KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) →Midwest Book Review: tl, dr; but you're complaining about apples and oranges anyway |
→Survey of Amazon.com reviews with comments: this linkspam does not need its entire subsection |
||
Line 680: | Line 680: | ||
:::The biggest issue is the wall of text with no cites you've pasted. Beyond that, though, your complaints are all about the Amazon account, not the publication. We don't use Amazon reviews. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
:::The biggest issue is the wall of text with no cites you've pasted. Beyond that, though, your complaints are all about the Amazon account, not the publication. We don't use Amazon reviews. [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
;Survey of Amazon.com reviews with comments |
|||
Looking at the Amazon reviews I mentioned above that have comments on them is quite frankly astonishing. Going back only to the beginning of this November (in terms of when the comments were posted) here is a list of reviews in which the commentators do not believe the reviewer could have read the book or else found some odd error with the review: |
Looking at the Amazon reviews I mentioned above that have comments on them is quite frankly astonishing. Going back only to the beginning of this November (in terms of when the comments were posted) here is a list of reviews in which the commentators do not believe the reviewer could have read the book or else found some odd error with the review: |
Revision as of 22:12, 14 December 2009
Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in .
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.
This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.
If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.
If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.
This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.
open ended question on sources that could best be labelled as misleading or "hoax"
Hi, this is a rather open ended request for more people to look at a bit of a mess on a thermodynamics topic- one that often attracts perpetual motion machines and other odd ideas. We've been debating this page for a while now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_maximum_entropy_production and got a consensus to merge. However, part of the issue is a content dispute between a small group ( conjectured one person) or "Team Swenson" contributors and all other parties. Team Swenson wants to make this an article about Swenson. If you look at the talk page, now redir into my user space, you can see some of the issues. This isn't so much about a POV any more as much as questioning the validity of the sources. One editor was unable to confirm with a journal that an article existed, another seems to be from a "journal" controlled by Swenson. If anyone is interested please help discuss at talk page. Thanks.
Palestine Telegraph; Adallah's Newsletter, Electronic Intifada, Journal of Refugee Studies, Dissident Voice, and Islam Online
Would appreciate input as to whether these are RSs or not:
- The Palestine Telegraph[1] for book review (of author up for AfD)
- Adallah's Newsletter[2] for ref to article written in it by author in article "selected works" list (article on author is up for AfD)
- The Electronic Intifada[3] for book reviews (of author up for AfD)
- The Journal of Refugee Studies[4] for book review (of author up for AfD)
- Dissident Voice[5] for interview of author up for AfD
- Islam Online[6] for book review (of author up for AfD)
--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- To answer this, we need to know what these are being cited for.... how they are being used. Would you link to the article (or better yet some difs to show exactly how they are being cited). Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Preliminary response: The Electronic Intifada is biased and not in line with the facts, support terror groups like Hamas and hence a very problematic source. Adallah's offices are located in Israel and formally it's an Israeli organization but I would not count on it, I think that it have a bad record with facts and would look for information on that when I've free time. As for the others, don't know them but in general Palestinian media have a very biased approach (examples: [7][8][9]) you can also find information on many Islamic/Arabic/Palestinian media sources here[10] and here[11]. For the meanwhile I would recommend to avoid usage in any of these sources.--Gilisa (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- True... which is why we need to know the exact context of how these particular sources are being used. We can not simply say: "Every Palestinian media source is unreliable in all circumstances". Instead we need to look at the specific source and the specific circumstances. For example, are they being used to support a bald statement of fact (if so what fact), or are they being used to source a statement of opinion (if so, who's opinion)? Are they being used to source a quote (and if so who are they quoting)? Their level of reliability is going to be different in each of these situations. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Electronic Intifada
..has come up before Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_20#The_Electronic_Intifada which includes multiple examples of reliable sources citing them. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)..and let's not forget their role in Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- First, as for electronic intifada, even if it was cited by many reliable sources it still doesn't mean that there are no examples of where it provided false information (but indeed it's usually more biased than fallacious). Also, I didn't say that we can't use Palestinian sources, just suggested that based on their controversial reputation they will be scrutinized more carefully.--Gilisa (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Sean.hoyland, the wikilink to CAMERA is really unrelevant for this discussion (what more that it would be ridiculous to assume that there are no such groups on the behalf of the Palestinian issue, or that just motivated by anti semitic agenda and likewise-in fact I would be surprised if they are not taking part in it themselves[12]). I think that this discussion will became more scathing after false reports examples would be given. As I told, I would search for suce soon.