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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
Can we have a discussion regarding Yahoo blogs? FACs are dependant on this and I thought that it is better to have them here. Some FAC reviewers are of the opinion that Yahoo blogs, being blogs, are not reliable. I oppose the viewpoint because these are not just some random blogspot.com papers. The yahoo blogs and the threads are written by highly respected music editors, journalists, theorists from the music world, including Paul Grein (former Billboard editor), Caryn Ganz (senior Rolling stone editor), Billy Johnson Jr. (music critic), Lyndsey Parker (Billboard) etc. Just because the term blog is associated with them, the editors are rejecting these sources, which present high volume of information. FAC reviewers are also of the opinion that Yahoo! doesnot have any rights over these blogs, which is codswallop imo, because every page is copyrighted to them. I opened this thread to know the opinion of other fellow editors here at WP:RSN, so that the confusion and the blanket overlap between reliable and unreliable sources are cleared. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points: first, does Yahoo exercise editorial control over its blogs, as required by WP:NEWSBLOG? Just because it's copyrighted by them doesn't mean that's the case, and demonstrating that it is would help to verify their reliability. Second, the FA criteria demand high-quality reliable sources, which is a more stringent requirement than most other areas of the project. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, is this WP blog enough to support a death claim - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-mortem/post/snooky-young-92-year-old-jazz-trumpeter-dies/2011/05/13/AFtW7p2G_blog.html - it seems to be looking at the about the poster has been writing obituaries for the post since 2004 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2007/09/matt-schudel.html - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the view is about using sources from a "political" publisher like South End Press. On their website it says "South End Press is a nonprofit, collectively run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change." [1] This might be interpreted as a self-admission that they promote "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" - ie a "questionable source" under WP:RS. They even have a tagline of "Read. Write. Revolt". On the other hand, they've got an extensive catalogue, and their seems to be a level of editorial control, but you'd have to wonder about the NPOV of their fact checking, particular in older works from the 80s. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerat ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
( ←) If necessary, you can add a brief descriptor to the attribution: "Whatsisface, which also manufactures widgets, said..." or "Joe Bloggs, a self-described radical socialist, said..." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A publisher/publication's POV has nothing to do with whether it is an RS. We don't disallow the use of the NY Times or Fox News just because of their pro-corporate, capitalist, U.S. nationalist POV. What disqualifies something as an RS is a poor record for fact-checking, lax editorial controls, self-publication, etc. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some new edits on Amway that are clearly based on poor sourcing, inaccurate paraphrasing, and WP:SYNTH – the issue is now bordering on tendentious editing. There are two examples, and they are precipitating an emerging edit war with the user who who made the edits ( Icerat), who happens to have quite the history of POV pushing and, shall we say, less than ideal conduct on Amway-related articles.
Example 1: Quote from -- Maryam Henein. (November 28–December 5, 1997). "The Revenge of the Amdroids". Philadelphia City Paper. Retrieved 2011-05-11. http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/112896/article009.shtml.
Note two things here: Henein’s quote included in the original article’s text was taken -- verbatim -- directly from the beginning of a section of the City Paper article entitled “The Lord’s Way” in which she introduces a new discussion about the promotion of Christianity within the Amway organization and about a book by Steven Butterworth that addresses this theme. First of all, note that the edit replaced a key portion of the quote (“in motivational tools for Amway”) with ellipsis ("...") to make it seem as though the author did not refer to Amway specifically – in other words, purposeful obfuscation. Secondly, the section of Henein’s article that the original quote was taken from, verbatim, mentions absolutely nothing about Yager or Britt, and it is misleading on Icerat’s part to represent that the author was “referring to materials” specifically produced by Yager/Britt. This is WP:SYNTH and non-neutral POV -- the apparent aim of the edit was to make it seem, rather deceptively I would have to say, that Henein was not referring to the Amway organization but rather to only two these 2 individuals specifically.
Example 2: Alleged 1982 Dexter Yager interview with CBS.
The second example of contentious editing/improper sourcing by Icerat was the addition of new material to the Amway article that allegedly was based on an alleged 60 Minutes interview in 1982 with Dexter Yager. This material was added immediately following the Henein quote to create the misleading impression that it is Yager alone who is responsible for the promotion of Christianity in the Amway organization. The text added by Icerat [3] was as follows:
Icerat cited the source for this simply as “Soap and Hope. 60 Minutes. CBS. 1982”
No link was provided to any transcript, video, or any official source that confirms that this show even existed let alone that it included comments supportive of the text Icerat added to the Amway article. No air date was included in the citation nor was an access date included to confirm that the source was in fact verified by the editor in question. When challenged on this edit, Icerat replied [4] as follows:
Note two things here. (1) No verifiable source (2) the unverifiable quoted text provided by Icerat doesn’t even remotely support the paraphrased version added to the Amway article. Yager doesn’t admit “that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group”, as indicated in the text Icerat added to the article, nor does he say anything suggesting that “this was not the case in other Amway groups”. It’s yet another example of WP:SYNTH, poor sourcing, and POV pushing. I pointed this out to the editor, but to no avail. [5] Notice also the ironic fact that Icerat prefaced that Talk thread with a lecture about the evils of WP:SYNTH, not using verifiable sources, and POV pushing. [6]
Can we please get some reliable eyes on this so that we remove this dross from the article without it precipitating yet another unnecesary debate [7] and edit war [8] with Icerat. Thanks Rhode Island Red ( talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for an article on a fictional work? I couldn't find much definitive information on the reputation of any of the associated parties:
Any input appreciated, Skomorokh 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Can this source be used to support the statement that the word "falafel" entered English through Hebrew? The main counter argument seems to be that the Oxford Dictionaries don't mention it when discussing the origins of the word [11]. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy is not presenting this correctly, several sources has been brought up at the falafel talkpage saying the word is Arabic origin without mentioning any other language: [12] Malik also brought a good point that the Oxford dictionary word for "paradise" mentions: "that "paradise" entered English from Old French, but that its origins lay in Avestan (an Iranian language). And note that the entry for falafel does not mention Hebrew." [13] [14] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just a heads-up that MobileReference, a Boston-based e-book publisher of encyclopedias and reference books for Kindle and similar platforms, uses material from Wikipedia. Where this is the case, their works fail WP:CIRCULAR and should not be cited.
We have a few dozen citations to their works at present; they come up in Google Books, and may easily be mistaken for a reliable source. -- JN 466 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would add that it appears to me that all MobileReference publications should generally be regarded as not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, even if they are not obvious forks of Wikipedia. Although the licensing information in their Wikipedia forks asserts that their editors have "carefully checked and organized the material", most of the Wikipedia material seems to have been copied verbatim, including misspellings, grammatical errors, unidiomatic phrasing, and outright misrepresentation of cited sources (citations to which are generally not included, however).
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
A court judgement is a primary source for itself, ie the judgement and case that it is about. I've encountered a situation where an editor is using statements made by the judge about related, but uninvolved parties, ie they did not participate in the court case or hearings. This would seem to me to be using the judgement either as a secondary source for this information, or perhaps as a primary source for the judges opinion. This situation isn't really covered in WP:RS, but either way it doesn't seem an appropriate use of the source. More details here. Thoughts appreciated. -- Icerat ( talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance." In the context of the actual edit/source Icerat / Insider201283 is referring to here, I'm not sure the above statement is relevant to this edit. To clarify, the court document mentions "company A" by name, and company A (network twentyone) and company B (amway) are inextricably linked. The decision is not on A, but it is very much involved.
This is all a bit grey, but isn't a judge's verdict a tertiary source?
Policy states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." which I feel is what was done in this instance, however pro-MLM/Amway editors often edit/re-interpret the court statement, removing phrases such as "pyramid", such interpretation of course is forbidden, or want to have the whole statement removed, which is what Icerat is seeking. Financeguy222 ( talk) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's an interesting reliable sources problem: the BBC Domesday Project is now online again (or at least, half of it - the stuff on the Community Disk). It contains a wealth of local information about towns and villages across the United Kingdom. On the one hand, it is a valuable historical record and is online. For non-controversial information like local legends, the history of village churches, when schools were founded and so on, it seems like it might be useful. But, it is contributed by ordinary people with minimal editing (the dodgy spelling and grammar on some of the entries, for example). The BBC did do some minimal editing to the entries but not a great deal (then again, that's probably the same as current day newspaper/news website output!). Regardless, this seems like an extremely valuable resource for building up coverage of UK topics.
Thoughts? — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Article uses a single source that maybe user-created. Opinions?
A new article Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls is heavily based on two POV sources and the creator has recently sought to add a third. All three seem to be essentially self-published works untouched by any fact checker. All three seem to be essentially works of propaganda or argumentation, selecting those aspects of the 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic that would show unfair criticism of Israel. Could those with experience on WP:RS give feedback on whether these 3 sources can be used to make claims about events in 1983, or whether claims about what schoolgirls did, what newspapers reported, what doctors found, etc. be sourced to more reliable authors and publications?
1. A column for the Hudson Institute by Khaled Abu Toameh called "Is Hassan Nasrallah a Mossad Agent?" [15] The author is an activist, not a scholar, who starts off with 2 paragraphs that position the fainting epidemic as an example of a hoax: "Sometime in the early 1980s, a large group of Palestinian school girls in the West Bank, who wanted to avoid exams, claimed that they had been "poisoned" by Israeli authorities. The girls said that Israel had put poison in the tanks that supply drinking water to their school. One after the other, the teenage girls started "fainting" in the school yard, especially as photographers and TV crews showed up. The girls were all released from the hospital after medical tests refuted their claim. But at the end of the day the girls and their families had good reason to be happy. The exams were postponed indefinitely and Israeli "occupation" was once again blamed for perpetrating a "new crime" against Palestinians." Aside from the vagueness of his description of the time, this presents many claims that are not supported by a single WP:RS describing those events. No fact-checker would have permitted this material to be published without serious revision. (What really happened according to RS. Some girls started fainting at one school and were hospitalized, rumors spread that poison had been involved (with Israelis and Palestinians making counter-claims about who did the poisoning), the epidemic spread and was later determined to be psychosomatic and stress-related, with some fakery also starting about four days after the first reported cases. )
2. A book by Raphael Israeli published in 2002 by , Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. The author is a Professor of Chinese History and Islamic Civilization. [16] The book is not, in fact, about the fainting epidemic but about the " blood libel", as the author calls it--that is the false accusation that Israel had poisoned Palestinian schoolgirls. Lexington Books is not a fact-checking academic publisher, [17] and here is what they say about the book: [18]
This is the story of an amazing manifestation of a modern blood libel against the Jews and Israel, involving not only Arabs and Muslims, but also the European media and world organizations. Based on rich documentation from all angles: Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, European, American, and International, Raphael Israeli aims to draw our attention toward another piece in the multi-faceted puzzle of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and of international antisemitism. . By bringing this Middle Eastern version of the perennial theme of blood libel before their readers, the author hopes to instruct people of good will of the dangers inherent in protracted conflicts, such as the one opposing Israelis and Arabs, which can provoke war, misery, destruction, and violence, but also recriminations born out of hallucinations and ill-will. This is a multi-disciplinary book which should interest not only students of antisemitism, Judaism, and Israel, but also psychologists, journalists, political scientists, and scholars of communications, the Middle East, international relations, and the Israeli-Arab dispute.
