utrecht when Gibraltar was ceded to Britain.
My second concern is that of the potential for confirmation bias. Rather than reading sources and composing a neutral point of view edit, the editor decides the content they wish to write, then looks for sources to justify the text and can all too easily mislead themselves that they've reliably sourced an edit. As shown above, it is far from reliable.
My question for this board, is are Google Snippets, alone suitable for sourcing edits? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
You can actually get a lot of text out of Google Snippet View through a combination of searching the book and searching the database. It's just tedious. I see no problem with assuming they're as reliable as any other book citation; contested citations can be dealt with on an individual basis. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The use of google snippets should be discouraged as a rule. We expect that when people add references to entries they have fully verified the contents of the sources. This simply cannot be done from a snippet view because the full context is not there. It is much better to have a citation needed tag in the entry than to have a possibly erroneous citation coming from someone's google snippet view of a book. At least then we know that it hasn't yet been fully verified. There is another bad side-effect of snippet view entry writing. During content disputes and AfDs editors who are hoping to find their view supported in the available literature, or hoping to prove that something is notable often search google books and quickly return with out of context quotes. These quotes might be quite misleading and might not actually support the claims being made, but that can only be determined in full context. We should never allow such out of context quotes to be satisfactory. Allowing snippet views in some contexts would be a slippery slope into the wrong end of that scenario. Cheers. Griswaldo ( talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that topic is, that it is somewhat outside our control. Since the reference that should be cited is of course not the link to the google snippet but a proper the proper citation of the books or journal the snippet belongs to. The snippet merely might be offered as a convenience link. Now when looking at a proper citation, there is no way to tell whether the editor has read the whole book, a few pages of it, whether he read it at home or in a library, via a digitized copy or maybe just a snippet. We can of course explicitly recommend that an editor should know more than 2 lines of the source he's referencing, but on the other hand imho that follows from common sense alone. The fact that occasionally editors will do nonsensical things, is something we have to live with anyhow and it is not a good idea to formulate guidelines against various conceivable nonsensical things (see WP:CREEP).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Google snippet view is NOT enough for verification. To see why, read through the sordid details at Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park) where snippet view was being used by editors to insert contentious epitaphs into an article on a Soviet war memorial. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
An editor has added this source to the article Sex and psychology to suggest that Stereotype threat may be controversial. I believe that the scientific consensus is that stereotype threat is an established phenomenon and there isn't any scientific controversy on its existence (see sources such as: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]). I'm not aware of any scientific criticism and a quick Google Scholar search shows how much research already exists on it. The critical article above is by law professor Amy Wax and published in a law journal, so I think it's particularly inappropriate in an article about psychological research. According to her bio [6], she doesn't have any expertise or experience evaluating psychological studies, so I think she is a completely unreliable source for this topic and does not represent notable scientific criticism of stereotype threat. Per wp:undue, I think it should only be mentioned briefly in the article that's actually about Stereotype threat (Amy Wax is already mentioned there), or possibly not included in Wikipedia as a source at all. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in my position on this source. Thanks. -- Aronoel ( talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This article is definitely reliable. A school like that would not publish this without having it peer reviewed by experts in the area, and the author is qualified to write on the subject. AerobicFox ( talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The SSRN link is just a convenience link. The actual citation appear to be Wax, Amy L., Stereotype Threat: A Case of Overclaim Syndrome?. THE SCIENCE ON WOMEN AND SCIENCE, Christina Hoff Sommers, ed., American Enterprise Institute, 2009; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-14 We all assumed that it came from U. Penn law review but it appears to be from a book published by American Enterprise and possibly also issued separately as a research paper by the law school. My .02c: she clearly is reliable for an assertion along the lines "Law professor and neurologist Amy Wax states...." The people trying to exclude this are attempting to hold it to an impossibly high standard. Even if we treated it as falling under WP:SPS, she has been previously published by reliable third parties on issues at the intersection of law, psychology and sociology. So if this were an opinionated blog post, we would let it in but people are arguing for the exclusion of a research paper? Doesn't make sense. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
SOMEONE PLEASE ADDRESS WHAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, DO NOT IGNORE THIS. I am talking to you aronoel and Yobol. You have failed to address this very vital point and it should be at the heart of your argument. It is in fact the single most important aspect of whether or not to include the article. If you cannot provide a single reason or study to refute what she is saying then it is hard to imagine what the foundation of your argument is based on. Character attacks simply are not sufficient. PhoenisMeanis ( talk) 02:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have one question:
1. How come there is no mentioning of optimus primes City Commander Upgrade Armor Set and G3 Trailer that was made by fansproject and the Mobile Command Center by BTS Toys on the profile of "Transformers Classics" & "Optimus Prime (Transformers)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.30.150 ( talk • contribs)
Am i posting in the right place? Anyway, a book i am trying to cite has "in associaction with London's Transport Museum". Is there a field in {{ citebook}} which would allow me to add this to the reference? Simply south.... .. 10:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I am bringing up this issue again because there are now more quality and quantity of sources as evidence:
There has been a raging debate on the fractional reserve banking page on the issue of whether or not the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply in practice. The *textbooks* state that the reserve requirements *does* place a limit on the money supply but it appears that in the world of peer-reviewed-journal-papers the consensus is that the money supply does *not* place a limit on the money supply. For example “Understanding the Remarkable Survival of Multiplier Models of Money Stock Determination” by Raymond E. Lombra. and “Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?” by by Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp. One of the papers is even published on the Fed's own website.