--Gilisa (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since the context in which reliability is required has not yet been specified by Epeefleche, you are not in a position to say whether it is relevant or not. However, I expect the context to be this book review for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very bad example, we were not discussing on such cases where there is a direct link between subject and source. So, back to the issue, as I said-if source is proved to be unreliable it's not even about the context as whenever one cite it he/she would also be expected to provide other sources to support the already-fishy source and in any case they would have clear advantage and replace it...So, there is no point in your context argument.--Gilisa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sean, you only provide context for one of the texts questioned above. Do you know why the others are being questioned? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can't say for sure. I'm just guessing that Epeefleche's questions relate to the sourcing for the Jonathan Cook article because the source list matchs in many cases and Epeefleche has been involved with the article and associated deletion discussion. I assume Epeefleche will come back and provide the context for each source. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sean, you only provide context for one of the texts questioned above. Do you know why the others are being questioned? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK, if Sean is correct, then what is being cited are reviews of Cook's books from these sources. (I assume they are being used to establish notability). A book review is always reliable for a statement of what is said in the book review. Whether the review is worth mentioning is another issue. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Very bad example, we were not discussing on such cases where there is a direct link between subject and source. So, back to the issue, as I said-if source is proved to be unreliable it's not even about the context as whenever one cite it he/she would also be expected to provide other sources to support the already-fishy source and in any case they would have clear advantage and replace it...So, there is no point in your context argument.--Gilisa (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've added, to the initial entry above, the context in which these are being considered now--most for book reviews of books written by an author (Jonathan Cook, as surmised above), whose Wiki article is up for AfD. If they are RSs, they would count towards his notability; if not, not. But as these sources may be used as RSs in other wiki articles generally, where possible it would be helpful to get input as to whether they are RSs or not (as a general matter). I recognize that they may not be RSs for facts or for book reviews by non-notable people (for the same reason that a blog book review by a non-notable individual blogger's website would not be a RS for inclusion in a wikipedia article), but may be acceptable if (which is not the case in the above, I believe) RSs for the purpose of reviews by notable people. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK--to spur conversation, let me share my view. I've looked carefully at these sources. I should preface first by saying that I am (at this point) voting to keep the Jonathan Cook article, as I believe other sources that have surfaced are sufficient to evidence his notability. I believe, however, that none of these six os an RS, and that none of them are acceptable as a book review unless the book review is written by a notable person (not the case in the Jonathan Cook article). Should any of them carry a book review by a notable person (say, the leader of Hamas), I would on the other hand view the source as an RS. Does anyone disagree with any of that? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I might disagree... Let's remove the Israeli/Palestinian conflict from the equation... if Cook were an author who had written books about Alpine politics, and the cited sources were book reviews from Swiss media sources... would you have the same objections that you do now? Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Absolutely. As I said -- I'm voting to keep the Cook article. I'm on the side of those arguing for his notability. I just don't think these are RSs. (I think there are RSs sufficient to support his notability). If Abdullah's Newsletter were instead Hans Federer's newsletter (or Joe Smith's Newsletter, or Hogarth Pinkerton V's Newsletter, or Judah Levine's Newsletter) I would say its a personal blog non-RS ... no question about it. I reach the same conclusion as to the others.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Palestine Telegraph is a relatively new online newspaper based out of Gaza. I don't see why it does not constitute reliable source. It has been used as an information source by mainstream news sourcess like the BBC.
- It appears to be a non-notable 23-year-old's blog-like work, its predecessor self=identified in the past as a blog, with an all-volunteer staff of volunteer reporters[13] that includes "citizen journalists who do not take assignments from editors or paychecks from corporate controlled media".[14] Is barely mentioned by mainstream sources.[15] This seems to fall squarely into the non-RS category described here, and in general doesn't have the indicia required by wp:rs.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Adalah is a legal NGO based in Israel that advocates for the rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel. I don't see why it cannot be used as a source reviewing Cook's work.
- I don't see how the fact that it has filed a registration form to be considered an NGO makes Adallah's Newsletter a RS. There is nothing indicating that it meets the requirements of wp:rs. Here is a list of 53,750 NGOs and other development organizations; do you believe they are all RSs? NGO, by itself, does not an RS make.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Electronic Intifada, while certainly partisan, is a reliable source for reviews of Cook's work.
- Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot understand the objection to The Journal of Refugee Studies at all.
- Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dissident Voice may represent a minority viewpoint, but provided it is not given undue weight, I don't see the harm in including its reviews of Cook's work, given his greater popularity in non-mainstream circles.
- Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Islam Online is a perfectly fine source for reviews of Cook's work, just as would be Christianity Online or Judaism Online, if they existed. Tiamuttalk 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow. You're basing your view that it is an RS on its name (and the same with Christianity Online and Judaism Online)? Frankly, I don't think that's the criterion. Furthermore, if the publication were limited to subjects covered by its name, which of Cook's books do you believe are on the subject of Islam? I don't see it. Again, what criteria of RS do you feel it meets? I don't see evidence of it on their site. And articles such as this one don't encourage me to think they are an RS, quite frankly, as elements of it (beyond the bare headline/main topic of Irving's release] appear along the lines of fringe theory support.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll insert my thoughts under your references to the pubs. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is hard to respond to because people seem to want to know a) if the sources are good to establish notability of an author and b) how they are generally. And most of them are complex cases and only possible to comment on in context. The exception is the Journal of Refugee Studies which is an academic journal published by Oxford Journals and reliable in virtually all circumstances. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Palestinian Telegraph meets Wikipedia's definition of a questionable source. Its use of "citizen journalists" and its recent history as a simply a blog. "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions" - Wikipedia:Reliable sources (emphasis mine).Cptnono (talk)
- http://dissidentvoice.org/ looks to be the same since it is a "radical newsletter for peace and social justice". It looks like they take [submissions so I don't know what their vetting process is. I would question their willingness to provide neutral information. I wouldn't trust them as a source for what books I was going to buy.Cptnono (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- [16] also take ssubmissions. They have such an axe to grind (in "combating pro-Israeli, pro-American spin") that I would not trust them.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)::
- The Journal of Refugee studies gets some credit for being academic. They admit to being biased (in that they are trying to accomplish a goal through promotion) but that shouldn't completely prevent its use.
- Islam Online appears to have a full staff. I would assume, just from a quick look, that they are professional enough. They try to assert this all over their about page.Cptnono (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please clarify what you are saying in regard to bias in the Journal of Refugee Studies? Academic journals like this are the best sources that we have in WP. This one comes from a centre at the University of Oxford, is published by Oxford Journals and refereed in the normal way. I don't understand why you think it might be biased (although even if it was, that would not affect reliability). This does illustrate how the way that the question is framed here makes it difficult to answer. The status of these sources in general is a different question from that of whether they are appropriate in a particular context. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are biased in the fact that they have a "commitment to improving the lives and situations for some of the world’s most disadvantaged people". It sounds morally just but it doesn't mean they don't have an axe to grind which is clearly shown on their website. That ebing said, they use "world-class academic research" and are part of a reputable institution. I find them reliable but felt it OK to point out that they aren't a neutral source.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Please don't be mistaken about our sourcing policy. Bias is not a barrier to reliability. For example, both the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz have editorial viewpoints but both are good news sources. If there's one thing certain to ring alarm bells with RSN regulars, it's questioning the status of academic sources. Unless of course they aren't really academic, in which case we will all join in. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are biased in the fact that they have a "commitment to improving the lives and situations for some of the world’s most disadvantaged people". It sounds morally just but it doesn't mean they don't have an axe to grind which is clearly shown on their website. That ebing said, they use "world-class academic research" and are part of a reputable institution. I find them reliable but felt it OK to point out that they aren't a neutral source.Cptnono (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not sure on the context, but in general Electronic Intifada and Adallah are unreliable. 'Dissent Voices' describe themselves as "newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press" which makes them nothing more than an advocacy blog with little to no notability and not much of a wiki-reliable source. There's probably issues with the other sources since there seems to be a common theme here but I don't have the time to give them a proper look-see. JaakobouChalk Talk 13:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the context is only whether reviews in these sources indicate notability of Jonathan Cook. And since the AfD on that article has had extensive discussion and seems to be moving towards conclusion, then I don't know that there is much else to concern us here. Except that to inform our future discussions I would just restate that per policy academic journals are with few exceptions good sources while internet advocacy sites are likely to be problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is actually still useful since these sources are being used in an article that will more than likely be kept.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reviews by unreliable sources as an indication for notability? I don't know. It doesn't sound like a good measure. Imagine a person is smeared by unreliable websites and someone wants to create an article based on just that. This one seems more like a question for the notability forums than for the reliability forum. The sources, in themselves are not reliable. I would like to hear other explained opinions and thoughts on the notability issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like an update is in order. The article is good to go since there is coverage from sources. What about the potentially bad ones? Of the list up above, are there any that are not RS. I personally feel that a couple of them are so biased without a proven track record of proper editorial vetting that there is no way they can be trustworthy in my opinion. I would prefer the Barnes & Noble or Amazon websites over Palestinian Telegraph (don't be fooled by the name) and dissadentvoice.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's called The Palestine Telegraph and the spelling of the latter is dissidentvoice. Please try to get the names right. Tiamuttalk 12:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Screw 'em. I misspelled a whole lot here. I even said Seatl the other day. I think we are above boohooing over that. Thanks to Epeefleche for trying to clean it up. I didn't realize how bad it actually was until checking the difference!