3. A book review by Manfred Gerstenfeld of the previous book. There is no indication that the author did any fact-checking about the incident beyond reporting incidents and interpretations as described in the book. The main interest for Gerstenfeld, as for Israeli, is using the aftermath of the incident to discredit criticism of Israel. Quoting Gerstenfeld;
In the more than twenty years that have passed since the mass hysteria case, there have been many similar Arab campaigns whose core element was a major lie...To date, the campaign of lies and fabrications has reached its height with the IDF operation Defensive Shield against the terror infrastructure in Jenin in April 2002. ... another type of Palestinian fabrication: after a funeral procession of a supposed victim of the massacre, the "dead person" jumps off the stretcher once he thinks he is out of the camera's range. There is an enduring need for a searching analysis of the fragmented yet total war the Arab world is waging against Israel and the Jewish people, as well as the collaboration of Western media and institutions. ... The Simon Wiesenthal Center has produced a major institutional contribution on the subject of anti-Semitism on the Internet. Israeli's paradigmatic case study is important for several reasons. Beyond his analysis of a particular case, he reveals how the methodology of Arab hate propaganda has been in use for many years.
It is my belief that these are all essentially self-published opinion pieces, but I welcome the opinion of more experienced others. betsythedevine ( talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Misrepresentations galore. Lexington is not a vanity press, and while it may not enjoy the reputation of a Cambridge or Oxford, the search that Betsy pointed to actually shows it has a good reputation. To quote some of the posts there "My general sense is that Lexington is respected as an academic press, but nowhere near competitive with the top university presses. "; "Lexington is a pretty good press in political theory. Not first-rank, but loads better than Mellen." To call this "slef published" is ridicolous. Toameh is a journalist, and a notbale one at that, as is Dan margalit, publishing in a mainstrema Israeli paper. Again, none of these are slef-publsihed. Betsy - please read WP:SPS. Red Stone Arsenal ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed Jedlicki from the article Ostsiedlung [25] and outlined my rationale at talk. This was undone and re-instated [26] calling it a perfectly reliable source and advising me to bring it here. The talk page section is at Talk:Ostsiedlung#Jedlicki.
The cited essay of Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954) is "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order", first published in 1950 in the Cambridge history of Poland I (bib link), a volume containing several essays from exiled/returned Polish scientists written during late and shortly after World War II. Given that WWII was the worst ever period in Polish-German relations, and that historiography on both sides was subordinate to the respective national claims for the respective medieval "cradles of the nation" [27], I object to including material from this source. To these general concerns adds that Jedlicki is the author of "Thousand years of German aggression ", published just before and certifying his bias.
I maintain that Jedlicki is not a reliable source for the actual process of Ostsiedlung, i.e. medieval German settlement in Poland. It should be treated as an old, biased, partisan source. Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The 1951 review you cite does not mention any pro- or anti-German bias, it just says Jedlicki is not including "new" (by then) research. That an inclusion of said research would have made the work even more biased is out of question. The point is that wikipedia articles should not rely on the conclusions of an obviously biased source from the WWII era ("Thousand years of German aggression" - come on), when this episode in historiography is [ meanwhile itself subject to historiographic analysis with the conclusion that it was designed to prove/disprove WWII-related claims. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia
I object strongly to Geoff Lord's entry, as I currently have a CCJ against the company he is advertising - French cosmetic surgery ltd. They have given addresses on their website in UK but is a PO Box and the address in France is a private address (flat) not a clinic.
They owe UK citizens tens of thousands of pounds including myself and I object to them continuing to publicise on legitimate companies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.73.148 ( talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011
Know your Meme is a commercial website with an editorial policy, involving expert oversight of user contributed content "Much like wikis, any registered user can submit a meme or viral phenomena for research at knowyourmeme.com. Other users and staff researchers can contribute to the research of the topic and discussion about a meme. The research staff then confirms the meme or invalidates the meme by putting it in the "Deadpool." The editorial and research staff at KYM also provides interviews or Q&As with the people involved, such as Magibon or Scumbag Steve in addition to the research."
I wish to use the oversighted content and site generated video content from confirmed memes Playing Dead and Lying Down Game and their relational hypertextual indicator page Playing Dead, submemes to expand Lying down game and Planking (fad) in terms of reference to the Korean phenomena and French Art happening. Is KyM valid for this usage? Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The actor Dan Aykroyd is listed in List of people on the autism spectrum based on a radio interview he gave where he repeatedly stated that he suffered from a mild form of Asperger syndrome as a child. Both the list and bio article use the radio interview as a primary source (you can listen to it). There is some dispute at Talk:List of people on the autism spectrum#Why I removed Aykroyd over whether Aykroyd is a reliable source on himself. I think that provided the statement is plausible and no reliable sources can be found to doubt it, then a person can be a reliable source on their own medical history and indeed that biographers routinely use the person and their friends and family as sources for these sort of facts because medical notes are not available for contemporary figures. Thoughts? Colin° Talk 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: this is not the same as if Aykroyd had said "I think I had mild Asperger Syndrome as a child". A self-diagnosis of a neurological disorder would not be considered reliable. We don't know how Aykroyd came about this diagnosis, and although he mentions getting medical treatment for these problems, the actual term Asperger Syndrome was only formed in the 80s, so there is a retrospective aspect to it. Colin° Talk 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Just found this site that discusses television shows. What's the verdict here? Sarujo ( talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is relevant personal document which is obviously showing that his nationality was Serbian and not Croatian.
http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/kultura.71.html:330746-Ivo-Andric-potvrdio-da-je-Srbin
I'm pretty sure I'm on good ground here, but since it's a bit of an odd thing I figured I'd ask to make sure. I'm interested in improving the article on the Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. The book "Good Faith Collaboration - The Culture of Wikipedia" by Joseph Reagle goes in to pretty extensive detail about the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Enciclopedia. A great deal of the content in the book is based off of information Reagle gathered on en.wiki and the mailing lists. However, Reagle is an academic and the book is published by the MIT Press. Am I right in assuming that the book is an acceptable reliable source in the context of the Enciclopedia Libre article? Kevin ( talk) 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is the finest example of why they cannot be used. Viriditas ( talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
First the Wall Street Journal, now Fox News, what else is next? Do we begin to ban Huffington Post or MSNBC? Nay. Just because editors may disagree with the editorial content of the news sources, or the way that a story is reported, that doesn't mean that all content from the given source is not reliable. Do we as editors, who are suppose to edit in a manor that is consistent with WP:NPOV, suppose to continue to revisit this topic? Again, I am appalled that this even comes up. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I essentially agree Griswaldo and I consider Fox for the most part as partisan hacks with little journalistic integrity. Personally I wouldn't use them to source anything, however I see no reason to ban Fox as a source in general, since there are many scenarios where Fox might largely unproblematic (consider topics which are not particularly politicized or partisan such as sports for instance). Moreover this subject has been discussed over and over (see archives) and the result was more or less always: yes Fox is often crappy, but banning fix in genereal is not possible. -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So the bottom line is, you are encouraged to avoid Fox personally and you are welcome to kick out particular low quality fox articles being used for POV pushing and to relativize proper peer reviewed and/or academic sources. But this has to be judged on an individual basis and does not mean Fox cannot be used at all.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking and I'm just not seeing anything unreliable about this article. Just disagreeing with the claims made in the article doesn't make it an unreliable source. Is anyone misquoted in the article? Some editors may disagree with the article's conclusions, but are there incorrect facts at all? Mathewignash ( talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
As the OP is not going to I will. Is Fox news RS for climate science? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but Fox News is a news agency that does not conduct independent research in the climate science area (as well as in any other). The only thing it can do is to transmit the opinion of some climatologist, or similar expert. Therefore, the Fox is a reliable source for such statement as "An expert X believes that ...", or "Study performed by YYY demonstrate that...". However, in that case why cannot we simply quote the opinion of X, or present the results of the studies made by YYY directly? Obviously, the fact that all of that has been transmitted by Fox does not give more or less weight to these studies.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/#ixzz1MKZ94BsC Some Fox to enjoy: [38] :-)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Those editors who disagree with the editorial bias of the Fox News will never be convinced that Fox News is a reliable source; so far that is what I have taken away from this discussion. This discussion does not further the goals of our community, rather it continues to provide weight to those who may criticize our efforts by claiming it has an overall bias. Therefore, I say, that we agree to disagree, and close this discussion. Editors who choose to use Fox News as a reference for content will be free to do so; Editors who choose not to use Fox News as a reference will continue not to, and if there is a dispute of whether the specific reference is reliable as a source, then a discussion can occur on that article at that time. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
There is such an effort to remove conservative reliable sources from wikipedia, it just furthers the bias that is alleged of our community. Imagine if someone were to propose that MSNBC and the New York Times be banned as reliable sources, the outcry that would arise. So is it any wonder the outcry that has occured here? Fox News is a Reliable Source; MSNBC is a Reliable Source ... lets move on and close this discussion. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU & WP:AGF; it does not appear these are being followed. It is claimed that Fox News is misrepresenting data, however, if the text that the text which the reference is attributed to the source where it is coming from, and stated as a possible position, I cannot see why it cannot be included in a relevant article. Let the reader then read the source and determine for themselves what the truth is. Data is factual, interpretation of data can at worse be opinion, at best be consensus by a community of learned logical non-emotionally involved individuals.
