Mathewignash (talk | contribs) |
what is the burden of proof to establish that seemingly reliably sources aren't reliable? |
||
Line 502: | Line 502: | ||
::::::Its not being used as a source for the plot, but is being used to say a pluraility of reviews have critised an aspect of the film (I will ask for the quote that establishes that more then just this reviwer have compalined about this aspect of the film). Also I doubt its good enough a source to establish notability.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
::::::Its not being used as a source for the plot, but is being used to say a pluraility of reviews have critised an aspect of the film (I will ask for the quote that establishes that more then just this reviwer have compalined about this aspect of the film). Also I doubt its good enough a source to establish notability.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
==[[Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)#Sonoran_Desert_refs]]== |
|||
How do you answer the assertion that ''every'' RS you provide from a variety of unrelated sources (be it newspaper, magazines, scholarly journals, published books, Royal BC Museum, etc) is unreliable because (according to another editor) they ''"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Okanagan_Valley_(wine_region)&diff=406766192&oldid=406762218 ultimately ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source, namely the press kits of the Okanagan Wine Region, Nk'Mip Cellars, and the Osoyoos Tourism Board]"''. Of course, this other editor is not providing any links or evidence of this collusion between sources like the The New York Times, Oxford Companion to Wine, Houston Chronicle, Toronto Sun, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, etc but he is adamantly that these sources are not reliable because....well just because. I suppose the question really is....what is the burden of proof to establish that seemingly reliably sources aren't reliable? [[User:Agne27 |Agne]][[Special:Contributions/Agne27|<sup>Cheese</sup>]]/[[User Talk:Agne27|<sup>Wine</sup>]] 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:48, 8 January 2011
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Is this book an reliable source or would it be classed as self-published
Book Title: Arborsculpture: Solutions for a Small Planet Copyright 2002 to Author Richard Reames Richard Reames's publishing name Arborsmith Studios. ISBN 0964728087.
- This is the author's 2nd book in the field of Tree shaping. His first book How to grow a chair copyright in 1995. Richard has self-admitted to being a non-expert at that time for his first book. An editor has suggested due to the length of time that Richard has been in the field of Tree shaping he must now be an expert and that his 2nd book should be considered as an reliable source. I disagreed and have asked for who and where he as been classed as an expert. The other editor hasn't produced any reliable source/s stating that Richard is an Expert. I first asked for sources in June 2010.
- So would this book Arborsculpture be a reliable source or would it be classed as self-published. Blackash have a chat 09:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Qualifications can be an indication of expertize but are clearly not the only one. How do experts in the tree shaping field see it? Do any cite him or discuss him in other publications?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is no set standards yet. There are only approximately 17 practitioners in the world who do this art form and 3 of those are dead. Most have not published their shaping method. As far as I know no-one within the field has published that Richard Reames is an expert. Richard edits here and knows that I have repeatedly asked for the other editor to provide a cite-able source that Richard is an expert. Yet neither have done so. Blackash have a chat 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly appears to be self-published. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Until he is referenced in several clearly reliable sources, I don't think it should be used. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The author and his book are referenced in several reliable sources. FYI, Blackash is a professional rival of Reames.Slowart (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Slowart, when asking for opinions about the reliability of a source it doesn't' matter who asks. Though Slowart (self outed as Richard Reames) you should write in the first person. Richard which tree shaping experts have published that you are an expert in Tree shaping? Where are your peer reviews of your trees? Blackash have a chat 10:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The author and his book are referenced in several reliable sources. FYI, Blackash is a professional rival of Reames.Slowart (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Until he is referenced in several clearly reliable sources, I don't think it should be used. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- It certainly appears to be self-published. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- There is no set standards yet. There are only approximately 17 practitioners in the world who do this art form and 3 of those are dead. Most have not published their shaping method. As far as I know no-one within the field has published that Richard Reames is an expert. Richard edits here and knows that I have repeatedly asked for the other editor to provide a cite-able source that Richard is an expert. Yet neither have done so. Blackash have a chat 18:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Qualifications can be an indication of expertize but are clearly not the only one. How do experts in the tree shaping field see it? Do any cite him or discuss him in other publications?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Expertise in trade and crafts is generally judged on a peer review basis of masterworks. Look for other tree shaping experts who have favourably reviewed Reames' expertise in tree shaping in otherwise reliable sources (there are only 17 of them to check). Additionally, look for exhibition catalogues by galleries that have exhibited craft items of treeshaping by Reames: a major commercial exhibition will indicate master status. At the core is citation by other existing experts, or recognition through other forms of "publications" such as exhibitions on a commercial basis in major galleries. These can be reliably demonstrated or failed to be demonstrated. If demonstrated treat Reames as an expert for SPS purposes for all books published after that recognition. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also note that if there are substantial independent mentions of the type that Fifelfoo describes, it probably won't be necessary to use Reames' own book. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the 2005 World Expo in Japan, Reames was given the honorary title of worldwide coordinator, by the producer (of Growing Village Pavilion) John Gathright, as a thank you for giving him everyone's contact details. Reames's own art work was not part of the exhibition. Only 8 people from around the world were chosen for display. My partner and I were the featured artists at this exhibition for the full 6 months. There is only 4 books in English (two of which are Reames) on the subject of tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- (for the record not this discussion)Your wrong about Reames not having work in the pavilion, the oldest living shaped tree in the pavilion transplanted there from the "laughing happy tree park" planted and grafted by Reames. Writing in 3rd person, no big deal.Slowart (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Slowart/Reames (for the record) when we were in Japan John Gathright (producer of Growing Village pavilion) told us that tree was his. Also in your book you make no such claim. The tree you are talking about appears in John Gathrights section in your book.
- P.S. In your 1st edition of your book Arborsculpture (published before expo)in regards to your work, you only talk about sending 3 tools with grown handles page 143. We know that they didn't appear at the expo and in your 2nd edition of Arborsculpture (published after the expo) you removed the text about sending them to expo. Nowhere else through out your book do you claim to have anything at the expo. Blackash have a chat 03:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've just realized you had successful sidetracked me. Richard which tree shaping experts have published that you are an expert in Tree shaping? Where are your peer reviews of your trees? Blackash have a chat 04:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- (for the record not this discussion)Your wrong about Reames not having work in the pavilion, the oldest living shaped tree in the pavilion transplanted there from the "laughing happy tree park" planted and grafted by Reames. Writing in 3rd person, no big deal.Slowart (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the 2005 World Expo in Japan, Reames was given the honorary title of worldwide coordinator, by the producer (of Growing Village Pavilion) John Gathright, as a thank you for giving him everyone's contact details. Reames's own art work was not part of the exhibition. Only 8 people from around the world were chosen for display. My partner and I were the featured artists at this exhibition for the full 6 months. There is only 4 books in English (two of which are Reames) on the subject of tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 11:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also note that if there are substantial independent mentions of the type that Fifelfoo describes, it probably won't be necessary to use Reames' own book. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Good grief. I think the question is missing a very important part, what statement is the book being cited to support? #4 from the list at the top of this page. If there are only 17 practitioners of the field in the world, then the difference between "expert opinion" and "practitioner opinion" is quite likely going to be academic. What is this mysterious statement that we require "Reames, acknowledged expert tree shaper, writes ..." but not "Reames, one of the only 17 tree shapers in the world, writes ..."? --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- An editor had made the claim that all the references for tree shaping had been extensively checked. The reality was he had only checked the refs (13 out of 92) for a tiny section of the article. They had created a separate talk page for this Talk:Tree_shaping/Alternate_names#Alternate_names. Because of this claim I have taken it upon myself to systematically check all the references. I've followed on the same talk page by the other editor Talk:Tree_shaping/Alternate_names#Check_all_refs_for_reliability. I'm up to 13 out of 70 now.
- The book Arborsculpture is being used for 12 cites in the tree shaping article at the moment. Which is why it needs to be established whether or not this book is a reliable source so we know how it should be used throughout the article.Blackash have a chat 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hedge fund returns for Empirica Capital.
The ref in question: "The "Black Swan" Hedge Fund Returns Aren't So Hot", by Joe Weisenthal [1]. On that page is a Scribd link to an image of a financial statement from Empirica Capital LLC, run by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, detailing returns from a hedge fund. In that image is a table of "monthly performance".
This is an issue at Talk:Empirica Capital. Please see the discussion there for background.
Actual numbers for that fund are hard to come by, and this is the most comprehensive set of numbers available. A few numbers are available from more prominent sources, but none of the other sources provide enough data to build a table of yields. This is a hedge fund, so there are no SEC findings or public financial statements to provide definitive numbers. Taleb has released some numbers, but primarily for the "good years" when the fund went up. Using those creates an illusory image of the actual returns.
This is an issue because much of the reputation of Taleb rests on his performance as a fund manager. --John Nagle (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have earlier thought this reference (Business Insider) was a "gossip blog", and hence not a reliable source for Wikipedia. However, I recently searched on www.nytimes.com, and they reference Business Insider 216 times under the last 12 months. If this reference is good enough for NY Times, I guess it is should be of acceptable standard for Wikipedia. I encourage everyone to give arguments for and against Business Insider as a reliable source; on e.g. talk page of Empirica Capital there are good arguments against using Business Insider as a reliable source which would be nice to repeat here. Ulner (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would avoid giving numbers... as they will quickly become out of date. Stick to generalities. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. What is true and will never become out of date is the fact that NY Times have cited Business Insider hundreds of times, and this is a good indicator that Business Insider is a reliable source in my opinion. Ulner (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Out of date" is a non-issue for Empirica, because that fund has shut down. --John Nagle (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. What is true and will never become out of date is the fact that NY Times have cited Business Insider hundreds of times, and this is a good indicator that Business Insider is a reliable source in my opinion. Ulner (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would avoid giving numbers... as they will quickly become out of date. Stick to generalities. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is the NYT that calls it "a gossipy Web site, Business Insider" and most certainly not what the NYT uses for financial returns (on October 5, 2010)[2]. The fact that they have cited them for anecdotes means nothing. IbnAmioun (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well from the New York Times link provided by Mr Amioun it literally states that it is a gossip blog.
- "Tellingly, his first guest was an old target, Henry Blodget, a Wall Street analyst whom Mr. Spitzer got banned for life from the securities industry. (To settle with regulators, Mr. Blodget also paid $4 million in penalties.) Now, like his nemesis, Mr. Blodget has recast himself as a journalist -- he is the editor in chief of a gossipy Web site, Business Insider. They congratulated each other on their comebacks." [3]
- Also the site itself claims it is an gossip blog.
