Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162) (bot |
|||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 240: | Line 240: | ||
:I'm showing no more than 2,666 uses so far, which is quite a sizable cleanup that needs to happen here. I tend to agree that it would fail as a self-published source lacking enough editorial oversight to be used here. [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
:I'm showing no more than 2,666 uses so far, which is quite a sizable cleanup that needs to happen here. I tend to agree that it would fail as a self-published source lacking enough editorial oversight to be used here. [[User:Thargor Orlando|Thargor Orlando]] ([[User talk:Thargor Orlando|talk]]) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
::The 2,666 number might be inflated since some of those will be external links rather than references, which I think are okay per [[WP:ELYES]] #3 and [[WP:ELMAYBE]] #4. Without checking though, I'd imagine a substantial majority will be references. – [[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
::The 2,666 number might be inflated since some of those will be external links rather than references, which I think are okay per [[WP:ELYES]] #3 and [[WP:ELMAYBE]] #4. Without checking though, I'd imagine a substantial majority will be references. – [[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Gun control == |
|||
Do sources cited at [[gun control]] need to mention gun control? I just removed a cited (highly biased) source which never mentions gun control.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=587933313] |
|||
* Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, N.J: Transactions Publishers. ISBN 9781412821292[http://books.google.com/books?id=N1j1QdPMockC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q&f=false] |
|||
My edit was reverted by North8000 with the edit summary: ''Undid revision Goethean (talk) Undid removal of reference. The reference is supporting the material which cited, your claim that it it must include other terminology has no basis''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=587934496&oldid=587933313] Rummel is being cited in order to support material about Nazism in the gun control article, despite the fact that no reputable historian has been cited who contends that Nazism was a significant event on the topic of gun control, and despite the fact that some of the sources don't even mention gun control. — [[User:Goethean|goethean]] 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:14, 27 December 2013
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Current large scale clean-up efforts
Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com
Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org
Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com
Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org
Is Astrodatabank reliable?
In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.
The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.
Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability.
Corporate tax incidence sources for United States graph inclusion questions
Would someone please provide a third party opinion at Talk:United States#Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence as it pertains to the content change at [1] and proposed at Talk:United States#Tax incidence? Thanks in advance. EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Hello? EllenCT (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Old newspaper articles as sources
Hello there!
I am new to Wikipedia, and have started an article about a public person from my country. There is not a lot of (reliable) information on the internet, BUT I have a lot of newspaper artciles about this person.
The information in those articles is of great value, and I would like to wikify my entry using these sources.
A) What's the copyright policy for newspaper articles ranging from 1940-1970? B) If I can use those, how do I link them to the reference-part? Should I take pictures of said articles, upload them onto an image-board (e.g. imgur,...) and then link the source to the picture?
Thank you a lot for you help,
Ezekwail
- Hi Ezekwail: in short, no--don't do it. For those articles it's most likely a copyright violation. Remember that sources don't have to be online to be included as references in an article. I assume you cut these articles from the paper and archived them? Perhaps looking around on the net may give you a couple of hits. Try news.google.com/newspapers. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. If you provide date, title, newspaper name, and page number, and perhaps a quote (using quote= if you use the {{cite news}} template) that is sufficient to use the newspaper in a citation. There will be no copyright issue if it is done that way. Of course if you can find an online copy that is not a copyvio, tha tis a plus. Of course whether a given paper is reliable for a given use is a different question. DES (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can always photograph or scan them for your own reference (eg if someone wants more information in a discussion it may be much easier to check a digital version), and you can share those photos/scans via email if someone asks - but not post them publicly. I'm not sure which country you're talking about - countries have different copyright laws and it may be that some of the articles are out of copyright... but probably not, and it's probably a complicated mess not worth getting into. Podiaebba (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is a bad idea to use old newspapers as sources except in a few special circumstances. If no other information can be found then it is likely the person is not notable. Information may be out of date and it is difficult to determine the weight to provide for information about the subject. TFD (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I recommend scanning the articles and posting the citation information on the talk page of the article with the note that you'd be happy to share them with anyone who wants to work on the article. Then e-mail them to people. Old newspaper articles can be a terrific source for long-forgotten subjects. For example, my first good article, the Ambrose Channel pilot cable, has almost no coverage on the Internet and relied on decades-old publications. My major caveat is that you should make sure that the newspapers are big enough and that the coverage is substantial enough to warrant an article. In my example, there was coverage in the New York Times, LA Times, etc. Let me know on my talk page if you would like help. Andrew327 08:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