- So misspelling aside (was in Opera w/ out spell check and was too lazy to check), what is up with the sources?Cptnono (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's called The Palestine Telegraph and the spelling of the latter is dissidentvoice. Please try to get the names right. Tiamuttalk 12:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like an update is in order. The article is good to go since there is coverage from sources. What about the potentially bad ones? Of the list up above, are there any that are not RS. I personally feel that a couple of them are so biased without a proven track record of proper editorial vetting that there is no way they can be trustworthy in my opinion. I would prefer the Barnes & Noble or Amazon websites over Palestinian Telegraph (don't be fooled by the name) and dissadentvoice.Cptnono (talk) 11:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reviews by unreliable sources as an indication for notability? I don't know. It doesn't sound like a good measure. Imagine a person is smeared by unreliable websites and someone wants to create an article based on just that. This one seems more like a question for the notability forums than for the reliability forum. The sources, in themselves are not reliable. I would like to hear other explained opinions and thoughts on the notability issue. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is actually still useful since these sources are being used in an article that will more than likely be kept.Cptnono (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) OK, I'm looking at the sources one by one. A review in Electronic Intifada is being used to source the fact that Cook authored a particular book. Simply leave out, because the book itself is the source, so long as publication details are given somewhere in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Next one I have looked at is Dissident Voice. An interview sourced to this is given in "Further reading" but isn't currently used as a source for the article. The interview is an English translation of a German original published in Die tageszeitung. A quality newspaper, therefore RS for use in the article. As an external link, you will have to refer to WP:EL. On the face of it, a very good source that the article should probably be using. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do I need to look up any more? The article seems to have some source-savvy editors actively working on it, but if there is anything you need an outside opinion on, just say. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- In response to a reply on the talk page, I will comment on all the remaining sources. Of course others are very welcome to comment as well. Here's the next one. Palestine Telegraph. Not currently referenced in article, so nothing else to say at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Next one. Adalah's Newsletter (note the spelling). Cook published an article in this in 2004. It's not used as a source in our bio of him; it's simply listed among his publications, with a link to the online version. I would say it's too minor a publication to be worth including, so take out. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- In response to a reply on the talk page, I will comment on all the remaining sources. Of course others are very welcome to comment as well. Here's the next one. Palestine Telegraph. Not currently referenced in article, so nothing else to say at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do I need to look up any more? The article seems to have some source-savvy editors actively working on it, but if there is anything you need an outside opinion on, just say. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
TMZ
What were the policy based reasons we don't consider TMZ a reliable source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Per these two previous discussions [17] [18] it actually appears pretty reliable, see in particular NY Times: "The site has become a reliable source for the mainstream media".[19] However, the big caveat is that the kind of material they publish, and their salacious commentary on it, is likely to run into WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and/or WP:BLP issues. I think User:Badger Drink summed it up well: "If something notable and encyclopedic is covered by TMZ, chances are it will also be covered by several other news outlets which are superior to TMZ" and "If something is only covered by TMZ - with no alternate sourcing options - the overwhelming odds are that it is [..] completely non-notable".