There are some reputable sources that have said that climate change and/or environmentalism can be considered a religion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 This may play a factor here, but assuming good faith, we are all editors who are suppose to be logical non-emotionally involved individuals who are not suppose to be pushing any POVs, and are only giving our personal opinions on whether a given source can be considered a reliable source based on the criteria set forth in the relevant page. It appears there that some editors see the source, at large, as reliable, while other editors have a different opinion that, at large, it is not. Therefore, there does not appear to be a consensus, and articles are therefore reviewed on a case by case basis.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I just came across this review which gives 5/5 to American Tragedy (album), an album that has otherwise been badly reviewed in other publications. The fact that the site both reviews and sells albums makes me think this is not a reliable source (in fact, you can find links to buy the album on the review). I couldn't find much information on who write the reviews - just this help page. So what do you think? Is this a reliable source? Laurent ( talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ryan Giggs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A discussion is going on over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about Ryan Giggs and sources he has obtained a Super Injunction, some editors feel that Sina.com is not a reliable source, comments would be appreciated over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. VER Tott 09:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Galling, an editor is trying to include his own thesis in the article which he describes as a "D level university paper" from a Swedish institution. I've directed him to this guideline which states that we can take PhD level dissertations but not Masters theses. Can anyone give any indication about which a 'D level paper' is, or does he just mean that he got a distinction?
In either case his work (Wallin H; An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction)) does not appear to have been cited by anybody (as far as my limited resources can make out), should it be used as a source? Regards, Bob House 884 ( talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Is allhiphop.com a reliable source for the arrest etc info in this section of the article Juelz_Santana#Legal_Issues? there doesnt seem to be anything about it in the mainstream news [43] Active Banana (bananaphone 20:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The stories are [44] and [45] (one of which is using as its source the New York Post which particularly doesnt sit well with me for this type of claim) Active Banana (bananaphone 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Little Green Footballs, a news blog, a reliable source? In a recent edit, a source from a news blog was removed, with the edit summary stating:
remove poor quality reference'
I am inviting JN to this discussion. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
What News Blogs would then be considered a reliable source? At what point does a Citizen Journalist news source considered reliable, and when is it not, regardless of any bias (left, center, or right)? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is even an issue. There are a thousand ways to find the original AP article if you want to, and a link isn't required merely to cite the article. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is urbancinefile.com.au reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that upcomingcons.com has aparently been approved [46] as a reliable source by the Anime project from the about us
"We want to be the most complete fan resource for conventions, hosting pictures, convention listings, and a diverse user community.
What makes you different? We have the technology to be the most up-to-date and complete fan resource so far created. All our data is unique and updated by hand, and we are updating it regularly. Other websites might have a nice design, or might have been around forever, we have the advantage in technology. We are using the latest technology to have more features, more up-to-date listings, and a bigger community than anyone.
Who's running the place?
Ryan Kopf (at ryankopf.com). He started UpcomingCons.com because he loves making websites, and he loves conventions. Why not mix the two
Nothing in there about fact checking etc. In this particular instance the content appears innocuous enough, but it is used in a number of other articles. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This book, edited and written in part by Antero Leitzinger, is also published by Leitzinger. Should this have any bearing concerning this book as a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to bring up the matter of the supposed image of
Lakandula's flag, currently displayed on the pages
Kingdom of Tondo,
Manila (province), and
Timeline of Asian nations.
The image has kept me wondering because to my knowledge none of the recognized primary sources for 16th Century Philippines has a description of a supposed flag of Lakandula, much less an image. If such a description exists, then this image would only be a speculative reconstruction. Until someone shows me the text, however, I believe this image is totally unsupported by historical sources.
My initial queries at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Precolonial_Kingdoms_of_the_Pasig_Delta suggest that the uploader, probably in good faith, may have based the image on http://www.watawat.net/early_flags_and_symbols_-_2.html -- a site which explains the image simply by saying
If we examine that statement (itself unsourced), I think it's clear that the shape, at least, of the flag as portrayed there is speculative.
The next paragraph, sourced from "Historia General de Filipinas" describes another flag, the white one portrayed on the site. The source describes it merely as a white banner (and not a personal heraldic or regimental symbol), without describing the shape. So again, the image is speculative. I mention that because I think it brings the reliability of this specific page into question.
As it stands, I do not believe the image should remain on the pages its on, and in fact, I believe it ought to be deleted as a speculative image of a historical item (the speculative part including the question of whether that historical item exists AT ALL.)
I am not certain how to proceed, I've never had to question the sourcing of an image before. Any advice? -- Alternativity ( talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it has some copyvio. It is being used for the article above. What do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 18:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2010 considered a reliable source for biographical information on persons elected to Parliament at the 2010 UK general election? Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We have an editor unfamiliar with our policies on original resource and sources editing this rather poor article. With this edit [49] he's moved on from just using primary sources, but I'm not sure that this sources are appropriate (and he's introduced a new problem, he doesn't know how to cite}. In the first paragraph he adds a source which appears to be just a blog [50] (as well as a source for the Qur'an translation which I don't think should be used). The paragraph on Black Holes uses a Wiki arguing against the idea that the Qur'an predicts black holes. I've also just noticed that there are other problematic sources added by other editors. Dougweller ( talk) 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is http://thehothits.com reliable for facts about music videos, such as where they were shot? There's a DYK nomination using this source: "Stan Walker back with brand new video 'Loud'". -- Lexein ( talk) 05:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is a blog site. relating information from this site I think would be malicious. Tauhidaerospace ( talk) 04:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the Federation of American Scientists' Intelligence Resource Program (specifically this) a reliable source. maucho eagle ( c) 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As part of an on-going dispute regarding Karen Armstrong here and here, do the works from any of these sources qualify as reliable sources: Hudson Institute, Media Matters, The Hill and Manuscript Library, Middle East Forum. Sleetman ( talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Sleetman isn't telling the truth about the dispute relative to these sources. There's already a discussion of them at BLPN; he appears to be forum-shopping for a different result. The actual dispute is whether criticism that was never picked up in third-party sources is admissible in a BLP (Hudson Inst., Pipes's personal think-tank the Middle East Forum) and whether it's okay to misrepresent a source as criticism of a living person when it's almost entirely not about the subject (Powell, in which the quoted sentence is the only mention of Armstrong in a 6,000 word lecture on the Crusades). Media Matters isn't cited in the article, it's just the user's continued attempt to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on an article that neither of the users who disagree with them have ever edited. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
[53] and the link associated.
An editor has used livestrong.com as a source. Is this reliable and why? It seems anyone who has signed up can create whatever information they want about a food. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
See Raleigh DeGeer Amyx where it is being used as a source. I can't even verify its existence, can someone else help? I'll also ask on the article talk page but given the apparent COI issues there... Dougweller ( talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On the article Lil B (a bio of a rapper), there is currently no birthday listed, because we don't have a reliable source for one. An editor (I think one, editing under both a AdamWehib916 and an IP) wants to add a specific date. First, the editor wanted to use the artist's songs as a reference, but, of course, song lyrics aren't a reliable source. Recently, the editor pointed out a blog post by the article subject which may or may not help. In the post, the rapper points out that it is his birthday, so we can pin down the date, as an SPS should be considered reliable for things like the subject's on birthday. The question is the year. In the blog post (definitely NSFW!!!!), there is a picture of a mostly naked woman ("naughty bits" mostly, though not entirely covered), who has drawn on her body something like "Happy 21st birthday!". I don't remember the exact message, but cannot check the picture as I'm currently at work. Now, if we trust the reliability of the fan (based on the fact that the rapper did not chose to post the picture without correction), then we could do the math and determine the year of birth. But is that really reliable enough? My feeling is no, but I told the other editor that I'd ask for input here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has come up a thousand times before, but is Google maps considered a reliable source? Looking at my own neighborhood I can find half a dozen errors within a mile of where I live. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Just for clarification of why User talk:Beeblebrox brought this topic up. In the Ma'ale HaShalom article, he deleted "is a street in Jerusalem" and all the basic description content because it wasn't properly verified (a fictional novel was the source). [55] I have since restored the "is a street in Jerusalem" with a GoogleMaps source. [56] Is the GoogleMaps source sufficient to verify that it's a street Jerusalem? -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Came across this site when a likely COI editor was refspamming it. It is already used several times, seemingly in good faith. But is it a reliable source? The details on the site suggest some independent oversight. Anyone able to provide some input? Rehevkor ✉ 10:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the motion picture review site worldsgreatestcritic.com a reliable source for film reviews--it has been used by more than one editor. ? according to websiteoutlook it gets 324 hits a day [57] Is that utterly trivial? See in this connection the article J.C. Maçek III which I have proposed for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies".
European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.
ISBN
9780195143614. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
states among other things
by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.
The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well OUP s clearly a reputable academic publisher and the author David Adams Leeming seems to be a well qualified academic (Professor of English and Comparative Literature (Emeritus) at the University of Connecticut, Storrs [59]), who has written many books on mythology also with other reputable publisher (for instance ABC CLIO). So by any means this book is a reliable source, unless there are even more reliable sources explicitly stating otherwise (i.e. the rare case that academic review of this book are overwhelmingly negative and pointing out its unreliability).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The source meets every criterion for being a "reliable source" and, as such, its precise wording is thus usable in any WP article relating to its topic. It is not up to any editor to "know" that the source is wrong, to be sure. Collect ( talk) 10:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The main problem I have with this is the fallacious reasoning so common in this field. Historical linguists propose some language family, and immediately archeologists, mythologists, and historians invent peoples to go along with them. The problem is that those peoples either vanish when the linguists realize that their proposal was wrong, or continue on without any basis in reality, since they were never anything but a linguistic construct. This is something linguists complain about all the time. For example, in this case the Finno-Ugric family would appear to be spurious; attempts to reconstruct proto-Finno-Ugric are indistinguishable from reconstructions of proto-Uralic. "Finnic" (= Finno-Permic) may be just as bad, and Volga Finnic, which was also cited above, is even worse: that's not just doubted, but now known to be the result of a sprachbund. Yet texts continue to cite the Finno-Ugric language family (and Finno-Permic, and Volga Finnic), as if that conferred some legitimacy to their constructs. And the dates! Where do the dates come from? Often they're from glottochronology, which has been largely discredited, yet is still used to assign peoples, sometimes imaginary peoples, to archeological finds. So, in Leeming's quote above, is he basing this solely on the say-so of linguists, many of whom have since retracted such claims? Or is he basing the peoples and dates on independent comparative-cultural and archeological scholarship?