"It's Psychedelic Baby" Magazine
I'd really like to use this in Earthless discography (it's the only source I can find that says anything about a split album I want to add to the article). Problem is, it's a Blogger website, and as far as I know, blogs in general (especially Blogger blogs) are not considered acceptable. Or is this to be determined on a case-by-case basis? Anyway, here's the link: http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/04/earthless-my-interview-with-isaiah.html LazyBastardGuy 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- if the editor of that blog has been previously published in standard book form or regular articles in a music magazine on the subject of X type of music, then as a recognized expert, their blog posts about X type of music can generally be considered a reliable source.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case; he has only appeared in a handful of other places, themselves reliable but not enough to establish his own reliability as a source... On the upside it may not take long for a good, usable citation to turn up, since the band give interviews every so often and discuss things like this all the time, so I can wait. LazyBastardGuy 16:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Are the current sources sufficient to support the statement "Bloom worked as a financial economist"? The first is his profile as an MEP, which presumably he wrote himself. The page won't download for me. The second is a short BBC report that simply has "an economist". BLP; the material is not negative about the subject. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- It does download for me: his CV contains 3 words, "Financial economist (retired)", headed by a disclaimer (which evidently appears on all such pages) that the CV is provided by the subject and not guaranteed by the European Parliament.
- If it were a matter of controversy whether he was ever a financial economist or not, this wouldn't be enough on its own. But since he clearly is or recently was a hands-on director of an investment company, he must have been, mustn't he? There's no strict definition of the term ... If we wanted to be really cagey we could say that he "describes himself as a retired financial economist". I would in any case make this the first sentence of the following paragraph (not a paragraph on its own) because those following details give some general support and clarification. Andrew Dalby 10:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we need a bit more for "economist" even if qualified with "financial"? A director of an investment company could have various backgrounds, but "economist" implies some knowledge of broad economic processes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was sort of hoping someone else would have a more confident answer, hence I'm slow to reply ... Our redirect "Financial economist" goes to "Financial economics", which describes some of the things Bloom must have done in that investment company. So I didn't feel too worried about this, and still don't, really.
- My father was an "economist" in the sense of "someone who taught economics and eventually got an academic qualification himself in the subject". On the other hand, the journal The Economist is directed (I'd say) at people who are hands-on in politics and economics, without necessarily having had anything to do with teaching or studying the subject. I never heard my father complain that The Economist was mis-titled. I see the word as covering a range of activities, academic and non-academic, including some of what Bloom surely used to do. Andrew Dalby 10:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we need a bit more for "economist" even if qualified with "financial"? A director of an investment company could have various backgrounds, but "economist" implies some knowledge of broad economic processes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Charles Lindbergh
[2] has been repeatedly added to this high profile biography.
The claim made is Lindbergh's outspoken isolationism led to surveillance and investigation by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. A Bureau report in June 1941 discredited Lindbergh with unsubstantiated statements that he associated with pimps and prostitutes and flew bootleg whisky from Canada to Montana. Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. "Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence" Yale University Press (2003) p. 97
The source continues: 'Hoover knew how to increase and exploit the unpopularity of his targets in order to enhance the FBI's power and budget.
The query is - is this source properly used for the direct implication that Lindbergh did consort with "pimps, prostitutes and bootleggers" where the actual source makes clear that the allegations were unfounded and based on Hoover's misuse of power to help the FBI's power and budget? . IOW, ought unfounded allegations about a dead person be added to a biography where the source is not specifically about that person at all, but presents it as an example of poor investigations? I rather think the source, in fact, is more about the misuse of the FBI than about the sins of Lindbergh. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the problem. The claim, as you quote it, includes the words "unsubstantiated statements that ...", telling us that there was no proper evidence. If a significant number at that time believed the claims, and this affected the general perception of Lindbergh, then it seems reasonable to mention it in his biography (I agree, it's part of the history of the FBI as well).