- In some ways TMZ might be better treated as a primary source, as the facts per se that they report seem to be quite reliable, but any analysis or commentary from TMZ is in the vast majority of cases unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Their paparazzi videos in particular I think should be seen as primary sources, not to mention the privacy/BLP concerns they raise. Siawase (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Forum postings
I am working on an article about a film (Gulaal) and some of the information is sourced to some forum postings that the director of the film made in response to fan questions. Is this a reliable source? Since it's on a blogging site and the director is the one posting the information I'm thinking it would fall under WP:SELFPUB, but I'm not sure. Copana2002 (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at their about page of the passion for cinema blog site[20] (and assuming it's accurate) it seems quite a few movie industry people are on the site, so it seems likely that the user is indeed the director. But I can't find any mention that the site actually verifies the identities of the users, so another reliable source identifying him as such would be better. If the user can be assumed to be the director, it should be fine to treat his blog entries and comments like any other self published source. Siawase (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK thank you, Siawase. Copana2002 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Establishing notability of YouTube videos
The article for the German film Downfall has a section on the re-subtitled parodies that have been appearing on YouTube over the past year or so. Because there are literally hundreds of these, the article source contains the prominent notice: "Parodies may be noted here ONLY IF THEY HAVE BEEN COVERED BY INDEPENDENT AND RELIABLE SOURCES."
By reliable here I'm assuming "reliable for the purposes of establishing the video's notability" rather than factually reliable because there are no facts to check: the only question is whether the parody is notable. Only three such parodies have been kept in the article: they've been political in nature and were covered in the New York Times, the Globe and Mail and the Jerusalem Post.
I've removed a mention of a Star Trek parody video on the basis that the source provided — a few sentences and an embedded video near the bottom of this post on the blog "trekmovie.com" — is not a reliable indicator of the video's notability. It's a Wordpress blog which, from what I can gather, will post pretty much anything Star Trek-related; further up the same article is an embedded video showing how to make an Uhura dress for Halloween.
Another user has reverted my removal and it's turning into a game of ping-pong, so to quickly resolve it I'm asking for opinions here and will respect whatever the consensus turns out to be. 77.103.113.127 (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that trekmovie.com is just a glorified fan site. As far as I can tell, this 3-year-old site is doesn't have a clear editorial policy and the staff appear to be fans. I'm not even sure if they're writing in a professional capacity or of they do it on a volunteer basis.
- Relevant section of WP:RS:
- Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
- In order for this to even be considered an acceptable self-published source, one would first need to establish the credibility of the editorial team. Even then it might be acceptable in it's area of expertise, which would be Star Trek, not German films. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that blogs and YouTube are not reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Some blogs and some youtube videos are reliable, but in this case, only parodies mentioned in RSs should be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that blogs and YouTube are not reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Asking Jimbo his birthdate
A discussion at the Talk:Jimmy_Wales#.22Sources_differ_about_whether_he_was_born_on_August_7_or_8.2C_1966.22Jimbo Wales article raises the question of reliable sources for a subject's birth. I don't believe asking the subject makes sense when sources differ, but what if the subject did produce a birth certificate?
Scientific American (editorial) quote in RealClimate
Is the editorial content at:
- "Science & Technology Web Awards 2005". Scientific American Online. 3 October 2005.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)
reliable for any purpose other than the opinion of the Scientific American editors, hence inappropriate as included text? My apologies if another noticeboard is more appropriate, but the question seems to revolve around whether the text is reliable in context, rather than the question of WP:UNDUE weight for the quote.