- "Editor and CEO, Business Insider "Star tech-stock analyst-turned-media mogul; his fall from grace in 2002 was an obsession of the industry he has now joined. His gossipy Business Insider has been dubbed by some as 'the Hooters of the Internet, a title Mr. Blodget is known to appreciate." [4] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Despite much noise, no one has suggested that the numbers in the image of the Empirica Kurtosis LLC fund statement are wrong. If they were, Taleb and his team would probably have made a public statement by now. Taleb is very active in defending his reputation. So I think we can safely go with the numbers. --John Nagle (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Editor and CEO, Business Insider "Star tech-stock analyst-turned-media mogul; his fall from grace in 2002 was an obsession of the industry he has now joined. His gossipy Business Insider has been dubbed by some as 'the Hooters of the Internet, a title Mr. Blodget is known to appreciate." [4] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well from the New York Times link provided by Mr Amioun it literally states that it is a gossip blog.
- distorted logic. Would you love to make logical inferences etc.? That is pretty much original research and in quuite an original way Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes and this editor has added the "hooters guy" as a source again to the article without explaining that the source is not reliable as was indicated here already [5] LoveMonkey (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Look around at the articles in NY Times, [6] I found for example this: "In fact, her personal finance advice company, Learn Vest, has recently attracted significant venture capital financing, according to Business Insider, to the tune of about $5 million dollars." This means that NY Times journalists generally find Business Insider reliable enough to quote for numbers. For this reason I think this supports to find Business Insider a reliable source. Would be nice with more discussion here - very few editors have written comments about this. Ulner (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's a struggle to get hard facts about Empirica. At least we've established that the fund ended in 2004. On the other hand, if the published statement from Empirica was actually phony, one would have expected loud complaints from Taleb. He certainly made enough noise when GQ got one number wrong. I'd argue that, given a published image of an Empirica statement and no denials from anyone affiliated with Empirica, we should accept the statement as valid. --John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I still seem to be missing how Nagle could put Business Insider in the article [7] and now to use Douglas Hubbard? In the article twice? [8], [9] Who is Douglas Hubbard? Where did he get those returns from? Is he a Benoit Mandelbrot associate like Taleb?[10] Did Benoit Mandelbrot do videos with Hubbard about the economy? Or is Benoit Mandelbrot not significant? Also why did Nagle use the Bloomberg article [11] on Taleb to source the statement "The fund was closed in 2004 "after several years of mediocre returns". Which is not stated in the Bloomberg article. Or maybe I missed it in there. If I missed it please quote the passage and I apologize for being WP:Bold in advanced. LoveMonkey (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- This page is intended for discussing whether a source is reliable or not; discussions about the article is better to keep on that page. Concerning your new sources: books published by Wiley are reliable sources and Bloomberg articles are reliable sources which can be used as references. Ulner (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Concerning whether the Business Insider article is a reliable source, anyone has some idea what editorial oversight Business insider have? It would be good if more editors would participate in this discussion! Ulner (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh I understand. However I thought that the source of Business Insider was kinda already disregarded. As the Hubbard book maybe you could pop in at the article so if the deletion is wrong I need to re-add the contribution. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
How to compile a list of programs
There is a discussion about which programs should be included in List_of_installation_software. Currently the list is based on whether given program (or its author) has an article in Wikipedia. However as noted on WP:RS "(...) Wikipedia articles (...) are not reliable sources for any purpose." (and there are other arguments against current sitiation mentioned in the talk page Talk:List_of_installation_software). So we (me and Ronz) came to conclusion that we need some reliable sources. Then there is a question what "reliable source" is in this case. Should the source merely confirm that given program exists? Or could it be a review? How are we to judge whether review is reliable (or should we judge it at all)? In particular we need to stablish reliablity of two links:
- http://www.installsite.org/pages/en/msi/authoring.htm
- http://www.appdeploy.com/reviews/sw_installaware_studio_2005.asp
Grobelny (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Installsite.org appears to be a self-published website. It would not be considered a reliable source for this article, although it might be an acceptable external link (at the bottom of the article).
- Appdeploy.com appears to be run by Dell computers. It's acceptable as a primary source about itself.
- But to establish notability, you want third-party sources such as InfoWorld, ComputerWorld, PC Magazine, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- What do you mean that it is acceptable as "source about itself"? We want to write about installation programs, not about appdeploy.
- I hope we can all agree that Nullsoft_Scriptable_Install_System is notable. Yet none of those magazines mentions it. And article on WP does not mention any third party references either. Grobelny (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is completely acceptable and often done where lists are limited to entries that have articles on WP. To have an article on WP, topics should pass our notability guidelines, which nearly all of the time require reliable sources in the topic article. Thus, while you're correct that WP is not reliable itself, one can use the existence of a notable topic for that purpose. In other words, yes, what you're doing about reliable sources for installation software is one approach, there is nothing wrong with the present approach. --MASEM (t) 21:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- See my above comment. Plus I hope you have read my arguments in article's talk page. With many of those articles we have a problem that they are notable because they are on WP and they are on WP because they are notable. But probably for more than half of them we have no proof (ie. third party source) whatsoever. Grobelny (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- In order for a topic to be notable, it needs significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. This is explained in more detail at WP:Notability. Yes, the article on Nullsoft Scriptable Install System is poorly sourced (mostly primary sources and a forum posting). I did a search for sources, the the best I could come up with are these articles by Network World[12] and Windows IT Pro.[13] It's also briefly mentioned in this article by eWeek.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Of those 3 IMHO only the first states something more than the fact that NSIS exists. In the other 2 NSIS might just be a typo (in fact eweek gives incorrect name!). And even the network world article doesn't state much (certainly less than 5% of claims made in article about NSIS). It doesn't list an features, bright sides, dark sides, plugins, nothing. The author is by no means an expert in software deployment (or at least he doesn't show that in the article). IMO that kind of coverage is by no means significant. Grobelny (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- In order for a topic to be notable, it needs significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. This is explained in more detail at WP:Notability. Yes, the article on Nullsoft Scriptable Install System is poorly sourced (mostly primary sources and a forum posting). I did a search for sources, the the best I could come up with are these articles by Network World[12] and Windows IT Pro.[13] It's also briefly mentioned in this article by eWeek.[14] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Right. Which means NSIS might not technically be notable. Unfortunately, you're working on an article where there aren't a lot of good sources (according to Wikipedia's rules). Sorry, I'm not sure what else I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Then we might just remove article about NSIS (as non-notable because of lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) and for than matter probably large portion of articles about other installation programs or even computer programs in general. Or we can accommodate Wikipedia's definition of reliable source and/or notability guidelines to this specific situation. So maybe in this situation sources such as installsite, mailing list messages or forum posts would be acceptable? I'm fine with either option (but would like the criteria to be common to all programs in given category). Grobelny (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right. Which means NSIS might not technically be notable. Unfortunately, you're working on an article where there aren't a lot of good sources (according to Wikipedia's rules). Sorry, I'm not sure what else I can say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what you want me to say. I didn't make the rules. I'm just trying to answer your question. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you can try asking the other editors on the article if they'd be willing to change the inclusion criteria. Right now, it's whether the program or its the author is notable. Perhaps they might be willing to change it to simply any program that has at least one reliable source about it? Or maybe 2? Or 3? Of course, they might not want to change the inclusion criteria, but you can always ask. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Appdeply markets it's own installation software and as such must probably can't be seen as independent of the subject. I agree that installsite seems to be self published, and as such is unreliable. Taemyr (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Guardian Lost in showbiz blog
Could this [15] be used to write a brief summary of the production of the documentary in question in the Lindsay Lohan article? Siawase (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. This is by a Guardian staff journalist. It does have a rather strong viewpoint on media coverage, which you can probably just ignore, and pick up simple factual info from it. Remember that the article is a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Two editors at Talk:Lindsay Lohan object and think the source should basically be treated as an opinion piece, and that per WP:BLP no factual statements that may reflect negatively on Lohan should be sourced to this piece. Ie, something like "Lohan was initally scheduled to be present at the raid, but due to rescheduling she arrived too late." would be out of bounds. Thoughts? Siawase (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Glad to see the careful tone of the discussion on the talk page. On my reading the source was not so much critical of Lohan herself but scathing about the way that the media use stars like her. I'm sure that this piece received all the fact-checking that one would expect in a broadsheet paper, considering Britain's libel laws. It doesn't seem to contain anything that could simply have been made up. My advice is still the same: you can use but take care. You might get other views. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Two editors at Talk:Lindsay Lohan object and think the source should basically be treated as an opinion piece, and that per WP:BLP no factual statements that may reflect negatively on Lohan should be sourced to this piece. Ie, something like "Lohan was initally scheduled to be present at the raid, but due to rescheduling she arrived too late." would be out of bounds. Thoughts? Siawase (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm one of the two editors, and although Siawase did an admirably concise job of summarizing what I said, I'd like to elaborate (not so concisely).
- First, one of the issues I have goes to the RS guidelines, which permit a blog to be cited if it's not self-published. That is the case here. However, frankly, not all unself-published blogs are the same, and the tone and content of this particular source gives me pause.
- Second, I don't necessarily have the same confidence in the fact-checking of a blog, even when it comes from an otherwise reliable periodical, mainly because opinion and fact generally get intertwined, so a misstatement could be construed as an opinion (acceptable) rather than a misstatement of fact (unacceptable).
- Third, if "facts" can be derived from this source and they are otherwise sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in the Lohan article, then they should be findable from news pieces rather than opinion pieces.
- Finally, because this is a BLP, we have to be especially cautious of statements that are critical of Lohan.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NEWSBLOG applies here. Newspaper blogs like this are under the same editorial control as the rest of the newspaper, and may be used, even in BLPs. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's right. As a source this is OK, but it's right to consider whether there is any substantive information that is worth including. We avoid trivial celebrity tittle-tattle - but this piece isn't exactly that. The language used about Lohan is quite scathing, but the criticism is actually aimed at the TV company that employed her. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:NEWSBLOG applies here. Newspaper blogs like this are under the same editorial control as the rest of the newspaper, and may be used, even in BLPs. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, because this is a BLP, we have to be especially cautious of statements that are critical of Lohan.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out WP:NEWSBLOG Jayjg, I hadn't seen that section before. Itsmejudith: that's sort of what I'm thinking. To be sure, there is a lot of gossip floating around about Lohan, but when UNICEF and anti-trafficking groups are involved it's a bit beyond that. I wrote the whole expansion as I intended and did a WP:BRD edit inserting it into the article so you can see the precide wording I chose and how the material sourced to the lost in showbiz blog comes off in context.[16] Siawase (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
pakistanthinktank.org
Hi, this cite http://pakistanthinktank.org/component/k2/item/749-imran-farooq-was-a-ruthless-operator is being added to support a single ethnic claim that the subject is a Muhajir. The user wants to add that Farooq was a Muhajir(immigrant) and has struggled to find a RS calling him one, his father was one but Imran was born in Karachi (son of an immigrant but Pakistani born). The cite is imo very opinionated and an attack cite full of extreme claims, checking on the usage of it it is only used in one other place,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fpakistanthinktank.org%2F is it wiki reliable and is it undue to use such an attacking opinionated cite to cite a single word in an article? The article is written by Maheen Bashir Adamjee who it says is an editorial assistant with Newsline - I can't see any evidence of editorial control or suchlike but I found this author FAQ . Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article (as with any op-ed piece) maybe attacking and is this not used as gospel to cite the OPINION of the article at all. Nothign suggests figures are made up, furthemore part of what the other user added above is beyond the scope of RSN in dealing with the issue of a mohajjar (this article deals with the issue of RS). Both the wikipedia page and other editors had explained waht the term means in its SOUTH ASIA context as opposed to the ARABIC ROOTS, somethign he doesnt want to believe so expects everythign else to be changed.