- The term "discredited" is misleading if the FBI claims were not widely believed -- then we should say "tried to discredit" -- but if they were widely believed, "discredited" is correct. Andrew Dalby 09:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The source was not about Lindbergh, but about Hoover specifically. It is anecdotal about Lindbergh at best, and eliding the gist -- that it was Hoover who did it, is misleading to readers, and leaves them with the impression that the campaign might have been true. It appears that the source is stating that they had no basis in fact, and therefore should not be used to tar Lindbergh now -- any more than if a person called him a "rapist" and attributed it to an FBI spread rumour. Unsubstantiated allegations are bad enough in any article -- but where the source itself says they had no basis, then Wikipedia ought not spread calumnies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The question I can see is whether these allegations had any publicity, and any resulting effect, at the time. If they did, we may think them notable and they probably do belong to his biography. If they were in an internal FBI document, and no one made them public at the time, the word "discredited" is an error: in that case they belong, at the most, in a footnote in the Lindbergh biography. That's my view: others may well disagree :) Andrew Dalby 10:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Searching the NYT archives finds zero articles [3] [4] making any such reference at all. Zero. And the NYT would likely have covered any major scandals. The searches show [5] that the NYT did cover criticism of Lindbergh, but did not publish the unfounded accusations. The only actual Google hit on the topic ... is this Wikipedia article <g>. The only book making the allegation is the single source, whose point is anti-Hoover if one cares to read what it actually says. So --no evidence for the stories ever getting into any reliable sources at all (I can not search the wartime tabloids as they basically stopped publication AFAICT) and of at best quinternary significance to the person. Questia also finds zero results for any claims using any of those words at all ... and it is pretty thorough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for doing that work. If the claims never got into the public domain at the time -- so no one could have acted on them and Lindbergh himself may never have known of them -- then they aren't relevant to his life.
- I now see the force of your point that the source is not "about Lindbergh". Unless any Lindbergh biographer has shown an interest in this topic since 2003, when the material was published, there seems no justification for mentioning it on the Lindbergh page. It belongs to the Hoover/FBI story. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Searching the NYT archives finds zero articles [3] [4] making any such reference at all. Zero. And the NYT would likely have covered any major scandals. The searches show [5] that the NYT did cover criticism of Lindbergh, but did not publish the unfounded accusations. The only actual Google hit on the topic ... is this Wikipedia article <g>. The only book making the allegation is the single source, whose point is anti-Hoover if one cares to read what it actually says. So --no evidence for the stories ever getting into any reliable sources at all (I can not search the wartime tabloids as they basically stopped publication AFAICT) and of at best quinternary significance to the person. Questia also finds zero results for any claims using any of those words at all ... and it is pretty thorough. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The question I can see is whether these allegations had any publicity, and any resulting effect, at the time. If they did, we may think them notable and they probably do belong to his biography. If they were in an internal FBI document, and no one made them public at the time, the word "discredited" is an error: in that case they belong, at the most, in a footnote in the Lindbergh biography. That's my view: others may well disagree :) Andrew Dalby 10:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- The source was not about Lindbergh, but about Hoover specifically. It is anecdotal about Lindbergh at best, and eliding the gist -- that it was Hoover who did it, is misleading to readers, and leaves them with the impression that the campaign might have been true. It appears that the source is stating that they had no basis in fact, and therefore should not be used to tar Lindbergh now -- any more than if a person called him a "rapist" and attributed it to an FBI spread rumour. Unsubstantiated allegations are bad enough in any article -- but where the source itself says they had no basis, then Wikipedia ought not spread calumnies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com
Do CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com qualify as reliable sources?
Both sites carry disclaimers [6] [7] disclaiming reliability for their sites' information, and their articles don't contain any sources or explanations for their assertions. Trivialist (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like you've answered your own question to me ;) Is there a reason you're raising this here when this appears to be a clear-cut matter? Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Part of being a reliable source is about whether they do any editing or fact checking. All websites, books, magazine or published media worth anything has disclaimers so that not relevant. Blackash have a chat 04:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- CelebrityNetWorth.com claim they check the facts here about us and has editors. So I would think this would be ok as reliable source.
- TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com I'm going to treat these the same as they seem to be set up by the same people. They both state that the writer will have a team editor, but it seems that editor may only do the per-approval of the article the author would like to write. TheRichest.com So I would think this would be ok as a supporting source, but not to use it on it's own. Also if the same fact comes up on both sites by different authors worded differently to each others articles, then it would lead greater creditability to that fact. Blackash have a chat 04:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- They just take info from other sites and make guesses. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- The value of these sources to Wikipedia is greatly less than our value to them. WP:REFSPAM most likely applies. Remove, and if people edit-war (with no history of edits other than promoting these sites) you'll have your answer :-) Guy (Help!) 20:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nick-D: I just wanted to be absolutely sure. Also, I started deleting links to the sites and another editor suggested that I was acting unilaterally and without consensus, so I thought I'd double-check. Trivialist (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
DNA Tribes Used As Supporting Source To Two Peer-Reviewed Studies Regarding Ancient Egyptian Race Controversy, DNA History of Egypt, Population History of Egypt
In regards to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and related Talk:DNA history of Egypt and Talk:Population history of Egypt, There was an earlier discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#DNA_Tribes.2C_a_private_genetics_company.2C_being_used_as_a_source
The Rameses peer-reviewed study:http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 The Rameses DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study:http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf The Amarna peer-reviewed study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 The Amarna DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study:http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf
These studies are being used for this content:
" Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0).[1]
Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79).[2] As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined."
Regarding the use of DNA tribes as a source due to the fact that it is a private company. Is it fine to use as a supporting source to the two peer-reviewed studies it is based on? The idea is that DNA Tribes took the data from the two peer reviewed studies which are cited in Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt and Population history of Egypt and ran it through to create the genetic distance information. Is it then okay to add the DNA tribes article as an additional source? This is an issue that arises with most scientific studies because most individuals are not sophisticated enough to read and understand the tables themselves. Using a supplementary study is useful if no arguments have been made as to fraud in the running of the supplied data. Thoughts are welcome, especially in light of the historically sensitive nature of this topic. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- From what I can see here, neither of these two sources attempted to determine or conclude upon the race of the kings in question, and actually addressed a completely different issue. A non-reliable source then "interpreted" some data from these articles to support a different conclusion of their own. Is that correct, or have I perhaps missed something? Wdford (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion where I and 3 other editors including User:Moxy wrote "If reliable published sources do not include the information that is found only at DNA Tribes, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may constitute original research" (and criticised DNATribes specifically) and User:Andrew Lancaster agreed. As do I. When scholarly sources start to use the DNATribes material, then we can quote those sources.
There is another issue often ignored. The subsection where this was added has a main article, and thus should follow WP:SUMMARY - any new material should be introduced first in the main article. Too often summaries verge widely from the main article.Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, and don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion where I and 3 other editors including User:Moxy wrote "If reliable published sources do not include the information that is found only at DNA Tribes, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may constitute original research" (and criticised DNATribes specifically) and User:Andrew Lancaster agreed. As do I. When scholarly sources start to use the DNATribes material, then we can quote those sources.
It would be great to get some other voices from editors who were not involved in the previous discussion to get an unbiased perspective. Andajara120000 (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC) How does one bring in other editors? I am new to this--or do editors come in voluntarily once they are alerted to this page. Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe what DNA Tribes did was run the data provided in the peer reviewed studies to determine genetic affiliations. As such the crux of the matter is the reliability of the running of the data. My opinion is unless there is some evidence of fraud in the use of the data in the peer reviewed studies that DNA Tribes should be treated as any other source. The special status that DNA Tribes is getting seems strange to me. DNA Tribes is just like any researcher evaluating the data provided and giving its viewpoint- just like an author of a book or article evaluates the data presented and provides their analysis. What exactly is the difference? That has not yet been articulated in this discussion. We have the two peer-reviewed genetic studies at hand, we have the two analyses by DNA Tribes based on those genetic studies---none of the editors have provided any sources as to why the analyses by DNA Tribes are suspect. Perhaps a note can be placed as to any concerns with the analysis, just like in DNA history of Egypt or Population history of Egypt there are disclaimers as to the R1b findings for King Tut (including that the genetic researchers may not have even used King Tut's remains) but the info still remains for the readers to evaluate. I don't think any such claims have been made in regards to DNA Tribes. That is my take but other voices are very welcome. Regards Andajara120000 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What I found on Wikipedia:BIASED
Shortcut: WP:BIASED seems to support including DNA Tribes and placing a disclaimer and NOT deleting it altogether. Am I missing something?? "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think what had been argued earlier was that there might a financial bias of the source---is that still the argument? If so a disclaimer as to the financial bias should do the trick or am I missing something? Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
DNA Tribes has been used as a source in the following diverse Wikipedia articles:
Maghrebis Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas Tunisia Asian people Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Coming fresh to this, and having just looked through the two papers and two pdfs, I don't think that Wikipedia should use the analysis by DNA Tribes as a reliable source. It is a commercial company, not a scholarly organization, and the pdfs don't give any link to academically-checkable details of how they reached their conclusions nor of whether there is a scholarly consensus that their methods are valid. They do have a commercial interest in providing exciting results.