As supporting evidence (not taken from a peer reviewed paper) Prof. Steve Keen said "Basil [Moore] is the venerable father of the proposition that the money supply is endogenously determined, rather than set exogenously by the Central Bank, as is still taught (in wild conflict with both the empirical data and actual Central Bank knowledge and practice) in almost all macroeconomics courses"
As I understand it, wikipedia policy is that peer-reviewed-journal papers trump textbooks and so unless someone can find a peer reviewed paper that defends the money-multiplier-as-limit theory, then I suggest that the wikipedia page on fractional reserve banking should state that the money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit is now the currently accepted mainstream view.
I have been begging the editors of the page to find a peer-reviewed-paper defending the money-multiplier-as-limit theory for many months now and they appear not to be able to find a single one. I have even offered a $250 reward if they can find one - still nothing. I even posted on a variety of popular economics forums that I was offering the prize, several hundred people have read the postings - and still nothing.
In conclusion - if there are several unchallenged peer-reviewed journal papers suggesting that money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit then that is what wikipedia should report as the current expert view.
Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Alternative_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_multiplier_second_break Reissgo ( talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently the section describing the textbook process is listed first under the titles "Example of deposit multiplication"&"Money multiplier" and contains about 1,200 words, two pictures and one table. The journal view is listed later under the title "Alternative views" and contains 87 words and just to emphasize the alternative-ness of the views the wording also points out that the views are "outside of the mainstream". Do you think this treatment represents NPOV? Reissgo ( talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There is also "A simple approach to modelling endogenous money" by Steve Keen. Reissgo ( talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
...and if you want to argue that text from certain books can compete with papers then I'll put forward that in Moore (1979, p.539) he quotes a Fed economist who said "in the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later". Reissgo ( talk) 09:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
...and in the book "Towards True Monetarism" by Geoffrey Gardiner it states on page 4: "conventional textbook theory needs a slight clarification. Popular textbooks even modern ones seem to imply that there can be shortages of funds in which the Bank of England can supply only by creating new money. There authors may have somewhat misinterpreted the practicalities of the situation through incomplete mastery of the principles of double entry book keeping. They failed to see that all money is debt and that if debt has been created by a bank the money for a balancing deposit has inevitably been created too. Any funds needed to eliminate a shortage must already be on there way to the bank of England because any surplus must show up in the books once the systems brief time-lag has been overcome a permanent creation of new money should therefore never be necessary judging by their private statements bank treasurers well understand this principle[1]" then he gives as the reference: "In a lecture the head of treasury operations of a large clearing bank was most emphatic: 'If we are short of funds we know they have to be around somewhere: it is just a question of finding where they are and then paying the price to get them'". Reissgo ( talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A couple of comments:
I noticed that there have been at least three discussion pertain to this site. But I'm more leaning towards the idea that this site is unreliable due to the case of their announcement of the series Dragon Ball Z Kai finale in Japan. They state that their source was the fansite Kanzentai as seen here. Sarujo ( talk) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I question the use of this website for its sources for Benedictum. A disclaimer on the website states that anything posted there is not checked for accuracy. Is this source usable?
The website http://palestineremembered.com/ does not indicate who runs or edits it, or what level/type of oversight it has. The "Contact Us" page leads to a Post Office Box, and the website itself apparently hasn't been updated since mid-2007. It's an advocacy site, and obviously has a very strong POV. As far as I can tell, though it has many "members", it is run by one individual, Salah Mansour. Does it qualify as a reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hadawi has written considerable about the conflict and was very much involved and doubtless an RS for certain things. However, I would question this book published by the PLO and is the one used as a reference in the Dayh al-Shayk article. The PLO, which the Jewish Virtual Library refers to as "one of the best known terrorist organizations in the world", and is sworn to the destruction of Israel [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] might be analogous to using reference material published by Al-Qaeda about the United States. If the JDL, found here, published reference material about the conflict, would we consider that neutral and reliable reference material? Also, I would say that material that can only be found on PalestineRemembered would perhaps be similar to using material that can only be found at the ZOA or CAMERA. At the very least, a LARGE grain of salt is in order. 172.190.40.223 ( talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Journal of Cosmology is a fringe/vanity journal which publishes weird/fringe ideas in several fields of science. Particularly on quantum consciousness, panspermia/ origins of life, steady state theory, and on the colonization of Mars.
These articles use Journal of Cosmology as a references (based on the January 15 database dump). The claims should be checked against better sources, or simply removed from the article per WP:RS.
I've notified WP:AST, WP:BIOL and WP:PHYS. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This source appears to fall under Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the "Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies" website ( http://www.ineas.org/) a reliable source on the Near East and Africa? The website states it's
"an independent, tax-exempt, educational and cultural organization with the mission to educate the Arab, African, Middle Eastern and Muslim communities and offer them services, and to educate the American public and inform the media on issues related to Africa and Asia with a focus on the Arab and Islamic worlds and the non-Arab / non-Moslem Communities within the Arab world".