There are two rational ways to go about this: One, the linguists reconstruct the culture of the people who spoke the protolanguage, and two, the mythologies are coherent in their own right, and the linguistics merely confirms what the mythologists already know. But reified linguistic hypotheses, especially obsolete hypotheses, should be clearly noted as such. — kwami ( talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Lavery, Jason Edward.
The history of Finland. p. 20. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Most scholars believe that by the middle phase of the Combed Ceramic Culture the population was speaking very remote versions of the Finnish language (often called proto-Finnic)This conclusion is drawn from the correspondence of the Combed Ceramic Culture's area to the maximum geographical spread of Finno-Ugric languages.
Additionally to archeology, there are recent genetic studies on Finno-Ugric peoples available:
A counter-clockwise northern route of theY-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 204–211,
N2, forms two distinctive subclusters of STR haplotypes, Asian (N2-A) and European (N2-E), the latter now mostly distributed in Finno-Ugric and related populations.
Y-Chromosomal Diversity suggests that Baltic Males Share Common Finno-Ugric Forefaterers.pdf Department of Genetics, University of Turku, University of Helsinki.
So, I'm not sure what is this "archeologists and mythologists often 'borrow' historical-linguistic reconstructions, without evaluating how well supported they are" all about? -- Termer ( talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am asking for advice regarding a specific source, since I want to add some content to the article Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The credibility of this organization has been criticized by an Italian debunking group. The journalist representing this organization, Paolo Attivissimo, is active – among other things - in the debunking field, and interviewed actual structural engineers and explosives experts, noticing that the claims done by some members are unrelated to their field of study (such as Ted Muga’s claim that no airplane hit the Pentagon, Paul Kenyon’s claim of the towers being destroyed by laser beams and Charles Pegelow’s theory that atomic bombs caused the collapse.)
Attivissimo writes on several magazines, but his main mean vehicle for debunking investigations is his blog and the blog “undicisettembre” where he collaborates.
According to the guidelines, “Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable”.
So here’s what I have regarding this specific journalist:
He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688
The Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:
http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html
(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )
He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:
http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1
And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1
He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)
He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo
He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/
The articles published for the Italian Version of “Scientific American” usually deal with hoaxes and debunking, when it’s not about the space race and space exploration.
So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. I had already presented the case to an administrator, but his discussion page says he’s quite busy at the moment, so let me know if there could be any possibility of reaching a consensus on the reliability of this journalist’s blog as a source. Thanks in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit Sorry, the “scientifica american” link was to a specific issue, here’s the issues where he published something:
http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/risultati?lr=&q=paolo%2520attivissimo&search=sito
He has a column called “povera scienza” (poor science), where he debunks bad science and pseudoscientific claims. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This here. I cannot decide if it is reliable or not. I understand that they call it a blog, but AOL calls their music site a "radio blog" and they are certainly not unreliable. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Simple question. Is this page ( Decius) reliable source for article Decius? :) Also, can someone give me good source for roman emperor's. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There has been a significant amount of contention after Encyclopedia Dramatica shut down and redirected itself to Oh Internet. Some users of ED who were upset with this change created a forking of the information from ED at EncyclopediaDramatica.ch from archived information and Google caches. Since then, discussion on the talk page has been lengthy, as there have been multiple sources discussing Oh Internet, but none discussing the .ch forked website. Because of this, per WP:V, we couldn't allow any info about the .ch fork into the article at all (we're not allowed to link to it directly due to copyright information anyways, but this section is for discussion of the existence of .ch in the article at all, which wouldn't involve a direct link).
Finally, someone has stepped forward and provided some sort of source, found here. It is a paper from MIT about 4chan and on pages 10-11, it discusses the change of ED into Oh Internet and also discusses forked websites and mirrors that have resulted from it. However, it doesn't specifically name the .ch fork, it just has it listed in the Works Cited page. Since it only has .ch listed on Works Cited, is this really reliable for the information, enough to mention the .ch fork? As far as I can tell, the writer of the paper seems to be making the conclusions about mirrors and such themselves, as none of the other works cited are about ED, other than the direct link to the .ch fork. Silver seren C 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Jon Saklofske "Inb4 404: Using 4chan.org to Challenge the Stasis Quo Illusion of Media Stability" MiT7 unstable platforms: the promise and peril of transition, 2011 was peer reviewed; the paper says it is a work in progress. The source lacks reliability because it isn't published in the mode expected for academic papers in the humanities (book, chapter, peer reviewed journal article or peer reviewed conference paper). Not an RS, can't be Reliable for claims. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The suggested text change would probably be on the last sentence of the URL change section, "Fan-made torrents and mirror sites are have been launched in the aftermath of the shutdown.", adding onto the end of it, "one such mirror being encyclopediadramatica.ch." Silver seren C 20:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please can I have opinions on whether the following websites are reliable sources for information about the upcoming Harry Potter film:
I had removed the content added through these sources here on the basis they did not appear to be reliable sources. An editor has challenged that though, so I'd like an impartial opinion. Obviously I don't want to remove validly sourced content, but I still have my doubts.
The first two are self described as "fansites", and Comic book resources while having a little more credibility still appears to be privately owned and self-published. WP:RELIABLE states Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and I have doubts that the sources meet that criteria, so would welcome a third opinion. Betty Logan ( talk) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This question is hypothetical because I have not been able to determine the real identity of the source. However, I wanted to raise the question anyway as I think it is interesting and could apply in other cases. Consider this blog. For almost three years, Felix Culpa (a pseudonym) wrote a blog on Orthodox Christianity. While he provides some clues as to his identity, the blog seems to make a point of not revealing his identity, even to the point of calling this his website. He claims to have taught at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY. In January of this year, he shut down his blog, stating that he had accepted a position as one of the editors of Orthodox Life, the English-language publication of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville.
Now, IMO, the blog cannot possibly be considered reliable so long as the real identity of Felix Culpa is unknown because none of the above claims can be verified. However, I find it interesting to ask this question: if it became known who Felix Culpa was and he openly acknowledged that the "Ora Labora" blog was his, would the postings to that blog then be considered reliable?
The essence of the question is: if the author has some notability (as a seminary professor and a magazine editor), does that make him a reliable source? Is it his notability that makes his writings reliable? Or is it the editorial review process that makes them reliable? The problem here is that "Ora Labora" blog was a self-published source. There was no editorial review process overseeing Felix Culpa's postings to the blog.
It seems straightforward to assert that Felix Culpa's writings as an editor of Orthodox Life would be considered reliable sources. Does the same determination apply to his blog postings written as an independent blog prior to becoming an editor at Orthodox Life?
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk) 08:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Smallville, twice; Smallville (season 10), twice; and Stargate SG-1 articles all cite GateWorld (specifically this article and this one). Now I'm sure that it's arguable that GateWorld is an exception to WP:SPS when it comes to Stargate (their area of expertise - as acknowledged by third party reliable media sources and the production team). However, I don't think they can be a reliable source to whether or not something is a Guinness World Record. They aren't reporting a statement from the Guinness World Record people, they're just speculating that the record has been broken. There is no mention of this on the Guinness World Records site or in any mainstream media source. The most obvious problem with just assuming the record has been broken is that the Guinness World Record team might not class Smallville as a science fiction series. Until there's source direct from Guinness World Records or reported by a reliable third party as coming from them, I don't think we can say that the record has been broken. For reference, here is the source for the Stargate record. Since this affects so many different articles (as well as those above, it also affects List of Doctor Who serials) I thought it best to have a discussion here, that can be referred to, before making any changes. However, I have been WP:BOLD and removed ( [62] [63]) some sources ( [64], [65] [66]) that seem obviously to fall under WP:SPS - feel free to comment on those as well. Thanks. Maccy69 ( talk) 08:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It has recently been pointed out that a number of pages on the British Centre for Science Education website (for example this page cited on Wales Evangelical School of Theology) are wiki articles, editable by anybody with the appropriate password. (A full list of pages linking to the BCSE website can be found at this page). Can we confirm that such pages are not WP:RS? I would note that, even where not wiki/directly-editable, the BCSE is a small, volunteer-run organisation, so would presumably have questionable editorial oversight. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | According to some sources, including the political advocacy organization, British Centre for Science Education WEST is "a leading centre of creationism amongst theological training seminaries." | ” |
According to BCSE, anyone can become a member and any member can edit. This means that the page is not reliable even for the organization's views (ie. WP:SPS), because any random person could have added that statement. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Would Know Your Meme be considered a reliable source? This might be crucial to a article on a cult following that I am developing. Rain bow Dash 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
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 90 | ← | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | Archive 98 | Archive 99 | Archive 100 |
Can we have a discussion regarding Yahoo blogs? FACs are dependant on this and I thought that it is better to have them here. Some FAC reviewers are of the opinion that Yahoo blogs, being blogs, are not reliable. I oppose the viewpoint because these are not just some random blogspot.com papers. The yahoo blogs and the threads are written by highly respected music editors, journalists, theorists from the music world, including Paul Grein (former Billboard editor), Caryn Ganz (senior Rolling stone editor), Billy Johnson Jr. (music critic), Lyndsey Parker (Billboard) etc. Just because the term blog is associated with them, the editors are rejecting these sources, which present high volume of information. FAC reviewers are also of the opinion that Yahoo! doesnot have any rights over these blogs, which is codswallop imo, because every page is copyrighted to them. I opened this thread to know the opinion of other fellow editors here at WP:RSN, so that the confusion and the blanket overlap between reliable and unreliable sources are cleared. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
A couple of points: first, does Yahoo exercise editorial control over its blogs, as required by WP:NEWSBLOG? Just because it's copyrighted by them doesn't mean that's the case, and demonstrating that it is would help to verify their reliability. Second, the FA criteria demand high-quality reliable sources, which is a more stringent requirement than most other areas of the project. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, is this WP blog enough to support a death claim - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-mortem/post/snooky-young-92-year-old-jazz-trumpeter-dies/2011/05/13/AFtW7p2G_blog.html - it seems to be looking at the about the poster has been writing obituaries for the post since 2004 http://blog.washingtonpost.com/postmortem/2007/09/matt-schudel.html - Off2riorob ( talk) 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering what the view is about using sources from a "political" publisher like South End Press. On their website it says "South End Press is a nonprofit, collectively run book publisher with more than 250 titles in print. Since our founding in 1977, we have tried to meet the needs of readers who are exploring, or are already committed to, the politics of radical social change." [1] This might be interpreted as a self-admission that they promote "publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist" - ie a "questionable source" under WP:RS. They even have a tagline of "Read. Write. Revolt". On the other hand, they've got an extensive catalogue, and their seems to be a level of editorial control, but you'd have to wonder about the NPOV of their fact checking, particular in older works from the 80s. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icerat ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
( ←) If necessary, you can add a brief descriptor to the attribution: "Whatsisface, which also manufactures widgets, said..." or "Joe Bloggs, a self-described radical socialist, said..." WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A publisher/publication's POV has nothing to do with whether it is an RS. We don't disallow the use of the NY Times or Fox News just because of their pro-corporate, capitalist, U.S. nationalist POV. What disqualifies something as an RS is a poor record for fact-checking, lax editorial controls, self-publication, etc. -- Jrtayloriv ( talk) 20:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There are some new edits on Amway that are clearly based on poor sourcing, inaccurate paraphrasing, and WP:SYNTH – the issue is now bordering on tendentious editing. There are two examples, and they are precipitating an emerging edit war with the user who who made the edits ( Icerat), who happens to have quite the history of POV pushing and, shall we say, less than ideal conduct on Amway-related articles.