Previous discussion thread at Talk:RealClimate#Scientific American (editorial) quote, and other preceding threads in that talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The opinion is relevant to the article, and Scientific American is a reliable source. Of course we want to mention in an article about a science web site what other reliable science publications think of the site. It's no different from including reviews by recognized book critics in an article about a book. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Or say, "In 2005, Scientific American named RealClimate one of the top 25 science and technology web sites." It's factually accurate and automatically has in-text attribution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- The attribution is already (and has been since at least Jan 1,2008): "In 2005, the editors of Scientific American recognized RealClimate with a Science and Technology Web Award, writing: ....". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Works for me. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looks fine. Didn't somebody recently try to remove this from the RealClimate article, or am I misremembering? --TS 14:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Another PhD question at Entrepreneurial Mindset
I'm not sure if I should be bringing this up here or at the OR board, but Entrepreneurial mindset relies heavily on an unpublished (I think) PhD by the main author of the article, Max Senges. There may be a COI issue here, especially as his name is even in one of the section headings. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- PhDs from reputable Universities are currently acceptable as RS. "Published" is a misnomer. Wikipedia's use of "published" means made available to the public. In academic circles, published can mean indexed, or published as a monograph. Australian PhDs, for example, are never "published" even if they're full text online. A monograph book related may be "published". If the source has been accepted as part of a PhD, and if it can be consulted by people (within reasonable limits, like physically being present at the Institutions library), and if the doctorate was awarded by a credible university, then the Thesis is an RS. There may be WEIGHT problems though, or UNDUE. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Having checked the claimed thesis (pdf format), and the website, single sourced, undue, delete cruft not substantiated with inline citations. Its a WEIGHT, UNDUE and single source issue. The source itself is unreliable as I can't find a claim that the PhD was accepted. If this "http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/TDX-0307108-140133/" indicates the thesis was accepted / degree awarded, then the thesis is as credible as Universitat Oberta de Catalunya is (which appears to be a credible university). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Reliable source for car related articles? I found that a user has been including links to the site. It seems of a fairly high quality and has some interesting information, so rather than simply removing them I have left them in as a potential source for future improvements that would see the article no longer have need for the EL. The question is though, would information from that site be admissible? Unomi (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did a WHOIS lookup of the site, and I don't feel it is reliable since the registrant lists a contact address linking to globalprofitgroup.com. ArcAngel (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Webcomic Reviews
I'd like to question the reliability of multiple sources pertaining largely to webcomics:
*Crush! Yiff! Destroy! - statistics for the site ranks it at #1,056,173 in terms of popularity.
- Master Zen Dao Meow Webcomic Book Club - this is essentially a forum. Reviews are user submitted. It's essentially like citing "some guy". This wouldn't fly in a review of a print comic.
- The Webcomic Overlook is a blog being cited in a small number of articles. Aside from being self-published, statistics for the site put it at 478 unique hits, total, indicating that it is not a popular or known website, certainly not popular enough to warrant its own article, much less to be used as a source. The majority of its uses are as external links, indicating that the author of the site has repeatedly added his own page to articles of comics he has reviewed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
- If C!Y!D! is a review site, then popularity isn't an indicator. Comparative review structure to relevant print media is. Your description of MZDWMBC is that it is not a reliable source as it lacks oversight prior to publication. TWO's self-published status is sufficient to mark it as not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that any of these sites are comparable to relevant printed criticism. From what I can tell, the author of TWO doesn't really read through the comics he reviews. The overtly negative reviews appear to have been written more to generate hits than anything; author is also belligerent towards criticism of his reviews. Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
- Actually, scratch C!Y!D! - I just noticed that it has some interviews with some known artists. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 08:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
- I don't think that any of these sites are comparable to relevant printed criticism. From what I can tell, the author of TWO doesn't really read through the comics he reviews. The overtly negative reviews appear to have been written more to generate hits than anything; author is also belligerent towards criticism of his reviews. Aside from the poor quality of the writing, neutrality issues and the fact that it's a blog, TWO links seem to have been frequently added as external links by the author. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC))
- If C!Y!D! is a review site, then popularity isn't an indicator. Comparative review structure to relevant print media is. Your description of MZDWMBC is that it is not a reliable source as it lacks oversight prior to publication. TWO's self-published status is sufficient to mark it as not a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Letter from the editor a valid external link?
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
This file is a letter from Fred Woodworth to the person that runs "The Classic Typewriter page." The letter is being used as an external link in Killian documents controversy. Is this a valid external link? Hipocrite (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Try asking this question on the WP:ELN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
There are quite a lot of references / citations on this page pointing to Railpage Australia forums. As far as I know, forums (and other self-published sources) are not counted as WP:RS except in extreme circumstances. Replacements to these sources would be highly appreciated. 120.155.108.74 (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Far right
Are the articles listed below reliable sources for including the Muslim Brotherhood in a list of Far right political parties, or are they only reliable as a source of their authors' opinions? The sources do not actually use the term far right to describe the Muslim Brotherhood.
- Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi and Al Qaeda by John Loftus
- The Nazi-Islamist Connection by Herbert Eiteneier
- The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam And the Extreme Right by George Michael[21]
- Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf
The Four Deuces (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please also note that the book published by George Michael does include extreme right and Militant Islam (which also include Muslim Brotherhood). Should these books and sites be included as source for the far right knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood does have influence from the nazi since WWII?--71.249.247.144 (talk) 12:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- The book by Michael claims that the far right and radical Islamics have cooperated not that radical Islamics were part of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- They would certainly be reliable to source an attributed comment as to the authors' opinions on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- But is it adequate to include the Muslim Brotherhood in the list of Alleged far right organizations, which basically lists neofascist and neonazi parties? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- According to the far right topic, extreme right has these attributes stemming from racial supremacist to religious extremist. religious extremist include jewish, christian, hindu and Muslim fanatics. To singled Islamist from far right association just because of one opinion is not wikipedia policy but personal opinion. According The Four Deuces this was base on minority or revisionist opinion because he/she can't accept the fact that islamist was influence by 20th century european fascist. Until now I haven't heard The Four Deuces provide the source of statistic that it came from minority or revisionist view from "reliable source". Now I'm not denying there are friction between modern days far right and Muslim group, however there are still Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist Groups that are sympathetic to Islamist group due to their common interest against United States Government,Israel and the west such as the Aryan Nation who called for cooperation with Al-qaeda. --yin and yang 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are also islamist group such as Hamas that adopt hitler salute [1]
- But is it adequate to include the Muslim Brotherhood in the list of Alleged far right organizations, which basically lists neofascist and neonazi parties? The Four Deuces (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- They would certainly be reliable to source an attributed comment as to the authors' opinions on the matter. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would seem to me that inclusion in the list is based on a simple criteria... are there reliable sources that label group X as being "far right". If yes, the group can be included in the list, if not, then it can not be included. So the question is... are their reliable sources that directly apply the term "far right" to Muslim Brotherhood (or any other Islamasist group)? (note: I am not talking about sources that say that such groups are influenced by the far right, or that various far right groups sympathize or cooperate with a given Islamasist groups... I am talking about sources that directly apply the term "far right" to the specific Islamasist group.) Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- One of the source that i found (which i have not include as a source on wikipedia) use the term "Right-Wing political islam" which also include muslim brotherhood in it.--yin and yang 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
- If Islamic fundamentalist cannot be included as far right just because some writer claimed far right only applied to european fascist why should "hindu nationalist" or jewish extremist be included since it was also a some writers opinion that claimed "hindu nationalist" and "jewish extremist" as far right.--yin and yang 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- One of the source that i found (which i have not include as a source on wikipedia) use the term "Right-Wing political islam" which also include muslim brotherhood in it.--yin and yang 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
- The book by Michael claims that the far right and radical Islamics have cooperated not that radical Islamics were part of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Radio Ga GA
Are radio inteviews RS, if you cannot actually hear what they say. For example <ref>The Adrian Goldberg Show, Talksport Radio (UK), 6 July 2009</ref>? From this source I cannot verify what he said.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is a good read if you have the chance. There are also lines throughout different guidelines and policies. WP:Access to sources addresses ease of verifying sources. Assume good faith, ask if a transcript is available, get a full citation (template optional) which will hopefully include a quote in this instance, search online (even if a page cannot be linked for whatever reason at least you can verify for yourself), and even go as far as contacting the station to see if they have archived material available on their website or mail.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources for drug articles
Is it acceptable for the article Mephedrone to use sites as Erowid and [[22]] as reliable sources? I think it is better to limit the information than to include uncertain information. Ulner (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has a lot of essays and guidance specific to drugs and medicine including specificly more tolerance of primary sources or things other than popular press. But, in any case, a source is reliable or not depending on what claim you want it to support. If you just say " Eropwid says blah[]" then you can presumce the source to speak accurately