However, it appears to be mostly the work of Wafaa' Al-Natheema, and the people listed on the "About" page all have yahoo e-mail addresses. Her lengthy CV (linked from the website) lists a wide variety of accomplishments, including bachelor degrees in Civil Engineering and Political Science and a real estate license, along with an on-going interest in variety of Near Eastern and African topics, but doesn't seem to indicate any particular expertise in the latter. The Special Reports section provides a small number of brief descriptions of various vacations taken in different countries, mostly by Wafaa' herself. The Projects section lists an even smaller number of issues Wafaa' has been interested in (one of them, International Seed Day, is duplicated), and documentary she is working on, for which she solicits contributions. The Press section lists fairly brief descriptions of INEAS in three sources in 1998 and one in 2004. The Archives section lists 5 newsletters produced in 1997 and 1998, and 3 different performance pieces that have been done (and are still done?) for young people in classrooms, libraries, etc. The Events section lists "Tai Chi, Indian Martial Arts and Bollywood Dancing" classes INEAS gave on October 10, 2010. I could go on, but in summary everything I can find on the website tells me it's a part-time activity of one activist. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Vahakn Dadrian's books are widely used as sources in articles about Armenian Genocide. But I doubt whether he is a reliable source. We can see it from the article about him, which says that he was criticised by many historians and researchers because of his willful mistranslations, biased use of only selective sources and selective quotations, and many historians say that he should not be considered as a reliable source. At the moment, he is working at the Zoryan Institute. This institute was founded by Dr. Libaridian, who took the position of Director of the Department of Research and Analysis of the Presidium of the Parliament of Armenian. And the last thing which makes me doubt seriously about the reliability of his work is that he was given a medal (the highest medal of the Ministry) by the Ministry of Diaspora of Armenia. [13] Why is that? Because he has made "immense contribution over more than fifty years to the scholarly study of the Armenian Genocide, at the same time raising awareness of it in international circles as a prime example of the “ultimate crime.” The Minister particularly emphasized the invaluable nature of Dadrian’s legal studies on the Armenian Genocide." We can easily see that the Armenian government thinks just in the same the way Dadrian thinks, and that he is biased and writes from an Armenian POV. -- Seksen iki yüz kırk beş ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm having problems with an editor at two articles. In particular, at Pepi II Neferkare the editor insists on a section saying "It is thought that Ipuwer the sage served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare's reign.[14][15]. Archaeological evidence from Syrian button seals supports this interpretation.[16] The Ipuwer Papyrus describes the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the dark age known as the First Intermediate Period.[17]"
Source 14 is the Britannica which says 'perhaps'. Source 15 says " "Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II. J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). " Source 16 is discussing opinions in the first part of the 20th century. The article "The Dark Ages in Ancient History. I. The First Dark Age in Egypt" says " Although van Seters (1964, JEA 50) presents arguments for assigning the work to the Second Intermediate Period, most Egyptologists consider it more probably belongs to the First." Van Seters is [[ John Van Seters. The IP also deleted from the Ipuwer Papyrus article a reputable and reliable source that calls the papyrus ""romanticised historical fiction" of the Middle Kingdom. [12]" [14], a view that isn't incorporated in the paragraph. Basically, the dating and purpose of this document are disputed and this seems to be a misuse and cherry-picking of sources. Dougweller ( talk) 10:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
hardcoregaming101.net - This site is used across many pages, but it doesn't seem very reliable. They get a lot of their information from babel-fish translated forums and other similar sources. A big problem is that they don't always say what their source is unless they are skeptical or are not sure how to interpret it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Philippi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippi, an article on an ancient Greek city, contains a substantial section relating as historical fact certain biblical accounts, in particular that a demon was exorcised from a woman there, that the exorcist (Paul) was taken to jail, and that an earthquake then split the jail open, prompting the jailer to convert to being one of the first Christians in Europe. None of these claims are cited to any source other than the biblical account. I have asked on the article's talk page whether there is any independent and contemporaneous evidence of these events, and the only reply I have received is that the biblical account must be true. Do we have any policy for determining how and when an otherwise uncorroborated account of a biblical story should be reported in the history of the place where it is said to have occurred? bd2412 T 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I recently had to finesse this, see here. I thought in an article on a Christian service, it would be pointless to throw in a bunch of "allegedly" and "supposedly"s.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Recently an IP editor added new content to the article International child abduction in Japan from the following website:
The source appears to be an advocacy group, so brings flags of WP:NPOV, but that is not what I am coming here for. My concern is that this source may fall under WP:SPS, but I would like to receive comments about the source first. If consensus finds that this is a reliable source the content will be reformatted as it has been added haphazardly, but if it fails, I will undo the change all together. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer to the Wikipedia page Insite where another contributor has a number of times removed a paragraph of text [15] on the grounds that it is somehow in breach of Wikipedia:Third party sources, although he has not stated how it is in breach.