- Are we then questioning the facts from the article (As opposed to opinion on it) which says "medical degree from Karachi’s Sindh Medical College and began his political career as a founding member of the All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organisation in April 1979" something that also exists on this wikipedia page for it?
- If, and when, consensus says the cite is unreliable then im obviously accepted to removing it, but now on the whim of 1 editor ofcourse.(Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)).
- - Well, user Epeefleche has also commented on the article talk page that the cite "lacks any indicia of being an RS, from what I can see both on the site and in a search for RS coverage of it." .. are there any users here that support this external as a reliable source? Off2riorob (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes ... I happened by this page due to a link to it on the article talk page, and Off2 has accurately reflected my view (after having searched both the site itself and google news, google books, and google generally). It appears to be a non-RS blog.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I also supported your supporting consensus that i was against the grain of opinion on that page. I have not problem with removing it, but then also tagged the part as such pending the discussion on here that he has then initiated. When consensus is forthcoming (particularly with the outside editors) then i agree that it would be fair to remove it.Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes ... I happened by this page due to a link to it on the article talk page, and Off2 has accurately reflected my view (after having searched both the site itself and google news, google books, and google generally). It appears to be a non-RS blog.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- - Can we please get a couple more opinions about this cite, I have asked him to remove it again but he says there is no consensus here yet.Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to be a reliable source, nor is anyone making an argument that it is one. The site actively solicits new writers, and doesn't bother to say what editorial oversight exists, if any. Also, WP:BLP applies, giving us little leeway. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is not an RS. The organization responsible for the site appears to be non-notable. It is not even clear if it is a registered organisation and I could not find its address or location on the site. There is zero evidence that the site has a reputation for fact-checking and objectivity. Looks more like a collaborative blog or a wiki. Nanobear (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing required in lists linking to other articles
Related to discussion at Talk:Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems#Citation_needed_flags_for_launch_numbers.2Fetc.
There is a group of 6 articles listing the different classes of rockets (according to the weight they can bring to orbit). Each rocket gets a line starting with a link to the article about it and the rest of the columns include different statistics about this rocket - such as weight uplift capability, number of successful launches, number of total launches (including failures), etc. - these stats are taken from the linked rocket article.
The problem is how such list/comparision articles should be sourced. So far, there are two opinions:
- User:N2e - each individual data piece should have a [1] note after it with the source reference. Data pieces that don't have such note after them are tagged with [citation needed] and after 6 weeks can be deleted - even when at the individual rocket article (linked in the begin of each line of the list) there is an external source for this data. He cites WP:V/WP:BURDEN (OK) and WP:CIRCULAR (this is irrelevant as nobody claims that the data is backed up by "another wikipedia article", but by "external sources at directly linked wikipedia article")
- User:Alinor (filing this question) - individual data pieces that are backed up by external sources at the directly linked individual rocket articles should not have [1] notes and all the sources from all rocket articles should not be copied over into the list/comparison article. Only data pieces that are not backed by external sources at the linked rocket article (if there are such data pieces) should be tagged with [citation needed] (and be deleted eventually).
At the discussion linked at the top you can see examples of N2e tagging with [citation needed] data piece sourced in the way described above and of N2e deleting such data piece. So far he doesn't dispute the sources in these examples as unreliable or anything like that - he just insists that somebody else should copy the sources to the list/comparision articles from the rocket articles after he has tagged/deleted the respective data pieces. Alinor (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Someone should absolutely copy the citations over. You shouldn't expect readers to have to go looking for references. Each article should be able to stand on its own, with its own list of references. Nightw 11:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Night w, unlike the other debate that you and I still haven't finished - where you question the data itself and where there are other things you considered as controversial - this case is different. There are no controversies or anything - it's just that the sources are at the linked pages. Alinor (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter. Every claim that isn't considered common knowledge should be referenced to a reliable source wherever it appears. No matter how ordinary the claim, nor how lazy the editor who added the information is, there aren't any exemptions. Nightw 11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Night w, unlike the other debate that you and I still haven't finished - where you question the data itself and where there are other things you considered as controversial - this case is different. There are no controversies or anything - it's just that the sources are at the linked pages. Alinor (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Someone should absolutely copy the citations over. You shouldn't expect readers to have to go looking for references. Each article should be able to stand on its own, with its own list of references. Nightw 11:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there some established practice, recommendation, rule/policy or whatever over the issue of copying vs. not copying source over into summary lists? And if this noticeboard is not the right place to ask about this could someone point where should I ask? Alinor (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- yes there is somewhere. the reason is because of the nature of Wikipedia. Something that is as of today sourced on some other article page cannot be guaranteed to maintain that source on that article page as it is edited by freelance editors. Once it is removed from the other page for whatever reason, there is no way to know what other pages had been "using" that page for the reference. the fact and the verification belong on the same article page. Active Banana (bananaphone 08:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR depending upon the wikipedia article to source the list article, WP:CHALLENGE challenged material "requires an inline citation" - not "requires a citation on some wikipedia page". and more specifically WP:Source list "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability" Active Banana (bananaphone 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- So, WP:CIRCULAR is irrelevant in this case.
- The problem with applying WP:CHALLENGE is that N2e, the user putting the 'citation needed' flags is challenging almost all data pieces in the summary lists - without checking if they are sourced at the linked articles. So, sooner or later he will delete all data pieces - and then the lists will become useless. This seems as a sneaky way of avoiding AfD nomination.
- WP:Source list is OK, along with WP:BURDEN and WP:V and this relates to your main argument above - that even if the data piece is sourced at the linked article today it may become unsourced after subsequent changes to the linked article. I agree with all that, and won't raise the issue if N2e was checking whether this is the case (a data piece lost sourcing because of changes to the linked article) - but he doesn't and insist that others should do this after his tagging and that unless others do it he will delete the data pieces tagged. I have given him 2 examples of sourced data pieces (that got deleted/tagged) months ago, but he just ignored these. Alinor (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- YES circular applies. You are using content in another wikipeida article as the basis/souurce for content in the list article. NO, N2e nor any other editor does not have to go looking anywhere else for sources. If xe challenges the content in the list article, AN INLINE CITATION IN THE LIST ARTICLE is required. Active Banana (bananaphone 09:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, WP:CIRCULAR doesn't apply - I don't propose to use the Wikipedia content as basis/source - I propose that we use the EXTERNAL SOURCES referenced at the linked articles as basis/source. IMHO it's not a good practice to copy all sources from all linked articles in the summary/list. If a data piece isn't sourced at the linked article - then it should be challenged, tagged and eventually deleted. But if a data piece is backed by EXTERNAL SOURCES at the linked article - then I don't see it as beneficial to just copy these sources in the summary/list - this will only make it cluttered.
- The key here is that these articles are not regular "List of ..." articles - these are summary/comparison articles that present content that is mostly already present in the individual rocket articles - it's just that in these summary articles the stats of the different rockets are presented side-by-side, for comparison purposes. Alinor (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- YES circular applies. You are using content in another wikipeida article as the basis/souurce for content in the list article. NO, N2e nor any other editor does not have to go looking anywhere else for sources. If xe challenges the content in the list article, AN INLINE CITATION IN THE LIST ARTICLE is required. Active Banana (bananaphone 09:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- WP:CIRCULAR depending upon the wikipedia article to source the list article, WP:CHALLENGE challenged material "requires an inline citation" - not "requires a citation on some wikipedia page". and more specifically WP:Source list "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability" Active Banana (bananaphone 08:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Each article should have its own references. If you already have references to cite, 6 weeks seems like more than enough time to copy and paste the cites from one article to the next. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- There are references to cite - I gave the examples on the talk pages. But for the moment I have no intention to clean up after N2e who tags everything (is there such thing like "deletionist"?) I really think that if he is interested in having the citations copied in the article (as "challenger" of the data pieces) then he should first check before tagging. And even if he missed something - it's he who must copy the source/correct his wrong tag/deletion - when somebody points it out. He just ignored the sources I shown him. Alinor (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Disagreement if two sources are WP:CIRCULAR
Related to discussion at Talk:Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority#John_V._Whitbeck_source. There are two sources by authors who User:Night w consider to be 'reputable experts' over the issue, but I find a particular part of the content of these sources to be suspiciously similar to the Wikipedia page these sources were added to.
Background - as documented on the same page at the end of 2010 a few countries recognized the State of Palestine (SoP) - Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador (in that order). With each subsequent announcement the Wikipedia page was updated accordingly (using sources other than those in question here). As can be seen at the page the question of "total number of states recognizing SoP" is not so easy to answer, because A] some sources are conflicting/inconclusive and B] there are sources stating "about/over 130" without giving the names of these ~130 states and we have sources with the names of only 108-118 (presented in the list at the article).
Now, the two sources in question here:
- [17] - "Bolivia's recognition brought to 106 the number of UN member states recognizing the State of Palestine" - this corresponds to this version of the Wikipedia page (Bolivia listed as 106th)
- [18] - "With recognitions in recent weeks by Brazil and Argentina, some 105 states now formally recognize Palestine at the diplomatic level." - this corresponds to this version of the Wikipedia page (Argentina listed as 105th)
Even up to here the two sources appear to be WP:CIRCULAR, because they cite exactly the number of the first part of the Wikipedia table ("sure thing") - not counting any of the entries listed in Wikipedia as having "conflicting and inconclusive sources" (second part of the table). If we are to accept that the authors of the two sources in question here were using another information source different from Wikipedia - it's almost sure that they will come up with a different number than the "sure thing Wikipedia" figure (as do the sources that don't give a list of states - such as Boyle, Anat Kurz and others - they give 114, 117, 130, etc.). I wouldn't open this question if the two sources in question were giving a figure different by at least 1 from the "sure thing" Wikipedia figure.
But then, on 30 December 2010 Night w found multiple official sources showing that Dominican Republic has recognized SoP already in 2009. We added it to the article, but now it is obvious that the two sources in question are wrong (because Argentina is 106th and Bolivia is 107th - not as the two sources in question state). I think that they are wrong, just because they are WP:CIRCULAR and had used the versions of the Wikipedia article before we corrected the Dominican Republic mistake there.