Example 1: Quote from -- Maryam Henein. (November 28–December 5, 1997). "The Revenge of the Amdroids". Philadelphia City Paper. Retrieved 2011-05-11. http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/112896/article009.shtml.
Note two things here: Henein’s quote included in the original article’s text was taken -- verbatim -- directly from the beginning of a section of the City Paper article entitled “The Lord’s Way” in which she introduces a new discussion about the promotion of Christianity within the Amway organization and about a book by Steven Butterworth that addresses this theme. First of all, note that the edit replaced a key portion of the quote (“in motivational tools for Amway”) with ellipsis ("...") to make it seem as though the author did not refer to Amway specifically – in other words, purposeful obfuscation. Secondly, the section of Henein’s article that the original quote was taken from, verbatim, mentions absolutely nothing about Yager or Britt, and it is misleading on Icerat’s part to represent that the author was “referring to materials” specifically produced by Yager/Britt. This is WP:SYNTH and non-neutral POV -- the apparent aim of the edit was to make it seem, rather deceptively I would have to say, that Henein was not referring to the Amway organization but rather to only two these 2 individuals specifically.
Example 2: Alleged 1982 Dexter Yager interview with CBS.
The second example of contentious editing/improper sourcing by Icerat was the addition of new material to the Amway article that allegedly was based on an alleged 60 Minutes interview in 1982 with Dexter Yager. This material was added immediately following the Henein quote to create the misleading impression that it is Yager alone who is responsible for the promotion of Christianity in the Amway organization. The text added by Icerat [3] was as follows:
Icerat cited the source for this simply as “Soap and Hope. 60 Minutes. CBS. 1982”
No link was provided to any transcript, video, or any official source that confirms that this show even existed let alone that it included comments supportive of the text Icerat added to the Amway article. No air date was included in the citation nor was an access date included to confirm that the source was in fact verified by the editor in question. When challenged on this edit, Icerat replied [4] as follows:
Note two things here. (1) No verifiable source (2) the unverifiable quoted text provided by Icerat doesn’t even remotely support the paraphrased version added to the Amway article. Yager doesn’t admit “that he promotes Christianity through his Amway group”, as indicated in the text Icerat added to the article, nor does he say anything suggesting that “this was not the case in other Amway groups”. It’s yet another example of WP:SYNTH, poor sourcing, and POV pushing. I pointed this out to the editor, but to no avail. [5] Notice also the ironic fact that Icerat prefaced that Talk thread with a lecture about the evils of WP:SYNTH, not using verifiable sources, and POV pushing. [6]
Can we please get some reliable eyes on this so that we remove this dross from the article without it precipitating yet another unnecesary debate [7] and edit war [8] with Icerat. Thanks Rhode Island Red ( talk) 03:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for an article on a fictional work? I couldn't find much definitive information on the reputation of any of the associated parties:
Any input appreciated, Skomorokh 04:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Can this source be used to support the statement that the word "falafel" entered English through Hebrew? The main counter argument seems to be that the Oxford Dictionaries don't mention it when discussing the origins of the word [11]. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
No More Mr Nice Guy is not presenting this correctly, several sources has been brought up at the falafel talkpage saying the word is Arabic origin without mentioning any other language: [12] Malik also brought a good point that the Oxford dictionary word for "paradise" mentions: "that "paradise" entered English from Old French, but that its origins lay in Avestan (an Iranian language). And note that the entry for falafel does not mention Hebrew." [13] [14] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This is just a heads-up that MobileReference, a Boston-based e-book publisher of encyclopedias and reference books for Kindle and similar platforms, uses material from Wikipedia. Where this is the case, their works fail WP:CIRCULAR and should not be cited.
We have a few dozen citations to their works at present; they come up in Google Books, and may easily be mistaken for a reliable source. -- JN 466 17:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I would add that it appears to me that all MobileReference publications should generally be regarded as not reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, even if they are not obvious forks of Wikipedia. Although the licensing information in their Wikipedia forks asserts that their editors have "carefully checked and organized the material", most of the Wikipedia material seems to have been copied verbatim, including misspellings, grammatical errors, unidiomatic phrasing, and outright misrepresentation of cited sources (citations to which are generally not included, however).
David Wilson (
talk ·
cont) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
A court judgement is a primary source for itself, ie the judgement and case that it is about. I've encountered a situation where an editor is using statements made by the judge about related, but uninvolved parties, ie they did not participate in the court case or hearings. This would seem to me to be using the judgement either as a secondary source for this information, or perhaps as a primary source for the judges opinion. This situation isn't really covered in WP:RS, but either way it doesn't seem an appropriate use of the source. More details here. Thoughts appreciated. -- Icerat ( talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"In this particular instance, someone wants to source a statement about company A to a court decision involving company B. I don't think the decision is a reliable source in this instance." In the context of the actual edit/source Icerat / Insider201283 is referring to here, I'm not sure the above statement is relevant to this edit. To clarify, the court document mentions "company A" by name, and company A (network twentyone) and company B (amway) are inextricably linked. The decision is not on A, but it is very much involved.
This is all a bit grey, but isn't a judge's verdict a tertiary source?
Policy states "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." which I feel is what was done in this instance, however pro-MLM/Amway editors often edit/re-interpret the court statement, removing phrases such as "pyramid", such interpretation of course is forbidden, or want to have the whole statement removed, which is what Icerat is seeking. Financeguy222 ( talk) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's an interesting reliable sources problem: the BBC Domesday Project is now online again (or at least, half of it - the stuff on the Community Disk). It contains a wealth of local information about towns and villages across the United Kingdom. On the one hand, it is a valuable historical record and is online. For non-controversial information like local legends, the history of village churches, when schools were founded and so on, it seems like it might be useful. But, it is contributed by ordinary people with minimal editing (the dodgy spelling and grammar on some of the entries, for example). The BBC did do some minimal editing to the entries but not a great deal (then again, that's probably the same as current day newspaper/news website output!). Regardless, this seems like an extremely valuable resource for building up coverage of UK topics.
Thoughts? — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Article uses a single source that maybe user-created. Opinions?
A new article Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls is heavily based on two POV sources and the creator has recently sought to add a third. All three seem to be essentially self-published works untouched by any fact checker. All three seem to be essentially works of propaganda or argumentation, selecting those aspects of the 1983 West Bank fainting epidemic that would show unfair criticism of Israel. Could those with experience on WP:RS give feedback on whether these 3 sources can be used to make claims about events in 1983, or whether claims about what schoolgirls did, what newspapers reported, what doctors found, etc. be sourced to more reliable authors and publications?
1. A column for the Hudson Institute by Khaled Abu Toameh called "Is Hassan Nasrallah a Mossad Agent?" [15] The author is an activist, not a scholar, who starts off with 2 paragraphs that position the fainting epidemic as an example of a hoax: "Sometime in the early 1980s, a large group of Palestinian school girls in the West Bank, who wanted to avoid exams, claimed that they had been "poisoned" by Israeli authorities. The girls said that Israel had put poison in the tanks that supply drinking water to their school. One after the other, the teenage girls started "fainting" in the school yard, especially as photographers and TV crews showed up. The girls were all released from the hospital after medical tests refuted their claim. But at the end of the day the girls and their families had good reason to be happy. The exams were postponed indefinitely and Israeli "occupation" was once again blamed for perpetrating a "new crime" against Palestinians." Aside from the vagueness of his description of the time, this presents many claims that are not supported by a single WP:RS describing those events. No fact-checker would have permitted this material to be published without serious revision. (What really happened according to RS. Some girls started fainting at one school and were hospitalized, rumors spread that poison had been involved (with Israelis and Palestinians making counter-claims about who did the poisoning), the epidemic spread and was later determined to be psychosomatic and stress-related, with some fakery also starting about four days after the first reported cases. )
2. A book by Raphael Israeli published in 2002 by , Poison: Modern manifestations of a blood libel. The author is a Professor of Chinese History and Islamic Civilization. [16] The book is not, in fact, about the fainting epidemic but about the " blood libel", as the author calls it--that is the false accusation that Israel had poisoned Palestinian schoolgirls. Lexington Books is not a fact-checking academic publisher, [17] and here is what they say about the book: [18]
This is the story of an amazing manifestation of a modern blood libel against the Jews and Israel, involving not only Arabs and Muslims, but also the European media and world organizations. Based on rich documentation from all angles: Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, European, American, and International, Raphael Israeli aims to draw our attention toward another piece in the multi-faceted puzzle of the Arab-Israeli dispute, and of international antisemitism. . By bringing this Middle Eastern version of the perennial theme of blood libel before their readers, the author hopes to instruct people of good will of the dangers inherent in protracted conflicts, such as the one opposing Israelis and Arabs, which can provoke war, misery, destruction, and violence, but also recriminations born out of hallucinations and ill-will. This is a multi-disciplinary book which should interest not only students of antisemitism, Judaism, and Israel, but also psychologists, journalists, political scientists, and scholars of communications, the Middle East, international relations, and the Israeli-Arab dispute.