My source regarding criticism of the Vancouver Insite Supervised Injection Facility is the online 'Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice' [16] which is funded by the US Department of Justice. The importance of this journal article is that the Canadian Health Minister, Tony Clement, cites the article's critique of journal studies commissioned by Insite as a major impetus for their ongoing efforts to close the facility - thus the importance of the Mangham article, which has influenced government. This source verifies the Tony Clement's reliance on Mangham's critique, although it incorrectly states that the online journal is not peer-reviewed. I have posted in Talk a verbatim e-mailed reply directly from the editor of that journal where she confirms that it is indeed peer-reviewed.
The contributor also cites WP:UNDUE but that is another matter unrelated to this forum. Interested in views on this one. Minphie ( talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors believe that a banner for self-published material is appropriate for the article but I believe that the self-published articles referenced are the most authentic source for the subject's views. Is the article lacking in secondary sources? Lambanog ( talk) 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I consider the phrase though according to other sources the city name may stem from an ancient Hungarian first name which begins with "Ko" such as Kokos-Kakas, Kolumbán-Kálmán, or Kopov-Kopó. is supported by an unreliable source, namely an ordinaty website ( WP:SPS). I think it should eliminated from the article,at least until a valid reference is provided, but User:Hobartimus keeps readding it. I see not clue that this would be a reliable source ( Iaaasi ( talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
A new editor WGR11 is working on an article Viral Decay Acceleration. I believe an earlier version may have been deleted. I had an exchange with the editor about sources, and offered to post to this board about some issues I could not answer. The editor identified the following potential sources:
My observation is that sources 1,4, and 6 have some issues with independence, but I wasn't familiar with:
So I did not know whether they meet our requirement for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for each of the four entries in the archives, and did not get a hit. Can I get some feedback from the experts here, either on the general sites themselves, or the specific links?
In
this edit
this edit another contributor excised a reference to a page on
http://www.globalsecurity.org. In their edit they called the reference an "unreliable primary source".
There are almost 10,000 references to this site on the project. It is my belief this wide use of globalsecurity reflects confidence in the reliability of the site, and that those responsible for the site exercise meaningful editorial control. This particular article seems to be a reprint of an article written by the American Forces Press Service. In general I believe that the American Forces Press Service is a reliable source. In this specific case those responsible for globalsecurity felt confident enough to reprint material from the AFPS, which I suggest would show this reference is reliable even if the AFPS was not trusted. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I only use globalsecurity.org when no other sources are available. It often has outdated info, ripped off from various sources. Often, who exactly is the author and what is the level of his expertise, is unclear. For example, this article currently on their main page, is cutpasted from a blog which is definitely not an RS. It is much, much better to rely on real security and military journals and articles by established military analysts published in the news media. That Forbes has mentioned globalsecurity.or in some list of "best" websites (would be interesting to know how many sites do they have this "list"; if it's 10,000, then I won't be impressed) really says nothing about the site's reliability as a source on military and security issues. I think it would be definitely wrong to regard globalsecurity.org as a true RS (meaning that everything they publish can be used), but some of their articles can certainly be used when better sources are not available. It all comes down to the article author or original publisher and their level of expertise. Nanobear ( talk) 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
...very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.
Some contributors here have repeated that primary sources are not prohibited, that they merely have to be used carefully, and in a way that complies with policy. I believe I had used the reference carefully, and that my use complied with policy. Sorry that I didn't supply the right diff in this discussion. I have fixed that. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I need more comments on commons file: [39], which was removed here by user:Zlqq [40] and commented by user:Benlisquare: here that VOA is American propaganda and thus it is not reliable source. Arilang talk 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday I raised the issue of the reliability of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. I raised that issue because another contributor removed a reference where www.globalsecurity.org had republished an article from the American Forces Press Service.
The two respondents in the discussion above who objected to the use of practically all references from the US Department of Defense or the US Department of Justice, characterizing them as primary sources, and routinely making the mistake of asserting that primary sources are not allowed, when policy does allow them to be used, so long as they are used with appropriate care. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The DoD includes a number of colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. In addition to the service academies, the DoD runs the Navy Postgraduate School, the Navy War College, and other similar institutions. It also runs technical colleges, which teach skilled trades. If you counted them all up it wouldn't surprise me if there were over one hundred institutions where the staff and students were DoD employees.
Is there any reason to treat the journals published out of these institutions as any less reliable than any other academic journals? Do these journals have an inherent bias? Maybe. I don't know. I am not myself an expert in any of the fields these journals cover. It is my impression that the professors and instructors at these DoD institutions are proud of their qualifications and feel their scholarship, their reasoning, their arguments, can hold their own when compared with the work of civilian scholars.
Similarly, I think when a student or professor who is a DoD employee has a paper published in a civilian journal, or reasonable equivalent, it should, in general, be regarded as just as reliable as one published by a civilian.
Are there exceptions? I don't know. Maybe. But I don't believe there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I first raised the question on whether articles by reporters and journalists at the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. Some respondents offered their opinions there. I've read and used many articles by AFPS reporters and journalists, some of whom have worked there for years. As above, I think they write to inform, or to entertain, as some of their articles are lighter, human interest type articles. As above I do not think there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda.