So, the question is: Are these two sources WP:CIRCULAR? Alinor (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- It'd be helpful to identify the authors, don't you think?
- John V. Whitbeck, "an international lawyer who has advised the Palestinian negotiating team in negotiations with Israel, author of The World According to Whitbeck." (Al Jazeera), and
- John B. Quigley, "a distinguished professor of law at the Ohio State University's Moritz College Law and the author of more than a dozen critically acclaimed books on various aspects of the law" (McClatchy-Tribune) Nightw 15:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll admit that renowned credibility cannot preclude any accusations of circular sourcing, but I'd normally expect said accusations to be based on a little more than coincidence in numbers. Nightw 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- more than "coincidence in numbers" - the coincidence I described is too suspicious - they use exactly these wrong numbers that the Wikipedia article used before founding the DR source. Alinor (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know the numbers are wrong and are you sure they ONLY ever appeared in Wikipedia? I have to say though that even if you have good answers, it is not easy to "win" a case like this in terms of WP policy, because your answers would likely be verging on "original research" or "synthesis". WP long ago gave up trying to be better than its sources. See WP:TRUTH. It is hard enough (and rewarding enough quite often) just to make sure we summarize fairly what reasonable sources say, even if we sometimes doubt things in them. (This happens to all of us BTW.) Sometimes editors agree that they don't need to use a particular source, and quite often these agreements in effect involve some hidden original thinking about the weak and strong points of a source, and not just about whether it is notable, and what weight is due to it. I don't think this is a cause for panic when it is something where there is a clear WP:consensus to kind of ignore a rule and use common sense. But if there is not consensus, then trying to exclude a good published source can be a very difficult exercise on WP. One of the problems that can develop quickly if we did not have this approach, if we allowed people to delete sources they personally found wrong, is that people with a particular point of view can abuse it and make article non-neutral. See WP:NEUTRAL. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I am afraid I agree with Andrew Lancaster and Night w. We need a bit more than "agreement in numbers" to show that they're using us as their source. So, they're the wrong numbers; they may well have made the same mistake the Wikipedia article made independently, and for the same reasons, and just having made one mistake doesn't disqualify them from being experts. We're all human. If you find a similarly reliable source that disagrees with Whitbeck and Quigley, then we should write a footnote sentence to that effect ("there is disagreement over whether Thailand recognizes...[ref][ref][ref]"), but until then, we have a statement from some experts. --GRuban (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are other sources - such as:
- 2005 Anat Kurz ISBN 1-84519-032-7, ISBN 978-1-84519-032-3 p. 123: "117 UN member states recognized the declared State of Palestine ..."
- 2010 Boyle [19] - "about 130"
- These two Night w finds as "reliable", but we already have discussed another one of Boyle's sources wrong claim that UN members are 195 - [20] (in the end we removed this particular source around the Night w reasoning that Tamilnet made errors in writing the interview. I don't agree, but anyway at least that particular source was removed from the article)
- The problem with all these figures is that they are just thrown around - some of them are even not specific (the Boyle originated), but give some range such as "about 130", "over 130", etc. - and all of these don't include a list with the names of the states recognizers. In contrast the 105/106 (currently at 109) "sure thing Wikipedia" number is backed up by source for each one of these 109 states - we have all 109 names and we have even the date of recognition for most of them.
- So, Night w finds as reliable all of the "not specific, just a number/range without list" sources, but the number can't be 130 and 106 at the same time. So, one of these (or both) are wrong (speaking about Boyle vs. Whitbeck/Quigley). Not to mention that the 105/106 number is wrong both according to Boyle (he claims 130), according to Kurz (117 or more) and because we have sources showing 106/107 recognitions at that moment (we wrongly used 105/106 because we didn't know about DR source back then).
- Andrew Lancaster, you are right in general, but in this particular case I don't see what is the benefit of using the Whitbeck/Quigley sources - we already have more than enough numbers/sources cited in the article (Boyle, Kurz, others) - and while they are also non-specific (do not give a list of states) at least they don't copy a past "sure thing Wikipedia" number. If readers want to check the 105/106/109 number they can just scroll below to the table and will see the most "up to date" version of it - instead of the number when Whitbeck/Quigley readed the page (OK, that's my assumption). I don't see skipping Whitbeck/Quigley numbers as going in a POV direction - after all the large table below continues to represent similar (if not "the real source") figure.
- GRuban, the problem with Whitbeck/Quigley is not about specific country (Thailand or other) - they don't give a list of countries, they give just a bare number. Also, we have whole paragraphs dealing with the different figures given by Boyle, Kurz, etc. - so there is no need of special footnote - Whitbeck/Quigley figures just go in just like all the rest (per current version). The problem is if we should mention these two numbers or not - because if they are WP:CIRCULAR as I think - then they have no place in the article. I don't say that we should treat Whitbeck/Quigley as unreliable in general - if they have other statements/etc. that are not WP:CIRCULAR - then, of course we can cite them as notable lawyers/experts/etc. The issue is only with the "suspicious" 105/106 figures. Alinor (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are other sources - such as:
- more than "coincidence in numbers" - the coincidence I described is too suspicious - they use exactly these wrong numbers that the Wikipedia article used before founding the DR source. Alinor (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination
An editor used a reference from this organization as a cite for a recent change in the John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories article. I posted a question on the talk page, but thought it might also help to post here. I've seen this website used as a reference elsewhere, and I don't think it's a viable source as it appears to be a pure advocacy site. Thoughts about the site in general and the specific edit would be appreciated. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say that "Citizens for Truth..." can only really be a reliable source for their own opinions. The attempt to use the site as a reference for quote from a 'Secret Service agent' is rather stretching things. Unless the quote can be found in WP:RS, I'd say it should go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unreliable, un-notable, and if Godfrey is still alive, a WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Some reliable sources on the book review's author, Vince Palamara:
- http://www.post-gazette.com/neigh_south/19980125bjfk5.asp
- http://www.defamer.com.au/2010/04/what-happens-when-you-tweet-obama-death-threats/
- He was also quoted as a researcher in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy#On_camera Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unreliable, un-notable, and if Godfrey is still alive, a WP:BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with Vince Palamara. But WP:RS allows us to cite someone if they're an established expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Is Palamara a published expert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's tough - he's definitely considered an expert about the Secret Service and the Kennedy assassination by other conspiracy theorists. Contrary to GoN, I'm not quite sure I'm trust the word of a gossip blog (defamer.com.au) or an article written by a free-lance writer (post-gazette.com). This is a WP:FRINGE topic though, so some of the information will come from sources that proponents strongly believe are good. I think Palamara meets that criteria. The reference itself is described as a "review", but it's more a counter-arguement by Palamara who disagrees with the book's message. Calling it one-sided is, well, polite. Maybe the edit can be rephrased as "Vince Palamara, considered an expert on the actions of the Secret Service related to the Kennedy assassination by many fellow conspiracy theorists, said (rest of comment)". Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Did a quick search on Amazon, and Palamara is published ... sort of. His book is listed on Amazon but as self-published. Worldcat listing is similar. Note that the title of the book changed. Ravensfire (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone can self-publish a book. In order to qualify as an expert, it needs to be published by a respected publishing house. Given that this is probably the most famous conspiracy theory of all time (at least in the US), it shouldn't be too hard to find other sources for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- You don't have to publish a book to be a notable book reviewer. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette apparently felt the free-lance writer's story was good enough to be published in their newspaper, which is what matters. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've no problem with Vince Palamara's website (assuming that it is his, but I'll take that as read) being used for Vince Palamara's opinions. The problem is that this was being used as a source for a quote from a third party: a 'Secret Service agent'. This seems to be asking too much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not Palamara's website. The first comments are not Palamara's. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say this guy is notable if this is true - he claims 40 books have cited his research: http://www.amazon.com/VINCE-PALAMARA-SECRET-SERVICE-BOOKS/lm/R159E1MYPECO9B Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops! Quite right. It isn't Palamara's website. I don't see this as significant though - he is being used as a source for a quote from a third party, in a context where WP:RS couldn't reasonably be seen as valid. If anything, the fact that he is being cited in turn can only make it less reliable as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ghostofnemo: An article about someone is completely different as an article by someone. In order to be considered an expert, they must be previously published by a reliable source in the relevant field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- As noted above, Palamara's research has apparently been cited in 40 published books about the JFK assassination and/or the Secret Service. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Other conspiracy theorists self published works? He could be cited ty 40,000 of those and still not be worth a hill of beans in the WP:RS department. Active Banana (bananaphone 08:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- As noted above, Palamara's research has apparently been cited in 40 published books about the JFK assassination and/or the Secret Service. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ghostofnemo: An article about someone is completely different as an article by someone. In order to be considered an expert, they must be previously published by a reliable source in the relevant field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops! Quite right. It isn't Palamara's website. I don't see this as significant though - he is being used as a source for a quote from a third party, in a context where WP:RS couldn't reasonably be seen as valid. If anything, the fact that he is being cited in turn can only make it less reliable as a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've no problem with Vince Palamara's website (assuming that it is his, but I'll take that as read) being used for Vince Palamara's opinions. The problem is that this was being used as a source for a quote from a third party: a 'Secret Service agent'. This seems to be asking too much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone can self-publish a book. In order to qualify as an expert, it needs to be published by a respected publishing house. Given that this is probably the most famous conspiracy theory of all time (at least in the US), it shouldn't be too hard to find other sources for this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, we've got:
- "Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy" published by W. W. Norton & Company
- "The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Engimatic Agency" published by Basic Books
- "The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy" published by the University of Kansas Press
- "Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board" published by the U.S. Government Printing Office
- "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: An Annotated Film, TV, and Videography, 1963-1992" published by Greenwood Press
- "High Treason: The Assassination of JFK & the Case for Conspiracy" published by Carroll & Graf Publishers Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Do any of those have the information that you're wanting to add to the article? I'm assuming you've reviewed those to make sure there's more than just a passing mention. Ravensfire (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the information sourced to ctka.com, and tweaked GoN's recent addition sourced to the Post-Gazette. I'm not totally sure that it meets the RS criteria, but overall it does add useful information to the article. It does provide a counterpoint to the claim about the lack of protection that seems to have some weight in the conspiracy theory world. Ravensfire (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
asianews.it/
i just came across this link on wikipedia at an ITN page (assassination of the pakistani figure) and tagged it as dubious, but i also had further concerns about its status as reasonable/reliable. Its about page cites its goal as "dedication is a missionary gesture," where a cursory glance at article also shows its one-sided view to portray persecution and push a pov. It also says its mission to start the chinese language page was because "Nowadays, curiosity about Christianity, the Church and pope John Paul II is widespread among the Chinese populace" clarifying its worldview limits. "urgency becomes even more heightened because of two facts:" + further proofs of pov in its raison d'etre "We wish to place the beginning of our mission on the internet under the protection of St. Francis Xavier, whose feast day we celebrate today (Dec. 3) and who died desiring to go to China. He is the patron of foreign missions and is venerated in China and throughout Asia." + "This effectiveness -at a distance- adapts well to our brand of news service, while being far yet near to the heart of the Church in China and her people."