- Supposing that their results were published and their conclusions accepted as valid, as may happen, we should be extremely careful about how we present them. In particular, I'd strongly suggest using the word race is extremely unwise unless and until we can show a strong consensus that it's appropriate to whatever specific use we may propose to make of it. DNA Tribes more cautiously say that "This provides additional, independent evidence of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (possibly among several ancestral components) for pharaonic families of ancient Egypt." and, if their work becomes acceptably reliable or that conclusion is produced independently by more reliable sources, we could use some such wording. I hope that helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no dispute that Egyptians have "sub-Saharan" ancestry. So do Europeans, of course. As for specific pharaohs, it was common for pharaohs to have wives from the royal families of surrounding communities, both to the south and the north, so it's no more surprising that pharaohs will be linked ancestrally to sub-Saharans than it is that they will also be linked to levantines. None of this is in any really sense an issue. It's just that this whole "debate" is locked into US-centric ways of categorising "race". There is also the problem that lineage is consistently being mixed up with race. Millions of white Americans have sub-Saharan lineage (i.e, an ancestor from way-back), but tells us next to nothing about how they are categorised in terms of race. Also, why should we trust a source that says he "historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages"? He was the son of the previous king, Setnakhte. Paul B (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this may be more of a WP:UNDUE issue than a reliability issue. DNA Tribes has apparently analyzed some data and reached certain conclusions... OK... the next question is to determine how much weight should be given to that analysis and those conclusions? Given the commercial nature of DNA Tribes, I don't think we should give it a lot of weight... at least not yet. That would change if other sources comment upon what DNA Tribes has said (either for or against). Waiting for other sources to take note of and comment upon what DNA Tribes says will also reduce the potential for Original Research... we (Wikipedia editors) certainly should not state (or imply) that their analysis means X or Y. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly WP:SPS sources used on Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey
I note that the following sites are used as sources for the history of the Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey. None of these sources are being used to cite a specific statement, however the content of the article appears to be broadly consistent with the content of these sources. -
In favor of these sources, even the wiki site does appear to have some kind of editorial policy. The blog is by a notable local politician who who may be an expert on the history of her borough. They all appear to be honest attempts to document local history, and there are no obvious contradictions between these sources. However they are all obviously self-published.
Question: In light of the above claims, can we make a case for considering the above sources to be reliable enough in this context? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Civic Heraldry appears to be compiled by a knowledgeable enthusiast, probably very good, but not easily allowed under RS. Good for an external link.
- There'd be a case for regarding the former mayor of Haringey as an expert on this subject. But there is also an official source here which could surely be cited. Andrew Dalby 12:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Would this "report" be considered a reliable source?
Hi, Could I have some opinions on whether this report would be considered a reliable source? Someone has used it as a source, and it looks more like pr talking points to me. http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/131202135150-WhyEverySeriousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf It would never make it through peer review - or on WP - because the sources in it often don't support the statements, and many are outdated, but those issues are not related to my question - My question is whether this report would be considered a reliable source. Thanks, Smm201`0 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is not reliable. Groups like the CPS exist in order to publish reports defending ideas that cannot be supported in academic journals, because no reasonable assessment of available evidence would lead to those conclusions. TFD (talk) 08:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
BibleGateway
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I caught an IP adding links to BibleGateway.com to a few articles this afternoon. Doing a search it seems like it's used quite a bit for whatever reason. It just seems like one of those sites that harvests searches for ad revenue, should we really be encouraging its use? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- That appears to be a comprehensive, 20-year old (!) website so I'm not seeing any particular problems with it. Is there a specific instance to which you object? ElKevbo (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- It seems to be simply a commercial site for religious products that happen to have individual pages for verses. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Is a citation to a web based news account article that has not been maintained still considered a "reliable source"?