The key passage from the AFPS article that triggered my question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org seems to have been: "In other news, Afghan and coalition forces have positively identified a Taliban leader detained during a Feb. 25 joint operation in Ghazni province as Mullah Shabir." The American Forces Press Service writer did what we would do -- they made clear who identified Shabir as a Taliban leader -- "Afghan and coalition forces". Sure, it is possible the individual was misidentified as a Taliban leader. And the American Forces Press Service writer used the same kind of careful wording as we would have used -- attributing the claim to "Afghan and coalition forces".
I do not believe there was a policy based reason to excise this reference as unreliable. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
In the discussions above I asked for input on whether we should regard articles written by reporters and journalists employed by the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable.
A couple of the contributors who have weighed in there routinely object to the use of any material written by employees of the DoD. Well, when I first started contributing here I didn't realize how many journalists and reporters the DoD employs.
In this diff you can see three references excised with the edit summary "Eliminated primary sources and self promotion. Use secondary sources. Thank you."
The third reference excised was:
Many people think the bomb used by the Oklahoma City bombers was much larger than the car bomb used by the Khobar Towers bombers. Not so, according to Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, team chief of the Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability Assessment team that began their analysis of Osan this week.
I used this reference in an article about a USN Captain John F. Murphy (JAG). I used it to substantiate that, at one point in his career, he traveled as leader of a team that assessed the vulnerability of US bases to terrorist bomb threats. Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner, the author of the article, was not Murphy's subordinate. She had no reason to distort the truth in her coverage of Murphy. I don't see why her article should be considered any less reliable than if she was a civilian reporter.
Was Murphy's assessment of the Osan base's vulnerability reliable on some kind of deep level. I don't know. I don't care. As a wikipedia contributor who complies with WP:VER my opinion on the credibility of his team's assessment is irrelevant. And, in my use of this reference I am not concerned with the reliability of his team's conclusions -- only with the article's placement of Murphy on this team.
It turns out that lots of US bases, lots of US commands, have publications, generally published weekly, generally containing relatively light and uncontroversial material. Occasionally they will publish material that addresses a larger issue, that touches on that base, or command, and when those articles back up what is in the civilian media I think they can and should be regarded as just as reliable as civilian articles. Sometimes those occasional articles that address a broader issue covered in the civilian media will quote what is for them local officials, not quoted by the distant civilian media. And when they do so I think they should still generally be regarded as just as reliable as those by civilian reporters. Like any other reference information from them should be properly attributed to the source, not stated as a fact with no attribution. As with any other reference they could be misleading, if not used carefully. Well, when I use them, I will use them carefully.
I don't think they should be excised, as "primary sources", just because the writers work for the DoD. Geo Swan ( talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: There is no blanket answer. In some contexts scholarly DoD-Publications can be considered relatively reliable, but in other they might not be. To the latter scenario belong in particular cases, where the DoD is an involved party in a current/ongoing event. If we are considering an ongoing case in which he DoD as an involved party, the reliability of DoD publication regarding it cannot be treated as realiable 3rd party sources, but they are in doubt not much different from lawyer statement regarding his client, a party spokesman regarding his party, etc.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.
I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman events of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.
The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order".
On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.
My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views, though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.
I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 ( talk • contribs)
Is silence over ethnic cleansing and massacre of pilgrims any good for "a reliable source of the highest order"? I don't think so. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 ( talk • contribs)
This link may help. http://www.economist.com/node/16213932. Though, questioning silence of those who should not be silent, is not too contradictory is it? http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html
Thanks for pointing out that the strong point of view is from a source and link to WP:NPOVN.
A previous discussion about Vigile.net declared that it was not to be used as a source of archived newspaper articles. In a contemporaneous AfD, one editor also said "I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source". French-language writings on Vigile.net, which are not copied from newspaper sites, are being used by a small group of editors on articles relating to the Canadian province of Quebec. My specific concern relates to the use of pseudonymous writings used to support statements in Vladimir De Thézier. Should Vigile.net be considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The following was recently added to Misogyny:
Those refs need to be filled out, of course, but I'm not sure that they actually are reliable. Both are reprints hosted by the "Council for Secular Humanism" website. The first, by Judith Hayes, originally appears in the Secular Humanist Bulletin. As the internal newsletter for an explicitly POV organization, this seems to definitely fail WP:RS to me for claims of facts about a religion. The second, by Ibn Warraq, originally appeared in Free Inquiry, which is also a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, although apparently in a more academic format. Our article on Warraq describes him as a "an anti-Islam polemicist of Pakistani origin who founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS). He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry." This seems a little more reliable than the first, but I'm still a bit skeptical. My personal inclination is to remove the first citation entirely, and to keep the second but attribute it more explicitly to Warraq with a shortened description of who he is. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The source is the single one that supports the Cuman origin. To compare, for the Vlach (Romanian) origin there are many sources. Leaving aside the fact that it may be a fringe theory, the source itself is questionable. I don't see anything about its authors ( Iaaasi ( talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
I've been the main editor working on keeping the 2011 Iranian protests page updated. There was a large protest on March 8 to commemorate International Women's Day, but the amount of information that has been reported on by news media has been extremely thin because of the journalist crackdown that the Iranian government has implemented. While searching for information in reliable sources, I found this, which is an opinion piece about what happened in terms of the protests on March 8, published by PBS' Tehran Bureau, having been written by a staff writer of said group. While it is stated to be an opinion piece, since it is written by a reliable reporter, can I use it for information about what happened on March 8? Silver seren C 20:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Siberiankiss1989 has been adding more than a few reviews to music article infoboxes. The site linked to is DEAD PRESS. User also tried to create a page for DEAD PRESS, but was A7'ed. I'd like to remove these reviews as non-notable/unreliable, but will wait for a second opinion before doing so. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed these links to DEAD PRESS. It very much appears to be a spamming effort on behalf of an amateur music site. If other editors feel strongly that this site is RS, I will take responsibility for rolling these removals back. Thanks AQFK for the list, much more efficient than my approach. I have notified Siberiankiss1989 of this discussion. The Interior (Talk) 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman. [43] He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.