3. A book review by Manfred Gerstenfeld of the previous book. There is no indication that the author did any fact-checking about the incident beyond reporting incidents and interpretations as described in the book. The main interest for Gerstenfeld, as for Israeli, is using the aftermath of the incident to discredit criticism of Israel. Quoting Gerstenfeld;
In the more than twenty years that have passed since the mass hysteria case, there have been many similar Arab campaigns whose core element was a major lie...To date, the campaign of lies and fabrications has reached its height with the IDF operation Defensive Shield against the terror infrastructure in Jenin in April 2002. ... another type of Palestinian fabrication: after a funeral procession of a supposed victim of the massacre, the "dead person" jumps off the stretcher once he thinks he is out of the camera's range. There is an enduring need for a searching analysis of the fragmented yet total war the Arab world is waging against Israel and the Jewish people, as well as the collaboration of Western media and institutions. ... The Simon Wiesenthal Center has produced a major institutional contribution on the subject of anti-Semitism on the Internet. Israeli's paradigmatic case study is important for several reasons. Beyond his analysis of a particular case, he reveals how the methodology of Arab hate propaganda has been in use for many years.
It is my belief that these are all essentially self-published opinion pieces, but I welcome the opinion of more experienced others. betsythedevine ( talk) 03:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Misrepresentations galore. Lexington is not a vanity press, and while it may not enjoy the reputation of a Cambridge or Oxford, the search that Betsy pointed to actually shows it has a good reputation. To quote some of the posts there "My general sense is that Lexington is respected as an academic press, but nowhere near competitive with the top university presses. "; "Lexington is a pretty good press in political theory. Not first-rank, but loads better than Mellen." To call this "slef published" is ridicolous. Toameh is a journalist, and a notbale one at that, as is Dan margalit, publishing in a mainstrema Israeli paper. Again, none of these are slef-publsihed. Betsy - please read WP:SPS. Red Stone Arsenal ( talk) 18:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I removed Jedlicki from the article Ostsiedlung [25] and outlined my rationale at talk. This was undone and re-instated [26] calling it a perfectly reliable source and advising me to bring it here. The talk page section is at Talk:Ostsiedlung#Jedlicki.
The cited essay of Marian Zygmunt Jedlicki (1899-1954) is "German Settlement in Poland and the Rise of the Teutonic Order", first published in 1950 in the Cambridge history of Poland I (bib link), a volume containing several essays from exiled/returned Polish scientists written during late and shortly after World War II. Given that WWII was the worst ever period in Polish-German relations, and that historiography on both sides was subordinate to the respective national claims for the respective medieval "cradles of the nation" [27], I object to including material from this source. To these general concerns adds that Jedlicki is the author of "Thousand years of German aggression ", published just before and certifying his bias.
I maintain that Jedlicki is not a reliable source for the actual process of Ostsiedlung, i.e. medieval German settlement in Poland. It should be treated as an old, biased, partisan source. Skäpperöd ( talk) 12:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The 1951 review you cite does not mention any pro- or anti-German bias, it just says Jedlicki is not including "new" (by then) research. That an inclusion of said research would have made the work even more biased is out of question. The point is that wikipedia articles should not rely on the conclusions of an obviously biased source from the WWII era ("Thousand years of German aggression" - come on), when this episode in historiography is [ meanwhile itself subject to historiographic analysis with the conclusion that it was designed to prove/disprove WWII-related claims. Skäpperöd ( talk) 19:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia
I object strongly to Geoff Lord's entry, as I currently have a CCJ against the company he is advertising - French cosmetic surgery ltd. They have given addresses on their website in UK but is a PO Box and the address in France is a private address (flat) not a clinic.
They owe UK citizens tens of thousands of pounds including myself and I object to them continuing to publicise on legitimate companies.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.73.148 ( talk) 21:40, 13 May 2011
Know your Meme is a commercial website with an editorial policy, involving expert oversight of user contributed content "Much like wikis, any registered user can submit a meme or viral phenomena for research at knowyourmeme.com. Other users and staff researchers can contribute to the research of the topic and discussion about a meme. The research staff then confirms the meme or invalidates the meme by putting it in the "Deadpool." The editorial and research staff at KYM also provides interviews or Q&As with the people involved, such as Magibon or Scumbag Steve in addition to the research."
I wish to use the oversighted content and site generated video content from confirmed memes Playing Dead and Lying Down Game and their relational hypertextual indicator page Playing Dead, submemes to expand Lying down game and Planking (fad) in terms of reference to the Korean phenomena and French Art happening. Is KyM valid for this usage? Fifelfoo ( talk) 05:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The actor Dan Aykroyd is listed in List of people on the autism spectrum based on a radio interview he gave where he repeatedly stated that he suffered from a mild form of Asperger syndrome as a child. Both the list and bio article use the radio interview as a primary source (you can listen to it). There is some dispute at Talk:List of people on the autism spectrum#Why I removed Aykroyd over whether Aykroyd is a reliable source on himself. I think that provided the statement is plausible and no reliable sources can be found to doubt it, then a person can be a reliable source on their own medical history and indeed that biographers routinely use the person and their friends and family as sources for these sort of facts because medical notes are not available for contemporary figures. Thoughts? Colin° Talk 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Note: this is not the same as if Aykroyd had said "I think I had mild Asperger Syndrome as a child". A self-diagnosis of a neurological disorder would not be considered reliable. We don't know how Aykroyd came about this diagnosis, and although he mentions getting medical treatment for these problems, the actual term Asperger Syndrome was only formed in the 80s, so there is a retrospective aspect to it. Colin° Talk 19:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Just found this site that discusses television shows. What's the verdict here? Sarujo ( talk) 18:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is relevant personal document which is obviously showing that his nationality was Serbian and not Croatian.
http://www.novosti.rs/vesti/kultura.71.html:330746-Ivo-Andric-potvrdio-da-je-Srbin
I'm pretty sure I'm on good ground here, but since it's a bit of an odd thing I figured I'd ask to make sure. I'm interested in improving the article on the Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español. The book "Good Faith Collaboration - The Culture of Wikipedia" by Joseph Reagle goes in to pretty extensive detail about the circumstances surrounding the creation of the Enciclopedia. A great deal of the content in the book is based off of information Reagle gathered on en.wiki and the mailing lists. However, Reagle is an academic and the book is published by the MIT Press. Am I right in assuming that the book is an acceptable reliable source in the context of the Enciclopedia Libre article? Kevin ( talk) 04:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Here is the finest example of why they cannot be used. Viriditas ( talk) 10:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
First the Wall Street Journal, now Fox News, what else is next? Do we begin to ban Huffington Post or MSNBC? Nay. Just because editors may disagree with the editorial content of the news sources, or the way that a story is reported, that doesn't mean that all content from the given source is not reliable. Do we as editors, who are suppose to edit in a manor that is consistent with WP:NPOV, suppose to continue to revisit this topic? Again, I am appalled that this even comes up. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 12:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I essentially agree Griswaldo and I consider Fox for the most part as partisan hacks with little journalistic integrity. Personally I wouldn't use them to source anything, however I see no reason to ban Fox as a source in general, since there are many scenarios where Fox might largely unproblematic (consider topics which are not particularly politicized or partisan such as sports for instance). Moreover this subject has been discussed over and over (see archives) and the result was more or less always: yes Fox is often crappy, but banning fix in genereal is not possible. -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So the bottom line is, you are encouraged to avoid Fox personally and you are welcome to kick out particular low quality fox articles being used for POV pushing and to relativize proper peer reviewed and/or academic sources. But this has to be judged on an individual basis and does not mean Fox cannot be used at all.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm looking and I'm just not seeing anything unreliable about this article. Just disagreeing with the claims made in the article doesn't make it an unreliable source. Is anyone misquoted in the article? Some editors may disagree with the article's conclusions, but are there incorrect facts at all? Mathewignash ( talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
As the OP is not going to I will. Is Fox news RS for climate science? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but Fox News is a news agency that does not conduct independent research in the climate science area (as well as in any other). The only thing it can do is to transmit the opinion of some climatologist, or similar expert. Therefore, the Fox is a reliable source for such statement as "An expert X believes that ...", or "Study performed by YYY demonstrate that...". However, in that case why cannot we simply quote the opinion of X, or present the results of the studies made by YYY directly? Obviously, the fact that all of that has been transmitted by Fox does not give more or less weight to these studies.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 17:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/#ixzz1MKZ94BsC Some Fox to enjoy: [38] :-)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Those editors who disagree with the editorial bias of the Fox News will never be convinced that Fox News is a reliable source; so far that is what I have taken away from this discussion. This discussion does not further the goals of our community, rather it continues to provide weight to those who may criticize our efforts by claiming it has an overall bias. Therefore, I say, that we agree to disagree, and close this discussion. Editors who choose to use Fox News as a reference for content will be free to do so; Editors who choose not to use Fox News as a reference will continue not to, and if there is a dispute of whether the specific reference is reliable as a source, then a discussion can occur on that article at that time. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
There is such an effort to remove conservative reliable sources from wikipedia, it just furthers the bias that is alleged of our community. Imagine if someone were to propose that MSNBC and the New York Times be banned as reliable sources, the outcry that would arise. So is it any wonder the outcry that has occured here? Fox News is a Reliable Source; MSNBC is a Reliable Source ... lets move on and close this discussion. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:AVOIDYOU & WP:AGF; it does not appear these are being followed. It is claimed that Fox News is misrepresenting data, however, if the text that the text which the reference is attributed to the source where it is coming from, and stated as a possible position, I cannot see why it cannot be included in a relevant article. Let the reader then read the source and determine for themselves what the truth is. Data is factual, interpretation of data can at worse be opinion, at best be consensus by a community of learned logical non-emotionally involved individuals.
There are some reputable sources that have said that climate change and/or environmentalism can be considered a religion. 1 2 3 4 5 6 This may play a factor here, but assuming good faith, we are all editors who are suppose to be logical non-emotionally involved individuals who are not suppose to be pushing any POVs, and are only giving our personal opinions on whether a given source can be considered a reliable source based on the criteria set forth in the relevant page. It appears there that some editors see the source, at large, as reliable, while other editors have a different opinion that, at large, it is not. Therefore, there does not appear to be a consensus, and articles are therefore reviewed on a case by case basis.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I just came across this review which gives 5/5 to American Tragedy (album), an album that has otherwise been badly reviewed in other publications. The fact that the site both reviews and sells albums makes me think this is not a reliable source (in fact, you can find links to buy the album on the review). I couldn't find much information on who write the reviews - just this help page. So what do you think? Is this a reliable source? Laurent ( talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Ryan Giggs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A discussion is going on over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard about Ryan Giggs and sources he has obtained a Super Injunction, some editors feel that Sina.com is not a reliable source, comments would be appreciated over at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. VER Tott 09:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm involved in a discussion at Talk:Galling, an editor is trying to include his own thesis in the article which he describes as a "D level university paper" from a Swedish institution. I've directed him to this guideline which states that we can take PhD level dissertations but not Masters theses. Can anyone give any indication about which a 'D level paper' is, or does he just mean that he got a distinction?