- the source is also cited above for the other ongoing ITN event (alexandria bombing)
- I would also like to suggest a WP:Blacklist listing.(Lihaas (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC));
- It sounds like this concern is not an RS concern, but more concerning neutrality/POV/due weight?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Atheist being used as a source for church scholars' opinions
In the Jesus myth theory article, an encyclopedia entry written by G.A. Wells (an atheist) in the encyclopedia of unbelief is being used a source for the opinion of "mainstream church scholars". Using an atheist as a source for the opinion of church scholars seems highly problematic to me. Laker1988 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Source:
Wells, G. A. "Jesus, Historicity of" Tom Flynn (ed.) The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief. Prometheus, 2007, p. 446.
Exact statement:
...although mainstream church scholars agree that material about him in the New Testament should not be taken at face value.
Talk page discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus_myth_theory#Robert_Price_is_not_a_reliable_source_for_the_opinion_of_.22mainstream_church_scholars.22 Laker1988 (talk) 22:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The religious beliefs of the author aren't relevant. Can you tell us the exact text that is being disputed?
- For the benefit of others reading this thread:
- Our article on the author, George Albert Wells.
- Amazon web page for The New Encyclopedia of Disbelief.[24]
- Publisher's web site.[25]
- Publisher's web page for book.[26] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think in this particular context the belief of the scholar is relevant. If I understand this correctly, in this context one person summarize the general opinion of church scholars in this area - and if the person is involved in a debate in this area I would not trust his summary to be fully neutral. Ulner (talk)
- This is the reliable sources noticeboard, not the "neutrality" noticeboard. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just for the sake of making a point, it is not the case that the religious beliefs of an author are not relevant here. There is always possibility that a source may be biased to the extent that it is not reliable for a particular statement of fact.
- That said, the argument being put forward in this case does not seem reasonable for two reasons:
- (1) The statement the source is used to support is uncontroversial. Even amongst (mainstream) Christian clerics - let alone those who qualify as scholars - the notion that the Bible should be taken at face-value, in any respect, belongs to the fringes. There is no real likelihood of bias because there is not real question as to the facts of the matter.
- (2) Given the nature of the point in question, if anyone can come up with a wholly neutral source as an alternative (ie from an author who is neither an atheist nor a Christian nor a follower of some rival belief system to Christianity) then I will award them an impossibility barnstar. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The opinion is question is that mainstream scholars think material about Jesus in the New Testament can't be taken at face value. This is a little like asking for another source for "Paris is the capital of France," when two have been provided, but because one of them isn't French he can't be trusted. Laker seems to believe that most mainstream biblical scholars believe Jesus was born to a virgin, that three wise men arrived at the stable, etc. But they don't. For a summary of what most scholars seem to believe now, see Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27 (visible on Amazon). SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also, rushing to the RSN with issues being discussed on talk is unhelpful, and leads to people having to repeat their posts unnecessarily. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please do not make assumptions about what I believe the scholarly opinion to be. I am perfectly fine with keeping the sentence, as long as you don't have to resort to using atheists as a source for what Christian scholars believe. Also, since you have seen the Stanton source, it would be immensely helpful to provide an exact quote at the article talk page. Laker1988 (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could we also agree to not use anti-communists as sources for communism? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shhhh, Petri. Don't ask awkward questions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I like that, only let pseudoscientists assert the value of pseudoscience and astrologers the value of astrology. Let's not let any critics be cited. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Shhhh, Petri. Don't ask awkward questions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Could we also agree to not use anti-communists as sources for communism? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Eddy and Boyd are visible on Amazon, so please look up what they say. See above and the article for the citation; it's too much to ask other people to type out for you. Laker, I'm concerned that you've arrived at the article without background knowledge, without reading the sources, unwilling to look them up even when they're cited for you, unwilling to read the article and the footnotes, reverting against multiple editors, then running to the RS noticeboard forcing me to make the same points about the same sources on more than one page. It's not helpful editing. And this is an entirely uncontentious point. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, you are the one who immediately reverts. You are the one who has failed to provide the Stanton quote you found on Amazon, even after I said I couldn't gain access to it. That is not helpful editing. I've read the article, and I've read the source you've provided, which says absolutely nothing about taking the gospels at face value, nor does it mention "mainstream church scholars". It would be helpful if you could just provide the quote. Laker1988 (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- You've been reverting against more than one editor since Dec 29. Stanton is not fully visible, as you know already. You asked for another source, and I have given you one two or three times: Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend. Baker Academic, 2007, pp. 24–27. It is available on Amazon. Please read it. And please discuss this on the article's talk page. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- You said you could see half of the sentence on Amazon. Even half of the sentence in question would be helpful. I asked you to provide the quote but you stopped responding on the talk page. And I've already said that I've read the source and it doesn't say anything about taking things at "face value" or "mainstream church scholars". Laker1988 (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is a misuse of the board, Laker. If you want to discuss it, please read that source, then discuss what you've read on talk, and explain why you think it doesn't support that sentence. I'm not going to discuss it here anymore, because I'm just repeating myself. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@FormerIP: a source's beliefs, religious or other, can be relevant in neutrality discussions, but this discussion is not being framed as a neutrality issue - and I do not just mean that it is on the wrong noticeboard for that. For example no argument has been made that the citation is giving un-due weight to a particular theory that is not mainstream. The complaint being made seems to be that "on principle" non-Christians should not be used as sources for Christian subjects, and that if there are no sources saying otherwise a literal understanding of the Bible can be assumed to be mainstream. I think the responses so far show that there is a clear consensus that such a principle is not compatible with how Wikipedia works. If on the other hand there is a real neutrality concern it needs to be framed in a very different way (and not on this particular forum).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem using Wells as a source in this article... but, I am a bit confused by the phrasing of "mainstream church scholars". This phrase can be understood in two ways: 1) mainstream scholars who study the church, and 2) scholars from a mainstream church. What is the intent here?... are we claiming that Wells is a mainstream scholar? (I would agree with that)... or are we claiming that he is from a mainstream church? (I would question that). This could probably be resolved by rephrasing the sentence. Blueboar (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source is RS, as to neutrailty thats another issue. I would however aks the proposer do you think that only Muslim sources should be used for statments about Islam? Or only Iranian sources for statements about Iran?Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sources do not need to be neutral... we need to be neutral in how we present what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but as you rightly say above, this can probably be fixed quite well with some wording tweaking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sources do not need to be neutral... we need to be neutral in how we present what the sources say. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The source is RS, as to neutrailty thats another issue. I would however aks the proposer do you think that only Muslim sources should be used for statments about Islam? Or only Iranian sources for statements about Iran?Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: This discussion bears some similarities to one going on here. Involved parties might be interested in checking it out. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The problem, to my eyes, is the use of generalities and nonspecific language in the text itself. I have no problems with the source as a RS, far from it. However, I agree with Blueboar that the language used is such that we cannot be sure exactly what the author is trying to convey by his statements. If the source were clearer, I would definitely support the inclusion of the material. However, given the ambiguity which cannot apparently be resolved by the use of the text in question, I would have to think that, in this particular instance, we would be best advised to indicate the source used and possibly use the material in question as a direct quotation. If other sources, including later editions of the book perhaps somewhere down the line, resolve the ambiguity of the material, then that would have to be taken into account at that time. However, I do believe that I have seen such "generalizations" in a few respected and reliable sources before, including some clearly academic ones, and believe that, in general, such generalizations, when made in such sources, can be used, provided that there is no obvious problem with POV pushing and/or with other perhaps equally respectable and reliable sources making contrary statements. In the latter instance, I guess I would support adding something to the effect of "reliable sources disagree..." John Carter (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The two cases are not necessarily as similar as they look, but one thing they have in common is the error in the way these cases came about:- POV sources CAN be used on WP, as long as they are reliable sources about notable things, and as long as they are used in a way which is in accordance with WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
IPS News vs. Encyclopedia Brittanica, CUP, and Rowman & Littlefield.
I've got two problems with the use of a particular source being used at State terrorism. The citation is to a 2005 article on IPS News by Thalif Deen called "U.N. Member States Struggle to Define Terrorism", and the statement it is supposed to be backing is:
- "The definitions of "terrorism", "state-sponsored terrorism", and "state terrorism" remain without international consensus."
My first problem is that the source cited doesn't seem to support the statement referencing it. (It seems to only support the notion that there was disagreement at a particular UN meeting.) My second problem is that this is a news article that is disagreeing with 3 high-quality academic sources including the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which all define the term "state terrorism" in pretty much the same way. I don't feel that this news story from IPS News should be given as much weight as the Encyclopedia Brittanica and books from Cambridge University Press and Rowman & Littlefield.
What are your opinions on this? Does the source support the statement in question, and if so should we say that there is "no international consensus" on the definition of the term, in spite of the fact that the academic sources cited all have the same definition?
Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The user who insists on including the above statement and citation has now added another reference for the same statement, which also seems not to support the statement. It does seem to support the statement that there is no consensus on the definition of "terrorism"; however, it explicitly states that the discussion group the article is written about actually avoided discussing state terrorism at all, which hardly supports the notion that this is a source that is an appropriate reference for a statement about the definition of state terrorism. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is not really with the reliability of the sources, but the misleading conclusion they are being used to create. I have commented at the article's talk page. O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added references and answered on the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is still the case that none of the references added support the statement citing them. The number of references is irrelevant if none of them support the text citing them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Added references and answered on the articles talk page. V7-sport (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The issue is not really with the reliability of the sources, but the misleading conclusion they are being used to create. I have commented at the article's talk page. O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Are the following considered secondary review sources?
As per the title, are these articles considered secondary review sources?