The text added to the article reads:
"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today. [17]
There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.
The essay can be found here [44]. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor. [45]
I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen ( talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). [Edit] Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location. BillMasen ( talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nuclear power accidents by country ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles make heavy use of the following source:
Sovacool, Benjamin K. 'A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40:3, 369 - 400
Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a923050767
This is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, i question its reliability and would like to hear a broader opinion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] •
contribs)
The article is a high quality reliable source. The author is employed as an expert at a world University (Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore). The journal is refereed. The article is recent, and contained in the refereed section of the journal.
Fifelfoo (
talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
http://bleacherreport.com/ From what I understand it is user submitted articles which makes me think it it inappropriate. However it does have some attachment with CBS Sports. There are around 750+ links on Wikipedia with it.
Could I get a ruling? Crunk Cup ( talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Is Walter John Raymond's The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms a reliable source? It was published by Brunswick Publishing, a company apparently created by Raymond specifically to publish The Dictionary of Politics, which leads me to think no established publishers were interested in it. It's difficult to get any other information about Brunswick; Amazon carries no books by it, and it has no website (Google books has it as http://www.brunswickbooks.com/ , but that domain is for sale). Google books lists 8 books it published in the early 1990s, but the books have no other information about them, and appear to be short books of poetry, or short story collections. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
One editor recently claimed that the sources used in Bryan Haczyk (which I wrote) are are not reliable sources. The four sources used in the article are USCHO.com: [47], The Star-Ledger: [48], Collegehockeynews.com: [49], and The Nutley (NJ) Sun: [50]. These all look to me like reliable sources, but I'd like to get some feedback on this issue. Thanks, Qrsdogg ( talk) 20:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering whether this self-published website is a suitable reliable source for the article Line of succession to the British throne? The website was made by (the late) William Addams Reitwiesner, and is the primary source for the Wikipedia article, which attempts to list all living members of the British line of succession.
If you have noticed that Reitwiesner's list (which is over ten years old), differs from the Wikipedia article, that is because several Wikipedia editors have updated the list themselves, based on new births and deaths which come to their attention. The Wikipedia article also differs from Reitwiesner because he included Roman Catholics in his numbering, while the Wikipedia article does not. Mlm42 ( talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Can someone tell me what the final result was regarding whether rootsweb.ancestry.com is considered a reliable source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This web news service, "Zurf Military Aircraft," is cited as the only source for a claim in 2011 Libyan uprising that planes from a a "Free Libyan Air Force" working for the Libyan rebels attacked 2 Libyan Navy ships March 15. I found no sources at Google News about a "Free Libyan Air Force." (Revied to add: I did finally ifind some mention of the reports elsewhere, but I still am trying to find out information as to whether thes website counts as a reliable source) Yet Zurf is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles: [54]. Are they or are they not a sufficient source, by themselves, for a major development in the 2011 Libyan uprising, as compared to, say "Jane's Fighting Ships"? Edison ( talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Zurf Military Aircraft I'm the editor of the article of Zurf Military Aircraft. The purpose of the article about the Libyan Uprising is to create an overview of all military aircraft related news in one article. In the timeline with the article its sources are listed. When the information is not confirmed it is mentioned in the article (On 15 March several sources (Al Jazeera and Reuters) reported ... Details and reliability of these reports are unknown.)
References are (which are present in the timeline):
Also some other snippets which weren't put in the timeline mentioned it. Original sources seem to be limited and originate mainly from the opposition website Libya al-Youm.
In the wikipedia-article Details and reliability of these reports are unknown were added because the reliability of the statements is doubted by us. It should be mentioned though, because the opposition has at least control over a Mi-24 helicopter (see bottom photograph of Mi-24 #854 and click to go to the source) and an attack by helicopters was mentioned in the articles above.
Zurf takes credibility and reliability seriously. To avoid confusion its probably better to list the references (similar to wikipedia) in the article on Zurf Military Aircraft?