In either case his work (Wallin H; An investigation of friction graphs ranking ability regarding the galling phenomenon in dry SOFS contact : (Adhesive material transfer and friction)) does not appear to have been cited by anybody (as far as my limited resources can make out), should it be used as a source? Regards, Bob House 884 ( talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Is allhiphop.com a reliable source for the arrest etc info in this section of the article Juelz_Santana#Legal_Issues? there doesnt seem to be anything about it in the mainstream news [43] Active Banana (bananaphone 20:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The stories are [44] and [45] (one of which is using as its source the New York Post which particularly doesnt sit well with me for this type of claim) Active Banana (bananaphone 05:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is Little Green Footballs, a news blog, a reliable source? In a recent edit, a source from a news blog was removed, with the edit summary stating:
remove poor quality reference'
I am inviting JN to this discussion. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
What News Blogs would then be considered a reliable source? At what point does a Citizen Journalist news source considered reliable, and when is it not, regardless of any bias (left, center, or right)? -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 10:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is even an issue. There are a thousand ways to find the original AP article if you want to, and a link isn't required merely to cite the article. Gamaliel ( talk) 05:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is urbancinefile.com.au reliable? Shahid • Talk2me 18:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I am concerned that upcomingcons.com has aparently been approved [46] as a reliable source by the Anime project from the about us
"We want to be the most complete fan resource for conventions, hosting pictures, convention listings, and a diverse user community.
What makes you different? We have the technology to be the most up-to-date and complete fan resource so far created. All our data is unique and updated by hand, and we are updating it regularly. Other websites might have a nice design, or might have been around forever, we have the advantage in technology. We are using the latest technology to have more features, more up-to-date listings, and a bigger community than anyone.
Who's running the place?
Ryan Kopf (at ryankopf.com). He started UpcomingCons.com because he loves making websites, and he loves conventions. Why not mix the two
Nothing in there about fact checking etc. In this particular instance the content appears innocuous enough, but it is used in a number of other articles. Active Banana (bananaphone 05:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
This book, edited and written in part by Antero Leitzinger, is also published by Leitzinger. Should this have any bearing concerning this book as a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to bring up the matter of the supposed image of
Lakandula's flag, currently displayed on the pages
Kingdom of Tondo,
Manila (province), and
Timeline of Asian nations.
The image has kept me wondering because to my knowledge none of the recognized primary sources for 16th Century Philippines has a description of a supposed flag of Lakandula, much less an image. If such a description exists, then this image would only be a speculative reconstruction. Until someone shows me the text, however, I believe this image is totally unsupported by historical sources.
My initial queries at Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Precolonial_Kingdoms_of_the_Pasig_Delta suggest that the uploader, probably in good faith, may have based the image on http://www.watawat.net/early_flags_and_symbols_-_2.html -- a site which explains the image simply by saying
If we examine that statement (itself unsourced), I think it's clear that the shape, at least, of the flag as portrayed there is speculative.
The next paragraph, sourced from "Historia General de Filipinas" describes another flag, the white one portrayed on the site. The source describes it merely as a white banner (and not a personal heraldic or regimental symbol), without describing the shape. So again, the image is speculative. I mention that because I think it brings the reliability of this specific page into question.
As it stands, I do not believe the image should remain on the pages its on, and in fact, I believe it ought to be deleted as a speculative image of a historical item (the speculative part including the question of whether that historical item exists AT ALL.)
I am not certain how to proceed, I've never had to question the sourcing of an image before. Any advice? -- Alternativity ( talk) 15:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like it has some copyvio. It is being used for the article above. What do others think? Dougweller ( talk) 18:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is The Times Guide to the House of Commons 2010 considered a reliable source for biographical information on persons elected to Parliament at the 2010 UK general election? Ivor Stoughton ( talk) 18:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
We have an editor unfamiliar with our policies on original resource and sources editing this rather poor article. With this edit [49] he's moved on from just using primary sources, but I'm not sure that this sources are appropriate (and he's introduced a new problem, he doesn't know how to cite}. In the first paragraph he adds a source which appears to be just a blog [50] (as well as a source for the Qur'an translation which I don't think should be used). The paragraph on Black Holes uses a Wiki arguing against the idea that the Qur'an predicts black holes. I've also just noticed that there are other problematic sources added by other editors. Dougweller ( talk) 08:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is http://thehothits.com reliable for facts about music videos, such as where they were shot? There's a DYK nomination using this source: "Stan Walker back with brand new video 'Loud'". -- Lexein ( talk) 05:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that it is a blog site. relating information from this site I think would be malicious. Tauhidaerospace ( talk) 04:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the Federation of American Scientists' Intelligence Resource Program (specifically this) a reliable source. maucho eagle ( c) 19:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
As part of an on-going dispute regarding Karen Armstrong here and here, do the works from any of these sources qualify as reliable sources: Hudson Institute, Media Matters, The Hill and Manuscript Library, Middle East Forum. Sleetman ( talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Sleetman isn't telling the truth about the dispute relative to these sources. There's already a discussion of them at BLPN; he appears to be forum-shopping for a different result. The actual dispute is whether criticism that was never picked up in third-party sources is admissible in a BLP (Hudson Inst., Pipes's personal think-tank the Middle East Forum) and whether it's okay to misrepresent a source as criticism of a living person when it's almost entirely not about the subject (Powell, in which the quoted sentence is the only mention of Armstrong in a 6,000 word lecture on the Crusades). Media Matters isn't cited in the article, it's just the user's continued attempt to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on an article that neither of the users who disagree with them have ever edited. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
[53] and the link associated.
An editor has used livestrong.com as a source. Is this reliable and why? It seems anyone who has signed up can create whatever information they want about a food. Curb Chain ( talk) 06:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
See Raleigh DeGeer Amyx where it is being used as a source. I can't even verify its existence, can someone else help? I'll also ask on the article talk page but given the apparent COI issues there... Dougweller ( talk) 07:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On the article Lil B (a bio of a rapper), there is currently no birthday listed, because we don't have a reliable source for one. An editor (I think one, editing under both a AdamWehib916 and an IP) wants to add a specific date. First, the editor wanted to use the artist's songs as a reference, but, of course, song lyrics aren't a reliable source. Recently, the editor pointed out a blog post by the article subject which may or may not help. In the post, the rapper points out that it is his birthday, so we can pin down the date, as an SPS should be considered reliable for things like the subject's on birthday. The question is the year. In the blog post (definitely NSFW!!!!), there is a picture of a mostly naked woman ("naughty bits" mostly, though not entirely covered), who has drawn on her body something like "Happy 21st birthday!". I don't remember the exact message, but cannot check the picture as I'm currently at work. Now, if we trust the reliability of the fan (based on the fact that the rapper did not chose to post the picture without correction), then we could do the math and determine the year of birth. But is that really reliable enough? My feeling is no, but I told the other editor that I'd ask for input here. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this has come up a thousand times before, but is Google maps considered a reliable source? Looking at my own neighborhood I can find half a dozen errors within a mile of where I live. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Just for clarification of why User talk:Beeblebrox brought this topic up. In the Ma'ale HaShalom article, he deleted "is a street in Jerusalem" and all the basic description content because it wasn't properly verified (a fictional novel was the source). [55] I have since restored the "is a street in Jerusalem" with a GoogleMaps source. [56] Is the GoogleMaps source sufficient to verify that it's a street Jerusalem? -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Came across this site when a likely COI editor was refspamming it. It is already used several times, seemingly in good faith. But is it a reliable source? The details on the site suggest some independent oversight. Anyone able to provide some input? Rehevkor ✉ 10:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the motion picture review site worldsgreatestcritic.com a reliable source for film reviews--it has been used by more than one editor. ? according to websiteoutlook it gets 324 hits a day [57] Is that utterly trivial? See in this connection the article J.C. Maçek III which I have proposed for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Leeming, David Adams (2003). "Finnic and Other Non-Indo-European Mythologies".
European Mythology. Oxford University Press. pp. 133–141.
ISBN
9780195143614. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help); External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)
states among other things
by 3000 B.C.E the Finno-ugric peoples had broken up into two primary subfamilies-Finnic and Ugric...The Finnic peoples became Permians (Permiaks and Udmurts in Russia), so called Volga Finns (especially Mordvians and Mari or Cheremis, also in what is now Russia), and Baltic Finns (karelians in Russia, Estonians in the Baltics , and the Finns what is now Finland). The Lapps (Saami) in northern Scandinavia and Russia are usually included.
The source is used in the article about Finnic mythologies and (also Finnic peoples), yet, there's an editor at Talk:Finnic_mythologies who insists the whole subject is WP:OR if not WP:FRINGE. Please comment. Thanks!-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Well OUP s clearly a reputable academic publisher and the author David Adams Leeming seems to be a well qualified academic (Professor of English and Comparative Literature (Emeritus) at the University of Connecticut, Storrs [59]), who has written many books on mythology also with other reputable publisher (for instance ABC CLIO). So by any means this book is a reliable source, unless there are even more reliable sources explicitly stating otherwise (i.e. the rare case that academic review of this book are overwhelmingly negative and pointing out its unreliability).-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The source meets every criterion for being a "reliable source" and, as such, its precise wording is thus usable in any WP article relating to its topic. It is not up to any editor to "know" that the source is wrong, to be sure. Collect ( talk) 10:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The main problem I have with this is the fallacious reasoning so common in this field. Historical linguists propose some language family, and immediately archeologists, mythologists, and historians invent peoples to go along with them. The problem is that those peoples either vanish when the linguists realize that their proposal was wrong, or continue on without any basis in reality, since they were never anything but a linguistic construct. This is something linguists complain about all the time. For example, in this case the Finno-Ugric family would appear to be spurious; attempts to reconstruct proto-Finno-Ugric are indistinguishable from reconstructions of proto-Uralic. "Finnic" (= Finno-Permic) may be just as bad, and Volga Finnic, which was also cited above, is even worse: that's not just doubted, but now known to be the result of a sprachbund. Yet texts continue to cite the Finno-Ugric language family (and Finno-Permic, and Volga Finnic), as if that conferred some legitimacy to their constructs. And the dates! Where do the dates come from? Often they're from glottochronology, which has been largely discredited, yet is still used to assign peoples, sometimes imaginary peoples, to archeological finds. So, in Leeming's quote above, is he basing this solely on the say-so of linguists, many of whom have since retracted such claims? Or is he basing the peoples and dates on independent comparative-cultural and archeological scholarship?