- Spontaneous low cerebospinal fluid pressure syndrome. A case report and literature review
- Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: clinical and neuroimaging findings in six cases with literature review
- Spinal dural enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging associated with spontaneous intracranial hypotension. Report of three cases and review of the literature
These three articles (among others) show up on a pubmed search when you type in spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak and then click on "Review" on the right side. I am curious to know as I am preparing an article on this topic for a FA candidacy and would like to overcome the hurdle of a lack of 2econdary sources. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- The articles might be considered RS but the extracts that you link to would not. But we have to see the the specific statements in the Wikipedia artcile that were supported by these sources before making any further comment. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Are they considered reliable secondary sources? Basket of Puppies 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- These aren't systematic reviews, if that is what you are asking. Rather, they appear to be reports on research, incorporating literature reviews. On my reading of policy they count as primary, but I am not qualified in the substantive area. I hope you get a response from an editor who works on medical articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- As do I. They seem to be a hybrid of primary and secondary. Just not sure which. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- They appear to be primary research. A literature review of some sort will always appear in primary research. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Think a literature review will always be secondary, even if it is contained within what is basically a primary source. The same source can be both primary and secondary, depending on what is being cited. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is the consensus that they are secondary sources? Basket of Puppies 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think they are capable of being secondary, depending on what information is being cited, but two other editors have said that they think they are primary so, no, there isn't a consensus that they are secondary. Some more commenters are needed, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Is the consensus that they are secondary sources? Basket of Puppies 22:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Think a literature review will always be secondary, even if it is contained within what is basically a primary source. The same source can be both primary and secondary, depending on what is being cited. --FormerIP (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- They appear to be primary research. A literature review of some sort will always appear in primary research. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- As do I. They seem to be a hybrid of primary and secondary. Just not sure which. Basket of Puppies 18:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- These aren't systematic reviews, if that is what you are asking. Rather, they appear to be reports on research, incorporating literature reviews. On my reading of policy they count as primary, but I am not qualified in the substantive area. I hope you get a response from an editor who works on medical articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Are they considered reliable secondary sources? Basket of Puppies 17:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What use is being proposed for these sources? --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- These are all clearly primary sources, not secondary sources. They are not reviews of other studies, they are basically case studies of extremely small numbers of patients. The second is 12 years old. Under WP:MEDRS, these would not qualify as reliable sources on multiple counts: Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources. WP:MEDASSESS Fladrif (talk) 01:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think that may miss the point (although we still lack the crucial information: what is being cited?). A case study is of course a primary source. However, a literature review within a case study is capable of being a secondary source. If a peer-reviewed paper says (for example) "all research up to now has shown x" then that would be good secondary material. Per WP:MEDASSESS: "The best evidence comes from (inter alia) reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation". The only problem is that it is not yet clear whether this applies. --FormerIP (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with FormerIP. These articles do have some primary information in them, but they also act as secondary sources by virtue of the fact of being literature reviews. As well, PubMed lists them as review articles. Basket of Puppies 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The articles are primary sources with some secondary information.
- Again, could someone please provide some proposed context of use, as suggested in the instructions for this noticeboard: #4 of the instructions, "The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting." --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think I'm sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to understand why this question is being asked. Basically, I agree with what Fladrif said. Although FormerIP is, in a sense, correct that sources such as these can include, in their introduction or discussion sections, some secondary review of the literature, they are not, for the purposes of medically related pages, secondary sources. They are primary sources: primary research reports (and in these cases, reports of very small case studies, in all three instances), with a primary source commentary on some other, previous studies. Even if they are cited with respect to that commentary, they would absolutely not be regarded as secondary in an FAC review. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see your point there, Tryptofish. An FA candidate sourced only to journal articles is probably not a good FA candidate, which is basically what seems to be being asked here. On the other hand, I think that article material sourced to the literature review sections of journal articles would not fall foul of WP:PRIMARY. Which isn't the question being asked, but it is an appropriate one to answer on this noticeboard. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- We really could do with some more medical people in this discussion, but as I understand it, the literature reviews in such articles aren't cut-down versions of systematic reviews. Rather they serve to place in context the small studies undertaken by the authors. They may cherry-pick the literature, not necessarily to back a particular point, but because of word limits and because they are only focusing on one aspect of the problem - which may well turn out to be a minor aspect. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my experience as a medical science person it that that's exactly what often happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- We really could do with some more medical people in this discussion, but as I understand it, the literature reviews in such articles aren't cut-down versions of systematic reviews. Rather they serve to place in context the small studies undertaken by the authors. They may cherry-pick the literature, not necessarily to back a particular point, but because of word limits and because they are only focusing on one aspect of the problem - which may well turn out to be a minor aspect. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I can see your point there, Tryptofish. An FA candidate sourced only to journal articles is probably not a good FA candidate, which is basically what seems to be being asked here. On the other hand, I think that article material sourced to the literature review sections of journal articles would not fall foul of WP:PRIMARY. Which isn't the question being asked, but it is an appropriate one to answer on this noticeboard. --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think I'm sufficiently familiar with the subject matter to understand why this question is being asked. Basically, I agree with what Fladrif said. Although FormerIP is, in a sense, correct that sources such as these can include, in their introduction or discussion sections, some secondary review of the literature, they are not, for the purposes of medically related pages, secondary sources. They are primary sources: primary research reports (and in these cases, reports of very small case studies, in all three instances), with a primary source commentary on some other, previous studies. Even if they are cited with respect to that commentary, they would absolutely not be regarded as secondary in an FAC review. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with FormerIP. These articles do have some primary information in them, but they also act as secondary sources by virtue of the fact of being literature reviews. As well, PubMed lists them as review articles. Basket of Puppies 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
"Our Sunday Visitor Publishing" as reliable source on atheist circles
Our Sunday Visitor Publishing is a Catholic press whose main output is "religious periodicals, religious books and religious-education materials." Are they a reliable source for the claim that the anti-Catholic book American Freedom and Catholic Power is popular in atheist circles? I argue firstly that a publisher with an explicitly religious affiliation and an explicitly religious agenda is unlikely to be a reliable source on what atheists like to do in their spare time, whatever their actual opinions are about atheists; and secondly that the press's open hostility to atheists makes it an even less reliable source. Mamalujo and Haymaker say that it is a reliable source, although I can't reproduce their arguments here as they haven't given any - hopefully they'll stop by. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- They're a newspaper that writes about religion writing about a religious topic. I don't see any indication of unreliability. - Haymaker (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- As may have been evident from my edit, I'm cool with their analysis of the book's argument - I'm just pointing out that they have no credibility when it comes to atheists. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- From the "About us" section of Our Sunday Visitor Publishing: "Through the Our Sunday Visitor Institute, we fund Catholic projects throughout the United States, particularly those that seek to address religious illiteracy, contribute to the evangelization of the culture, link faith and morality, especially to young people, and explain and promote the dignity of the human person." This stated ideological goal of the publisher makes it a non-reliable source for atheism, except of course in matters of OSVPs own view on atheism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- More to the point, are they even a reliable source for claiming that 'atheist circles' exist? I suspect most atheists aren't involved in anti-religious campaigning, or actually consider themselves part of a 'circle'. What exactly is the context for this claim though? Is the claim US-specific, and about active atheist campaigners, or is this a general claim about non-believers worldwide? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I phrased it wrong above. Since OSVP specifically states that it is a publishing house that has an ideological agenda, it is not a reliable source at all in Wikipedia context, though it can be a primary source for the views of OSVP and affiliated organisations. So it is not a reliable source for the existence of "atheist circles" either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the agenda applies to reliability in this case as there is nothing to indicate that the organization endorses fringe ideas. Neutrality is a different matter.--3family6 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Edit: This argument seems to be of the same type as one a few sections above, and that section appears to uphold a source written attributable to an opposing ideology.--3family6 (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is what the source says about 'atheist circles': "Most of [Blanshard's] works are still in print, and American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles.". This is being used to 'source' the following: "Today the book is popular in atheist and humanist circles". (diff) Since it doesn't, the question is moot, unless the words 'quite' and 'various ' have an entirely novel meaning in this context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If the wording was changed to "remains popular in some atheistic and humanist circles" or something similar, I see no problem, unless there is a different source that contradicts that statement. I will say that if an additional source from an atheist or humanist could be found, it would be best.--3family6 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a reliable source even for that. I mean, would we cite the book discussed in the article for the statement "Some fields of American society are totally controlled by Catholics"? If the claim that atheists are fond of this anti-Catholic book is to be included in the article, we'd need a source that isn't known for attacking atheists - either a neutral source, or a source from "atheist circles." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If a source known for attacking Christianity can be used to support what Christians believe, then a source known for attacking atheism can be used to support what atheists read. Also, as pointed out by John Carter below, they may have access to the publisher or some other source. I personally have reservations about using a Catholic source to support a statement about atheists, but I also have reservations about using atheists as a source on Christianity.--3family6 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Wells is a scholar on the subject, and his books are analyses - one might disagree with them, but he presumably gives evidence for his position. (The discussion above also appears to indicate that the statement for which he's cited is fairly uncontroversial among Christian scholars.) This is a passing statement with no supporting evidence in a book by a guy with an agenda and no credentials, and since it's relatively defamatory I think we need a reliable source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Does the OSV have a particular history of "attacking atheists" - Haymaker (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know. Until now, I have not even heard OSV. "Attack" might be a strong word, but it is the one used by Roscelese. They might have such a history, but everything provided does not appear to support that.--3family6 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the word "attack," we don't have to use the word "attack." But do check out the links above, and also their atheism articles, before you try to argue that they have nothing against atheists and no desire to discredit them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I do not know. Until now, I have not even heard OSV. "Attack" might be a strong word, but it is the one used by Roscelese. They might have such a history, but everything provided does not appear to support that.--3family6 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- If a source known for attacking Christianity can be used to support what Christians believe, then a source known for attacking atheism can be used to support what atheists read. Also, as pointed out by John Carter below, they may have access to the publisher or some other source. I personally have reservations about using a Catholic source to support a statement about atheists, but I also have reservations about using atheists as a source on Christianity.--3family6 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a reliable source even for that. I mean, would we cite the book discussed in the article for the statement "Some fields of American society are totally controlled by Catholics"? If the claim that atheists are fond of this anti-Catholic book is to be included in the article, we'd need a source that isn't known for attacking atheists - either a neutral source, or a source from "atheist circles." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have grave reservations about such a source for content about atheism. However, it may well be that in some way they might have access to the publisher of the works in question (particularly if the publisher has something to do with Catholicism) and be basing their comments on that. "various atheist and humanist circles" seems to me to be the problematic language. Alternately, there clearly are atheist and humanist groups (and, by extension, "circles") and the quote may be based on some material from such. I wouldn't see any problem with a statement life Sfamily6 proposes above, unless there are other comments from more directly relevant and possibly more directly knowledgable sources which contradict it. John Carter (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- We can't base their reliability on "well, maaaaaaaaybe they know something but they're not telling us." And even if they have information from the publisher, how would the publisher know that the people ordering the book are atheists? Do Christian publishers have a line on their ordering forms for the buyer's religion? Maybe they do, I don't buy a lot of Christian books. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one is saying that. Having a idea of what books are popular among what groups is far from witchcraft. - Haymaker (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- So cite a reliable source. If it's so easy to know that the book is popular among atheists, citing a source that isn't known for hostility to atheists (do you prefer this phrasing?) shouldn't be difficult.