There is an RfC here about whether or not a study by The Barna Group is reliably sourced for the article on Atheism. Please comment there, not here. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
ICorrect.com is a website where individuals pay an annual membership fee of US $1,000 for individuals and US $5,000 for companies to publically challenge posts on the Internet. ICorrect's http://www.icorrect.com/about_us describes itself as,
"ICorrect is the website to set the record straight. So far, the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides “words from the horses mouth”."
As detailed in the March 14, 2011 Wikipedia Signpost article
User:Whitepaw corrected the article on Sir John Bond on March 10, 2011 after seeing a December 7, 2010 request at ICorrect.com. ICorrect.com has other requests to correct Wikipedia. [61] A. Is ICorrect.com as used by Whitepaw a reliable source? B. Is ICorrect.com a reliable source in general? -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
That's my speculation, of course, but it's reasonable speculation based on the way the real world actually works. If ICorrect is serious about being a conduit for necessary corrections for living people that have had information about them misrepresented, then it's up to them to publish specifics about their verification regime before we begin to take them at their word. (Online, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no idea who's behind those claimed real world identities.) Beyond My Ken ( talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care if we accept or ban iCorrect as a source, but would note your objection--that Bianca Jagger may not have been much involved personally--would also apply to any self published web site of a celebrity, official facebook page or Twitter feed. Jonathanwallace ( talk) 10:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP editor ( 199.246.40.54 ( talk · contribs)) yesterday added a link to a blog post as a reference for this article. I reverted, and today the IP editor reverted back, with edit summary saying Undid revision 419029356 by Looie496 (talk) This is not journal but a wiki article. blog is one of oldest sources to explain this effect through experiments. In my view this reference should not be used because (a) it violates WP's policy against using blogs, and (b) it actually is not very useful in understanding the phenomenon in any case. Although I see this as an open-and-shut case, I have a personal policy of never multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I am bringing the problem here in the hope that somebody else will take a look at it. I will notify the IP editor of this request. Looie496 ( talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
hello,
please have a look at references 1 and 12. The first one is a blog, the second a standard website. Are they reliable? I red the about pages, but I see no issues to use them as a reliable source. However, it fails in the WP:FLC due to bad grammar in the lead, not much notability and possibly unreliable sourcing. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Larry Sanger cited them specifically in one of his responses to Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons. I'm wondering then, if its okay to use them in the article for their opinion because Sanger feels the need to pick them out in particular, specifically this article. 陣 内 Jinnai 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Both Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley have been the subject of "satire" which a reasonable person would find offensive but are well remembered in the UK from the 1980s. In Hattersley's case, I amended the article to show it was unfair but Jimbo Wales's edit .."unreferenced so per WP:BLP I am removing it for now", something I hadn't considered. In Kinnock's case, I've removed the uncited Private Eye reference to "Welsh windbag" on the same grounds. It might also now be deemed racist. Any thoughts or policy guidance appreciated. JRPG ( talk) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm actually posting this, but here goes. Are Joshua Levy's The Agony of the Promised Land (self-published through iUniverse) and Joshua Bloomfield's Palestine (self-published novel through AuthorHouse) reliable sources? I argue that they are not, because these are pay-to-publish services that require only money - rather than expertise, factual accuracy, or research skill - to publish, and because one is moreover fictional. Epeefleche argues that they are, because the facts in them are supposedly contained in "other" reliable sources. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
An example for discussion: I'm currently using an ancillary source that was published by iUniverse, but it is a niche topic, reliable enough to be in circulation as a definitive source in my library system, and recognized as reliable enough by history and wildlife experts to be cited in reliable sources. I think the part about reliable third parties using them is important, and it is important to note that when we use sources like this, they should be used to illustrate and expand upon the topic on points that are either already accepted and published widely in other sources and/or are uncontroversial and not found elsewhere. In other words, removing them would not change or alter the topic, but including them is more of a service to the reader. For example, the work, Max Schlemmer, Hawaii's King of Laysan Island (2003), is a self-published biography of a fascinating subject written by his grandson, Tom E. Unger. According to reliable sources like Mark Rauzon, "Biologists are most interested in Max Schlemmer's Laysan years and Unger provides details and photos not found elsewhere in print." Unger is carefully cited, again, as an ancillary source, by a journal article published in Waterbirds (The International Journal of Waterbird Biology). [67] It is my understanding that many or most of the corroborating sources that Unger uses can be found listed on a circa 2000 annotated bibliography hosted by the USGS website, which was put together "because this material is scattered over hundreds of professional journals and other periodicals". The use of the SPS in this particular instance, provides a central repository of related, uncontroversial information that is recommended by third-parties. In this particular instance, this source is added to articles as more of a note or further reading suggestion that supports previously documented information found in other reliable sources. My position is that when a SPS is used in this way, it is perfectly acceptable. Viriditas ( talk) 03:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, in this case it isn't an issue as it doesn't apply to Levy, but in the past I've seen sources discounted because they were published through iUniverse, AuthorHouse or similar, when the case was they they were reprinted as self-published works after the initial print run with a traditional publisher expired. (It is getting to be a good alternative for some authors - when your work goes out of print, reclaim the rights and self-publish). Anyway, not, as mentioned, an issue here, but being printed by iUniverse isn't a guarantee that the work is self-published, only that the current edition is. - Bilby ( talk) 05:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Response: There's a cited, but unattributed quote from NYT reporter Deborah Sontag in the lead. For some reason, it is followed by a cite to a novel by Jonathan Bloomfield. Sontag doesn't mention the novel, [68] and unless Epeefleche can show otherwise, it should be removed per Roscelese. Second, the statement, "The Associated Press ran the story with the headline 'Jewish toddler dies in West Bank"'" needs to be directly cited with the appropriate link. You've got the ref following Levy, and it doesn't belong there. Third, Levy's quote about the AP story is polemical, and as it appears self-published and without any indication of importance by third parties, it doesn't belong there. Epeefleche, in controversial articles, we don't get to debate whether self-published and fictional citations are relevant; we remove them immediately and debate about whether they should be restored. As far as I can tell, Roscelese has made a good case for removal, and I agree with her. You may have a case for including them in a further reading section, but you will need to demonstrate their importance. Viriditas ( talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Do we consider TMZ reliable for the purposes of citation? Why or why not? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought I'd post here to get further advice and guidance on the use of Governmental Tourist brochures on pages about towns and villages in Lebanon such as Kfar Qouq and Ehden.