- Viegas, Jennifer (1 August 2008). "'Dancing Plague' and Other Odd Afflictions Explained". Discovery News. Discovery Communications. Retrieved 8 August 2008.
I know that a source does not need to be available on the web to be used as a reliable source; but if the source was only on the web, and the web page is now not locatable on the host website, is it still an acceptable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- That seems to fundamentally violate WP:V, one of our core policies. It's outside the purview of this noticeboard but it might also be pertinent to examine whether it's placing undue weight on a fact that is only reported in one source. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- It can be verified through internet archives, but you do raise a good point about weight. Gamaliel (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- One may also note that Discovery channel is not absolutely fact-based in its entertainment programming at all, and does not always make clear where facts stop and speculation begins. [8] shows its current focus is on such stuff as "aliens" and "JFK assassination" theories. Any use must avoid the idea that since CBS News is RS, that quoting from entertainment shows on CBS is also RS for facts about science or news. "Discovery News" has such scientific articles as "How to choose the perfect gift" so I do not consider it totally hard news [9] Collect (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
politicalcompass.org being used to define the British National Party as authoritarian, not far-right
See [10] and Talk:British National Party#Far-right? Right-wing populism which had 2 sources that look RS has also been removed. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- A highly-questionable source. There are multiple reliable sources which describe the BNP as far right - including much directly-relevant academic material. The opinion of a single website with no established credibility cannot possibly be used in such a manner to contradict them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that more sources, with more authority, describe the BNP as far-right. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- There may well be sufficient sources to allow us to describe the BNP as authoritarian in addition to describing it as far-right. But far-right isn't going anywhere. MilesMoney (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree that more sources, with more authority, describe the BNP as far-right. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source. It is synthesis anyway because the source does not address whether the BNP is a far right party. TFD (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This is being used at List of aircraft carriers in service. I believe this is a blog.
Reliable... yes? no? Thank - theWOLFchild 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a blog. Everything on WordPress should be treated with suspicion. I would consider that unreliable unless there is some special reason to consider the blog or its author, Chan Kai Yee, trustworthy. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is some reason to believe that Chan Kai Yee might be a good source but this construction is reported elsewhere (e.g. at news.com.au. More problematic is the fact that this is not that widely reported, suggesting that the primary insider sources for these news reports may not be reliable themselves. This is after all the sort of thing that would be reported everywhere if it were true. On a WP:NOTNEWS basis I would tend to suppress this until it had a wider corroboration. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Our Campaigns
Thousands of articles are citing Our Campaigns which, while not strictly an open wiki per this page, seems unambiguously unreliable per WP:SPS. This has been brought up on here a couple of times before with little to no response. I don't know how one gets started or what the criteria are but I think a large-scale cleanup might be necessary? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm showing no more than 2,666 uses so far, which is quite a sizable cleanup that needs to happen here. I tend to agree that it would fail as a self-published source lacking enough editorial oversight to be used here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- The 2,666 number might be inflated since some of those will be external links rather than references, which I think are okay per WP:ELYES #3 and WP:ELMAYBE #4. Without checking though, I'd imagine a substantial majority will be references. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Gun control
Do sources cited at gun control need to mention gun control? I just removed a cited (highly biased) source which never mentions gun control.[11]
- Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government. New Brunswick, N.J: Transactions Publishers. ISBN 9781412821292[12]
My edit was reverted by North8000 with the edit summary: Undid revision Goethean (talk) Undid removal of reference. The reference is supporting the material which cited, your claim that it it must include other terminology has no basis[13] Rummel is being cited in order to support material about Nazism in the gun control article, despite the fact that no reputable historian has been cited who contends that Nazism was a significant event on the topic of gun control, and despite the fact that some of the sources don't even mention gun control. — goethean 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Hawass at al. 2012, Revisiting the harem conspiracy and death of Ramesses III: anthropological, forensic, radiological, and genetic study. BMJ2012;345doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8268 Published 17 December 2012
- ^ http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393