- ...Also, obvious brain fail in my previous comment; the publisher of AFCP wouldn't necessarily be a Christian publisher, and doesn't appear to be one from the cited sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- The article currently states "Today the book is popular in atheist and humanist circles." This is more than the source says, as AndytheGrump above noted. "Quite popular" is less than popular and only some "circles" are mentioned. I rather doubt that the comment is more than a reference to the fact that it crops up in some anti-Catholic webpages. The problem is that the comment is essentially "thowaway". It's not meaningful enough to include as a definitive statement. If you're so keen on it attribute it and quote the exact words. 'According to Catholic writer Robert P. Lockwood, "American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles."' Paul B (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would be better than the current statement, but do we make a policy of including unreliable attacks as long as we attribute them? I don't think so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- How is "Most of [Blanshard's] works are still in print, and American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles" an unreliable attack?--3family6 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I said at the top of this section, which hopefully you read before jumping in, the author and publisher are not reliable sources on atheist culture: the publisher is not mainstream/scholarly and their focus is, conversely, on Christian culture, and no one has demonstrated that Lockwood has any credentials on atheist culture. Their reliability is further lessened by the fact that the press has an explicit agenda of evangelizing and of trying to prove that morality is linked to faith, and has published a lot of stuff opposing atheism. "Atheists subscribe to this anti-Catholic book's content," absent any actual evidence, is an attack. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree that the question above is a good one. OSV is a generally reliable source as per WP:RS, and, although it has a clearly biased Catholic viewpoint, I don't see that this statement is necessarily one which would be indicated as likely given that viewpoint. Admittedly, I don't know the book one way or another to say much about it. Also, I think there is a potential problem with the word "popular". It can mean that the work in question is one which is frequently positively referenced by individuals, or it could mean that the book is widely read, which can and sometimes is true of works which are in opposition to the tenets of the group. If there would be any way to find out which of these circumstances applies here, that would be wonderful. I guess we would have to go with "popular" as a default pending other sources, but would appreciate some clarification if possible. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just that the publisher has a "clearly biased Catholic viewpoint," which doesn't necessarily indicate a bias against atheists. It's that the publisher and author demonstrate no expertise that qualifies them to make that kind of statement, which coupled with the publisher's anti-atheist (not just pro-Catholic) bias, makes the uncritical use of it really problematic.
- This case isn't quite in the realm governed by WP:SELFPUB, but I think it still might be a good guideline: this clearly biased source is reliable for statements about itself, but not about third parties. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- How is "Most of [Blanshard's] works are still in print, and American Freedom and Catholic Power remains quite popular in various atheist and humanist circles" an unreliable attack?--3family6 (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- It would be better than the current statement, but do we make a policy of including unreliable attacks as long as we attribute them? I don't think so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- No one is saying that. Having a idea of what books are popular among what groups is far from witchcraft. - Haymaker (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- We can't base their reliability on "well, maaaaaaaaybe they know something but they're not telling us." And even if they have information from the publisher, how would the publisher know that the people ordering the book are atheists? Do Christian publishers have a line on their ordering forms for the buyer's religion? Maybe they do, I don't buy a lot of Christian books. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I phrased it wrong above. Since OSVP specifically states that it is a publishing house that has an ideological agenda, it is not a reliable source at all in Wikipedia context, though it can be a primary source for the views of OSVP and affiliated organisations. So it is not a reliable source for the existence of "atheist circles" either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- More to the point, are they even a reliable source for claiming that 'atheist circles' exist? I suspect most atheists aren't involved in anti-religious campaigning, or actually consider themselves part of a 'circle'. What exactly is the context for this claim though? Is the claim US-specific, and about active atheist campaigners, or is this a general claim about non-believers worldwide? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- From the "About us" section of Our Sunday Visitor Publishing: "Through the Our Sunday Visitor Institute, we fund Catholic projects throughout the United States, particularly those that seek to address religious illiteracy, contribute to the evangelization of the culture, link faith and morality, especially to young people, and explain and promote the dignity of the human person." This stated ideological goal of the publisher makes it a non-reliable source for atheism, except of course in matters of OSVPs own view on atheism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- As may have been evident from my edit, I'm cool with their analysis of the book's argument - I'm just pointing out that they have no credibility when it comes to atheists. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(can't indent that much) My $.02: we need a consistent rule for this and the other case. I probably wouldn't find an atheist writer WP:RS for the proposition that church sources doubt Jesus' historicity, or a Catholic group reliable for even "some" atheists endorsing a particular attack on the Catholic church. If either quoted a reliable, neutral secondary source, I'd go directly to that, or leave the material out of the article entirely. The moment we start trying to justify the first instance while criticizing the second, I think we we are on very dubious ground. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not involved in the Wells discussion at all, so my comments on that situation are, in the end, pretty irrelevant. (Although I do think that acting as if the two situations are exactly analogous, and trying to base a rule on that supposed fact, is folly!) Do you think I should direct some of the people up there to this discussion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Roscelese: I would. I think the two issues are similar enough to be considered together. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- (ec/)The publisher is not a mainstream nor academic publisher. Its claims should not be made in Wikipedias voice. A phrasing of "Catholic scholar / OSVP states the book is popular in atheist circles" might be acceptable. But unless OSVP or that catholic scholars are well respected outside of Catholic circles for their research and knowledge of "atheist circles" is there any reason why we should be quoting their opinion? Active Banana (bananaphone 23:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- IMO that's the strongest point here. Why are they considered an authority as to what is popular in "atheist circles"? There's no doubt that it has the ring of so much fiction. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, my basic googlebook searches have indicated that there is a wealth of coverage of this book from well respected mainstream sources that could/should be used to support claims in the article. Active Banana (bananaphone 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Our Sunday Visitor claim to fame appears to be printing buletins and Robert Lockwood (well thats not actually the RL we are talking about) doesnt seem particularly noteworthy either. Active Banana (bananaphone 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure this is the saem. As others have said this does not appear to be a scholerly publication that. It may be RS for its views (but are its views no0table) but its not RS for such a statment as presented.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Active Banana has it right. Why should we include their claim? Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think the following agrees with most others: It is possible to use POV sources on WP. That is not the issue. But this particular off hand generalization does not appear notable or worth citing, and giving it a big say in WP could hurt neutrality and does not appear to be a good selection of sourcing. Comments about what one type of person thinks are all over the place, and often made casually, so we can not cite them all. Therefore the source's opinion should be notable, or else the source should be a strong one in terms of making "serious" generalizations (for example an opinion poll or maybe at least someone conducting some type of literature review). If editors involved with this content can not agree that these types of criteria are met then Wikipedia does not have to include everything from every RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Active Banana has it right. Why should we include their claim? Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure this is the saem. As others have said this does not appear to be a scholerly publication that. It may be RS for its views (but are its views no0table) but its not RS for such a statment as presented.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Our Sunday Visitor claim to fame appears to be printing buletins and Robert Lockwood (well thats not actually the RL we are talking about) doesnt seem particularly noteworthy either. Active Banana (bananaphone 08:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- In addition, my basic googlebook searches have indicated that there is a wealth of coverage of this book from well respected mainstream sources that could/should be used to support claims in the article. Active Banana (bananaphone 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- IMO that's the strongest point here. Why are they considered an authority as to what is popular in "atheist circles"? There's no doubt that it has the ring of so much fiction. --FormerIP (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion ongoing on WP:BLPN about whether this article meets BLP standards, but I have a collateral question. Much of the information about alleged criminal activities by the otherwise private individuals is sourced to a single investigative article in TheSmokingGun.com. Other newspaper sources seem to echo that article. I suspect there have been prior discussions as to the circumstances under which Smoking Gun is WP:RS, and would like to hear what other editors say about its use in this context. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- The RS/N discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#The_Smoking_Gun and our article say that The Smoking Gun has been a branch of Court TV/truTV since 2000. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_52#TheSmokingGun.com had one person who objected to their reliability as a secondary source, but most still seemed to support it. It was founded by investigative reporters, sponsors a television series, and has published two books. Seems like consensus is that it is as reliable as most other popular media. --GRuban (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
What to do when two editors disagree over a source
If one editors considers a source to be reliable/suitable for use, but another doesn't - how should they resolve the issue? I ask in relation to this here above. Alinor (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please keep discussion in that section above rather than starting a new section about the same discussion. If on the other hand this is just a general question then others can only give general and useless answers like "try to find agreement" or "come to this noticeboard" or "see if you can find other editors interested in the subject of the article you are working on so as to get more opinions".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
An amusing thought
A few days ago, our illustrious (co)founder, Jimbo Wales appeared on the Daily Show. In that program Jon Stewart asked Jimbo how long the "information" that "John Stuart is Batman" would remain in the article. Jimbo correctly noted that it would not last more than a few seconds... and went on to ask Jon if there were any reliable sources that said he was Batman. Now... this exchange raises an interesting and amusing thought. Jimbo's comment would allow us to say "Jimbo Wales questions whether Jon Stewart may be Batman" (an example of twisting the source, but "technically" it is an accurate statement... keep it in mind for April 1st.) Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Film.com
Is Film.com a RS? It seems a number of WP pages link to synopses, cast/crew info, and reviews there, e.g. Keddie, Lisa (2009-08-03). "'G.I. Joe: The Rise Of The Cobra' UK Review". Film.com. Retrieved 2009-09-28. at GI_Joe:_The_Rise_of_Cobra#cite_note-104. While anybody can post comments there, reviews appear to be only by staff, but I couldn't determine what sort of editorial oversight there might be and am not sure of the site's reputation for film criticism. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- This looks RS to me. It's run by Real Networks and its contributors seem to be professional staff. Unless it is shown to the contrary, I think you should assume that it is does not have a high reputation for criticism (although don't take my word for it), but I think it should be reliable for cast/crew info etc. --FormerIP (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently it has a minor rep among reliable sources. Here's what USA Today has to say about it: [27], Variety drops links to it: [28] [29], and Deseret News mentions it: [30]. That's not much, but the bar for popular film criticism isn't that high: it's not BLP, and there aren't really peer reviewed journals; with the exception of Roger Ebert, professionals of the kind mentioned in the USA Today and Deseret News links are about as good as it gets. I would think for straight forward non controversial reviews, Film.com would meet it. --GRuban (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if this is come up before but I can't find a discussion on this in the archives. Would we consider Behind the Voice Actors.com as reliable source A competent admin damned well be familiar with that policy if they are involved in RS or AfD issues at all! of voice actors? Content appears to be scrutinised and edited. Voice actors are quite hard to source as they rarely attract mainstream news coverage.--Plad2 (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- At first glance, I would say it's borderline. They do not have a reputation for fact checking, but in their FAQ they do say that they fact check, and distinguish themselves from IMDB and us. Material from the forums would be out, and I think we would not want to use them for anything the least bit controversial. Can you provide a couple of specific examples of what you'd like to source to them? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I used it for one of two weakish sources for Kenichi Mochizuki and changed the article from "BLPunsourced" to "BLPsources" as part of the current month focus at the BLP Rescue Project. There are probably some notability questions on this one which need to be answered but the sources I used at least verified that the actor exists and confirmed some of his roles. We're building a page of RS to help with the Project and I'd like to get a fix on whether this one could help with the slew of Japanese voice actor UBLPs we're uncovering. Sometime the fuller article at ja.wikipedia helps but often there are very few sources over there either.--Plad2 (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- "[T]o verify existence and roles"?!!? I would question whether they are in fact notable at all if you can't find any more solid sources for their very existence!!!! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sourcing Japanese voice actors is not easy. Even if you put the language barriers to one side, the question as to whether (or at what point) voice actors meet WP:GNG belongs in another place, I believe. My question here relates to whether this site can be used as a reliable source or not. If you (or anyone) can provide a better source, that would be helpful.--Plad2 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Requirement that a source be accessable on the internet