There are two rational ways to go about this: One, the linguists reconstruct the culture of the people who spoke the protolanguage, and two, the mythologies are coherent in their own right, and the linguistics merely confirms what the mythologists already know. But reified linguistic hypotheses, especially obsolete hypotheses, should be clearly noted as such. — kwami ( talk) 15:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Lavery, Jason Edward.
The history of Finland. p. 20. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
Most scholars believe that by the middle phase of the Combed Ceramic Culture the population was speaking very remote versions of the Finnish language (often called proto-Finnic)This conclusion is drawn from the correspondence of the Combed Ceramic Culture's area to the maximum geographical spread of Finno-Ugric languages.
Additionally to archeology, there are recent genetic studies on Finno-Ugric peoples available:
A counter-clockwise northern route of theY-chromosome haplogroup N from Southeast Asia towards Europe European Journal of Human Genetics (2007) 15, 204–211,
N2, forms two distinctive subclusters of STR haplotypes, Asian (N2-A) and European (N2-E), the latter now mostly distributed in Finno-Ugric and related populations.
Y-Chromosomal Diversity suggests that Baltic Males Share Common Finno-Ugric Forefaterers.pdf Department of Genetics, University of Turku, University of Helsinki.
So, I'm not sure what is this "archeologists and mythologists often 'borrow' historical-linguistic reconstructions, without evaluating how well supported they are" all about? -- Termer ( talk) 17:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am asking for advice regarding a specific source, since I want to add some content to the article Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The credibility of this organization has been criticized by an Italian debunking group. The journalist representing this organization, Paolo Attivissimo, is active – among other things - in the debunking field, and interviewed actual structural engineers and explosives experts, noticing that the claims done by some members are unrelated to their field of study (such as Ted Muga’s claim that no airplane hit the Pentagon, Paul Kenyon’s claim of the towers being destroyed by laser beams and Charles Pegelow’s theory that atomic bombs caused the collapse.)
Attivissimo writes on several magazines, but his main mean vehicle for debunking investigations is his blog and the blog “undicisettembre” where he collaborates.
According to the guidelines, “Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable”.
So here’s what I have regarding this specific journalist:
He publishes articles on “Le Scienze”, which is the Italian edition of Scientific American.: http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/maggio_2011,_n.513/1347688
The Italian Police cites him as a reliable source regarding hoax debunking:
http://www.poliziadistato.it/poliziamoderna/articolo.php?cod_art=2168
He cooperates with NASA http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/PaoloAttivissimo.html
(side note, he’s here with astronaut Walter Cunningham, since he’s also a translator: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lrosa/5627235560/ )
He is interviewed on RAI (Italian Public TV ) regarding hoaxes:
http://www.rai.tv/dl/replaytv/replaytv.html#day=2011-05-08&ch=1&v=63091&vd=2011-05-08&vc=1
And on Mediaset (Italy’s main private TV, Berlusconi’s one to be clear): http://www.video.mediaset.it/video/matrix/full/224853/notizie-e-bufale.html#tf-s1-c1-o1-p1
He has his own program on Swiss national radio: http://www.rsi.ch/home/networks/retetre/disinformatico (The Italian speaking part of Switzerland, where he lives)
He writes for the Italian edition of Wired: http://www.wired.it/search?a=Paolo%20Attivissimo
He wrote for The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/italy_blog_law_outrage/
The articles published for the Italian Version of “Scientific American” usually deal with hoaxes and debunking, when it’s not about the space race and space exploration.
So let me know if that is sufficient to consider him a reliable source, and his blog, being the blog of a journalist and expert, can be cited as a source. I had already presented the case to an administrator, but his discussion page says he’s quite busy at the moment, so let me know if there could be any possibility of reaching a consensus on the reliability of this journalist’s blog as a source. Thanks in advance! Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Edit Sorry, the “scientifica american” link was to a specific issue, here’s the issues where he published something:
http://lescienze.espresso.repubblica.it/risultati?lr=&q=paolo%2520attivissimo&search=sito
He has a column called “povera scienza” (poor science), where he debunks bad science and pseudoscientific claims. Idonthavetimeforthiscarp 18:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This here. I cannot decide if it is reliable or not. I understand that they call it a blog, but AOL calls their music site a "radio blog" and they are certainly not unreliable. -- ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Simple question. Is this page ( Decius) reliable source for article Decius? :) Also, can someone give me good source for roman emperor's. -- WhiteWriter speaks 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There has been a significant amount of contention after Encyclopedia Dramatica shut down and redirected itself to Oh Internet. Some users of ED who were upset with this change created a forking of the information from ED at EncyclopediaDramatica.ch from archived information and Google caches. Since then, discussion on the talk page has been lengthy, as there have been multiple sources discussing Oh Internet, but none discussing the .ch forked website. Because of this, per WP:V, we couldn't allow any info about the .ch fork into the article at all (we're not allowed to link to it directly due to copyright information anyways, but this section is for discussion of the existence of .ch in the article at all, which wouldn't involve a direct link).
Finally, someone has stepped forward and provided some sort of source, found here. It is a paper from MIT about 4chan and on pages 10-11, it discusses the change of ED into Oh Internet and also discusses forked websites and mirrors that have resulted from it. However, it doesn't specifically name the .ch fork, it just has it listed in the Works Cited page. Since it only has .ch listed on Works Cited, is this really reliable for the information, enough to mention the .ch fork? As far as I can tell, the writer of the paper seems to be making the conclusions about mirrors and such themselves, as none of the other works cited are about ED, other than the direct link to the .ch fork. Silver seren C 02:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Jon Saklofske "Inb4 404: Using 4chan.org to Challenge the Stasis Quo Illusion of Media Stability" MiT7 unstable platforms: the promise and peril of transition, 2011 was peer reviewed; the paper says it is a work in progress. The source lacks reliability because it isn't published in the mode expected for academic papers in the humanities (book, chapter, peer reviewed journal article or peer reviewed conference paper). Not an RS, can't be Reliable for claims. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The suggested text change would probably be on the last sentence of the URL change section, "Fan-made torrents and mirror sites are have been launched in the aftermath of the shutdown.", adding onto the end of it, "one such mirror being encyclopediadramatica.ch." Silver seren C 20:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please can I have opinions on whether the following websites are reliable sources for information about the upcoming Harry Potter film:
I had removed the content added through these sources here on the basis they did not appear to be reliable sources. An editor has challenged that though, so I'd like an impartial opinion. Obviously I don't want to remove validly sourced content, but I still have my doubts.
The first two are self described as "fansites", and Comic book resources while having a little more credibility still appears to be privately owned and self-published. WP:RELIABLE states Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and I have doubts that the sources meet that criteria, so would welcome a third opinion. Betty Logan ( talk) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This question is hypothetical because I have not been able to determine the real identity of the source. However, I wanted to raise the question anyway as I think it is interesting and could apply in other cases. Consider this blog. For almost three years, Felix Culpa (a pseudonym) wrote a blog on Orthodox Christianity. While he provides some clues as to his identity, the blog seems to make a point of not revealing his identity, even to the point of calling this his website. He claims to have taught at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY. In January of this year, he shut down his blog, stating that he had accepted a position as one of the editors of Orthodox Life, the English-language publication of Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville.
Now, IMO, the blog cannot possibly be considered reliable so long as the real identity of Felix Culpa is unknown because none of the above claims can be verified. However, I find it interesting to ask this question: if it became known who Felix Culpa was and he openly acknowledged that the "Ora Labora" blog was his, would the postings to that blog then be considered reliable?
The essence of the question is: if the author has some notability (as a seminary professor and a magazine editor), does that make him a reliable source? Is it his notability that makes his writings reliable? Or is it the editorial review process that makes them reliable? The problem here is that "Ora Labora" blog was a self-published source. There was no editorial review process overseeing Felix Culpa's postings to the blog.
It seems straightforward to assert that Felix Culpa's writings as an editor of Orthodox Life would be considered reliable sources. Does the same determination apply to his blog postings written as an independent blog prior to becoming an editor at Orthodox Life?
--
Pseudo-Richard (
talk) 08:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The Smallville, twice; Smallville (season 10), twice; and Stargate SG-1 articles all cite GateWorld (specifically this article and this one). Now I'm sure that it's arguable that GateWorld is an exception to WP:SPS when it comes to Stargate (their area of expertise - as acknowledged by third party reliable media sources and the production team). However, I don't think they can be a reliable source to whether or not something is a Guinness World Record. They aren't reporting a statement from the Guinness World Record people, they're just speculating that the record has been broken. There is no mention of this on the Guinness World Records site or in any mainstream media source. The most obvious problem with just assuming the record has been broken is that the Guinness World Record team might not class Smallville as a science fiction series. Until there's source direct from Guinness World Records or reported by a reliable third party as coming from them, I don't think we can say that the record has been broken. For reference, here is the source for the Stargate record. Since this affects so many different articles (as well as those above, it also affects List of Doctor Who serials) I thought it best to have a discussion here, that can be referred to, before making any changes. However, I have been WP:BOLD and removed ( [62] [63]) some sources ( [64], [65] [66]) that seem obviously to fall under WP:SPS - feel free to comment on those as well. Thanks. Maccy69 ( talk) 08:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
It has recently been pointed out that a number of pages on the British Centre for Science Education website (for example this page cited on Wales Evangelical School of Theology) are wiki articles, editable by anybody with the appropriate password. (A full list of pages linking to the BCSE website can be found at this page). Can we confirm that such pages are not WP:RS? I would note that, even where not wiki/directly-editable, the BCSE is a small, volunteer-run organisation, so would presumably have questionable editorial oversight. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
“ | According to some sources, including the political advocacy organization, British Centre for Science Education WEST is "a leading centre of creationism amongst theological training seminaries." | ” |
According to BCSE, anyone can become a member and any member can edit. This means that the page is not reliable even for the organization's views (ie. WP:SPS), because any random person could have added that statement. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Would Know Your Meme be considered a reliable source? This might be crucial to a article on a cult following that I am developing. Rain bow Dash 16:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)