The series of brochures in question can be found on a Ministry of Tourism website here [69]
An example of the one on Rashaya district is here [70]
They have been compiled by the Ministry of Tourism from the Mayors of the various towns and villages covered, along with the work of Anis Freiha [71] and an unidentifiable author I can't find called Tony Moufarrej.
The question that hangs in the balance is whether this source can be used or could be defined as promotional and therefore a questionable source.
I tend to argue for the use of information in these brochures on several grounds :
I think Lebanon's an amazing place that's chocked full of undiscovered wonders. I really want to bring them to Wikipedia but thought I'd check here first for comments about my approach and use of correct sourcing. Look forward to your opinions. Thanks! Paul Bedson ( talk) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The website seems like a WP:SPS to me, and is being used to source "According to Scottish Friends of Israel in Egypt the murder of two boys was reported, "that the two boys were "Zionist Nazis put to death for crimes against humanity"; in Iran the killing was reported as "capture and execution of two terrorists"." in the article Stoning murder of Israeli teens. Passionless -Talk 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Is Hans-Ake Lilja, and his site, Lilja's Library, a reliable source for material on Stephen King? The site identifies itself as a fan site, however, Lilja has written a book, Lilja's Library: The World of Stephen King, which was published by Cemetery Dance Publications, which is not indicated in the Cemetary Dance Wikipedia article to be a vanity press or self-publishing company. The publication info for that book on Amazon indicates that the book includes over 40 of Lilja's interviews with King. Can Lilja's website be used as a source for articles on King and his works? Nightscream ( talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The user who relied upon that site and wishes to continue using it, Jmj713, has explained that most of the info on that site is derived from King's official site, stephenking.com, and that the reason he uses Lilja's Library is because the bulletins on stephenking.com are not placed in discrete posts with individualized or archived permalinks, but scroll off the page as it is gradually updated. This is also a problem with the Bulletins page of Asia Carrera's official site, which is also something I've been wanting to address, as Ms. Carrera or her webmaster have not responded to my email queries about whether her site has the bulletins archived, and some of the material in her article is supported by past bulletins. What do we do when material comes from a subject's official site, but it is removed when the page is updated? Nightscream ( talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Is http://lowculture.co.uk/ a reliable source in the context it being used for reception/critical analysis? Lowculture has a wiki page. On there there are three refs provided, BFI - Independent and The Guardian three reputable sources mentioned it in good faith. Think there is more on the net. Like I said, in the context it's used in fictional character's reception info as a source. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I just want to know if you would use Lowculture as a source anywhere on wikipedia. RAIN*the*ONE BAM 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."
Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.
Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.
The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin TALK| CONTRIBS 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's true that no one is asking for this board's opinion on citing these sources, but it wasn't me who brought this dicussion here, and to three (!) other noticeboards simultaneously, without any apparent notification of involved editors. Or did I miss one? I can't find one in Slim's contributions history. Now that we are here, let's note that sources that have described LaRouche as an economist include:
Most people on this board would agree that these qualify as reliable sources. LaRouche taught "Elementary Marxist Economics" at the "Free University" in New York, he published a book based on his course through a reputable publisher, and his writings on the IMF were noted by, and affected the decision making of, at least a half dozen heads of government. -- JN 466 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll jump in again. As I wrote earlier in this thread, trivial mentions in reliable sources don't carry weight. This isn't really an issue for RSN. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources, and there doesn't appear to be any argument about the reliability of the sources mentioned. Rather, this is a Wikipedia:Notability concern. LaRouche is notable, but is he notable as an economist? WP:SIGCOV is applicable here, and WP:SIGCOV excludes trivial mentions. That's why I suggested finding reliable sources that actually discuss LaRouche as an economist, or provide critical reviews of his theories of economics. Such sources likely do exist, and may be included in those mentioned above if they were accessible (such as AER). ~ Amatulić ( talk) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)