In a recent deletion nomnination the reasoning was given by someone who voted to delete that most of the sources were not accessable on the internet (books and magazines NOT online), so they doubted them and voted delete. What is Wikipedia policy on the bias against non-online sources? Mathewignash (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Offline sources otherwise meeting WP:RS are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. There are many articles and matters which can't (yet) be completely sourced online (for example, Liturgy (ancient Greece)). However, if equally good online sources exist, it is probably best to use an online source where available. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Reliable Offline sources are Reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and may of us have access to these things called libraries, where one can actually walk among books, some of which have been for many years reliable sources of information. (Sorry, could not resist). --Nuujinn (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- And there are also things called local papers and magazines, which are often one of the best ways to tell if a local organization/company/group is notable in its community. (Though most papers are available online, albeit for a fee.)--3family6 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what do I say to someone who says they are voting to delete an article because most of it's sources are not online? Mathewignash (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest referring the other editor to WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- If this question is related to this discussion,[31] 137.122.49.102's argument isn't simply that the source is not accessible via internet but that they "doubt they directly address the subject of this Wiki article in depth beyond passing mentions to warrant its own article" The way to handle this is to tell them how much coverage the book gives about this topic. IOW, is it a sentence or two, a page, a chapter, etc.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- "...what do I say to someone who says they are voting to delete an article because most of it's sources are not online". For a start, you can say that AfD discussions aren't votes. If their only argument is that an article should be deleted because sources not available online are being used, then since this is a misinterpretation of policy their argument is irrelevant to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, but someone needs to point explicitly to the policy. My experience is that admins often aren't familiar with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- A competent admin damned well be familiar with that policy if they are involved in RS or AfD issues at all! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- True, but someone needs to point explicitly to the policy. My experience is that admins often aren't familiar with policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- "...what do I say to someone who says they are voting to delete an article because most of it's sources are not online". For a start, you can say that AfD discussions aren't votes. If their only argument is that an article should be deleted because sources not available online are being used, then since this is a misinterpretation of policy their argument is irrelevant to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- If this question is related to this discussion,[31] 137.122.49.102's argument isn't simply that the source is not accessible via internet but that they "doubt they directly address the subject of this Wiki article in depth beyond passing mentions to warrant its own article" The way to handle this is to tell them how much coverage the book gives about this topic. IOW, is it a sentence or two, a page, a chapter, etc.? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest referring the other editor to WP:SOURCEACCESS. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- So what do I say to someone who says they are voting to delete an article because most of it's sources are not online? Mathewignash (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- And there are also things called local papers and magazines, which are often one of the best ways to tell if a local organization/company/group is notable in its community. (Though most papers are available online, albeit for a fee.)--3family6 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, and may of us have access to these things called libraries, where one can actually walk among books, some of which have been for many years reliable sources of information. (Sorry, could not resist). --Nuujinn (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I notice that the sources in question do not mention who published them or have a page number for the statemtn they are referencing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
www.oafe.net reliable?
Is the site http://www.oafe.net/ a reliable source for fictional character bios? Mathewignash (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say no; they are about the toys, not the media storylines per se. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- For instance the review of this figure: http://www.oafe.net/yo/hulkic.php talks about the character's origin. Mathewignash (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Movie-censorship.com
At WikiProject Film, I have started a discussion about whether or not the website movie-censorship.com is appropriate to use in any capacity on Wikipedia. I wanted to inform this noticeboard's regulars about the discussion, and they are welcome to weigh in. The discussion can be found here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Haaretz and Dershowitz
An editor is repeatedy removing two sentences from the Civilian casualty ratio article, with a claim of "unreleiable sources". One of these sentences is presented in the article as fact: "In 2007, Israel achieved a ratio of 1:30, or one civilian casualty for every thirty combatant casualties" - and sourced to an article by a well known military journalist, Amos Harel, writing in a mainstream newspaper (Haaretz). The other is an an opinion, attributed to its author - 'According to Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, "No army No army in history has ever had a better ratio of combatants to civilians killed in a comparable setting"'. Opinions on the reliability of these sources for those statements are requested. Two for the show (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well done, you took it in! The reason for the RS objections, voiced by more than just me (here's the relevant talk page), is that Dershowitz is not an international monitoring agency, nor a reliable source for statistics, nor an academic specializing in international conflicts, is writing an op-ed, and is actually contradicting the Israeli Supreme Court which holds that people subject to targeted killingsare not combatants. Sources must be considered RS depending on the circumstances; this isn't in his area of expertise. This is just straight up wrong information. That brewcrewer keeps pushing to include information that he's even admitted is wrong is pretty hard to believe. If the argument is now that the source is reliable for Dershowitz's opinion than you can look at the undue weight arguments in the talk page. Simply put, why does the incorrect statement of a man with no expertise in the target area belong in the lead? It doesn't even meet lead policy, brewcrewer's just copy and pasted the same thing into the body.
- As to Haaretz, please find where Amos Harel talks about a 30:1 combatant ratio. You can't. He doesn't. He talks about the terrorists to civilian ratios. That's not the same as a combatant to civilian casualty ratio; combatant has a very precise meaning in the laws of war and, as pointed out above, these are definitely not combatants and it's OR to construe them thus. Sol (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Any statistics would have to come from investigators who actually went into Gaza, or secondary sources quoting such investigators. It's unlikely that Dershowitz has either done one, or is doing the other. There is also the small matter of whether policemen are militants or whether they're part of the civilian infrastructure - I think the international consensus is settled in that regard. Templar98 (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
boards.transformersmovie.com reliable for quote from film writer?
At http://boards.transformersmovie.com/showthread.php?p=388596#post388596 one of the writers for the 2007 Transformers film posts how he wrote the movie. This is the official message board for the film. Is this a reliable source for the writer? Mathewignash (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Assuming that's really Roberto Orci, I would say that it's reliable as an WP:SPS: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. However, if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Also, you can not use it to source claims about third parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since the board is owned by the movie makers, and it's been there since they started working on the movie, I think we can assume it's legitimate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Its being used for this [[32]]. Thus in fact its not about him, but the plot to a film. Also the material makes no mention of the ARC just a large spaceship, thus is being mis-represented.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. I would suggest that presuming that the large ship is the Ark would be OR and probably not a good idea. But I note that the presumption is admitted in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have tagd it as unreliable. It may not be for Mr Orci's views (assumning it is his views) but it does not support the text. I willleave it 24 hours before removing in order to give the edd more time to find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm unfamiliar with this topic. Does he mean the ark? I'm not sure we have to be that literal in demanding that a source use the terminology we want. IOW, if George Lucas was discussing Star Wars: A New Hope and he says, "So, Luke Skywalker is flying down the trench and uses two photo torpedoes to destroy the space station", it's quite clear that the "space station" he's referring to is the Death Star. I don't think the source can be rejected solely on the basis that Lucas doesn't specifically say "Death Star". No reasonable person who's knowledgeable about that film would ever conclude otherwise, and I don't think that's WP:OR at all. OTOH, as far as notability goes, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. In fact, don't you need third-party reliable sources to establish notability?
- Slatersteven: {{verify source}} might be more appropriate. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- The ship was named the Ark in the accompanying novel for the movie. Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have tagd it as unreliable. It may not be for Mr Orci's views (assumning it is his views) but it does not support the text. I willleave it 24 hours before removing in order to give the edd more time to find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I concur. I would suggest that presuming that the large ship is the Ark would be OR and probably not a good idea. But I note that the presumption is admitted in the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Its being used for this [[32]]. Thus in fact its not about him, but the plot to a film. Also the material makes no mention of the ARC just a large spaceship, thus is being mis-represented.Slatersteven (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since the board is owned by the movie makers, and it's been there since they started working on the movie, I think we can assume it's legitimate. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- But that is one film, and a specific quote about an aspect of the plot. This is a quote about an adaptation of anotehr persons work that does not stick to that cannon (its a bit like saying that in the new star trek film if a source said "the Enterprise as attacked by a Romulan ship" its a source for the text "and in the new star trek film the Romulans used the warbird class ship".Slatersteven (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
uwire.com
A collection of shared college newspaper articles by student reporters. Useable for citing? Mathewignash (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't heard of UWIRE before, but apparently it's news service with articles aggregated from student newspapers. I'm not sure if we've discussed student newspapers recently, but they do have editorial oversight and I would imagine are staffed with students in a journalism program. But since it's an aggregator of news, it might be better to cite the original newspaper instead. In any case, we can't give you a yes or a no without more information. Please see the instructions at the top. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- its being used to establish notability based on a film review [[33]]. Its also being used as a source for fan unhappyness at a character being left out of teh tranformers movie.Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- By "fan" you mean a film reviewer. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- its being used to establish notability based on a film review [[33]]. Its also being used as a source for fan unhappyness at a character being left out of teh tranformers movie.Slatersteven (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you have reason to believe otherwise (such as contradicting sources), I think we can trust a student newspaper to get the plot of a film right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Its not being used as a source for the plot, but is being used to say a pluraility of reviews have critised an aspect of the film (I will ask for the quote that establishes that more then just this reviwer have compalined about this aspect of the film). Also I doubt its good enough a source to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you answer the assertion that every RS you provide from a variety of unrelated sources (be it newspaper, magazines, scholarly journals, published books, Royal BC Museum, etc) is unreliable because (according to another editor) they "ultimately ALL trace to the same (unreliable) source, namely the press kits of the Okanagan Wine Region, Nk'Mip Cellars, and the Osoyoos Tourism Board". Of course, this other editor is not providing any links or evidence of this collusion between sources like the The New York Times, Oxford Companion to Wine, Houston Chronicle, Toronto Sun, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, etc but he is adamantly that these sources are not reliable because....well just because. I suppose the question really is....what is the burden of proof to establish that seemingly reliably sources aren't reliable? AgneCheese/Wine 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)