for itself. But, you may not want to site it as proof of safety and efficacy for a given indicatio ( Even if you cite the FDA, I'd do so overtly, " leading the FDA to conclude that water is safe and effective for the treatment of dehydration when used as directed."). Probably the best sources are on pubmed ad I wold at least include a survery of these to make sure that you have captured a decent cross section of knowledge on whatever you want to prove from your putatitve source. Sure, you can find "Reliable" sources to say anything but then if there are different opinions, you want to get the prominence right. I would also mention even the guys in white coats get things backwards often, other guys in white coats usually correct it but only after people have died in misguided clinical trials. So, I woldn't take too militant of an attitude, see any of my comments on antioxidants which are militantlu advocated by many reliabile sources but not proven to be "good" in some contexts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Do you have any links to essays/guidance in this area? Ulner (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- wiki search only finds articles, this may help, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+reliable+medical+sources+primary&aq=f&aqi=&oq= However, never neglect fundamentals for a sanity check and consider the facts and intent of the article. Often, popular perceptions or myths may be encyclopedic merit etc. So, when you talk about drug articles it is likely that scientific results and peer reviewed work will be a large part of that but may not be the only source of relevant information. These comments come largely from a concern about "ivory tower science" when in fact all science has to be evaulated based on how well it describes dishwater(LB films for example) or urine(common fluid of medical relevance). Anecdotes, speculation, folk lore, while often dangerously wrong may be notable and generate leads for scientists stuck with confusing results and seized up by a fallacious belief that is too obvious to question etc. Anyway, as you gather there is a lot to consider here and anything you do will probably make someone upset so make a decision and see what feedback you get. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I would also point out from personal experience that which is probably already known but not consciously considered, it is hard to get people to do science instead of hype. So, I would make clear in an overall article both the science and anecdotes and myths and any related events that lead to better understanding. This is just my personal opinion after watching biotech for a while but even the mortgage and financials suffer from similar problems that just don't happen to invilve chemicals directly. FWIW. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- wiki search only finds articles, this may help, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+reliable+medical+sources+primary&aq=f&aqi=&oq= However, never neglect fundamentals for a sanity check and consider the facts and intent of the article. Often, popular perceptions or myths may be encyclopedic merit etc. So, when you talk about drug articles it is likely that scientific results and peer reviewed work will be a large part of that but may not be the only source of relevant information. These comments come largely from a concern about "ivory tower science" when in fact all science has to be evaulated based on how well it describes dishwater(LB films for example) or urine(common fluid of medical relevance). Anecdotes, speculation, folk lore, while often dangerously wrong may be notable and generate leads for scientists stuck with confusing results and seized up by a fallacious belief that is too obvious to question etc. Anyway, as you gather there is a lot to consider here and anything you do will probably make someone upset so make a decision and see what feedback you get. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Law & Order: Criminal Intent (Season 9)
I tried PROD tagging Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9) first, but the main editor removed the tag and someone else said it should be reported elsewhere. This page consists of largely WP:OR along with Twitter and Blog postings for references where there are any citations at all. Allowing this to go on it is ruining Wikipedia in my opinion, since it is very difficult to get any admins to help with it (in Admin defense, I know they are busy with vandals and malicious edits). Thank you for any help that can be provided here. Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the article in question is Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, AQFK. I had a problem with an uppercase letter. And thanks for not biting a rank tyro (been here awhile - admit to not knowing everything!) T. TristaBella (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Article is now at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 9). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, AQFK. I had a problem with an uppercase letter. And thanks for not biting a rank tyro (been here awhile - admit to not knowing everything!) T. TristaBella (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Family foundation School article
Please review the new addition to the Program section of the following article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Foundation_School It is being discussed on the talk page whether the blog posting from the owner of the facility on their child website of their main page can be considered a reliable source. the blog is straight from the leadership team (including owners and administrators) who post responses to the recent controversy surrounding their facility. I think the blog and its contents are extremely relevant to the article and believe that the blog site can be considered a reliable source since it is directly owned and operated by the Family Foundation School administration.
- Thanks in advance for your reviewing this. Flyboi9 (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please provide the source you propose to add to the article as a wp:RS.
- I think you are referring to this source, but I am uncertain.
- Further, you have introduced this into the article, though it appears to be unrelated to the subject (no mention of the school). I have removed it (wp:SYNTH), but restored it based on the possibility of input from more knowledgeable editors. You might seek support for that here, but I am very unsure this is the right forum. Since people who watch this board are likely to be interested in sources, one or more might be able to help- Sinneed 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
There is an EL that I had opposed, www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com. It is a strongly anti-school self-published site, and it appears to be claimed as written by one of the editors ( article suffers from possible wp:COI issues on both pro- and anti- school sides ). The EL was warred into the article and I am not removing it again at this time, but I still firmly oppose its inclusion, as I think it fails wp:EL for this article.- Sinneed 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hah, I did not even realize there WAS a Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. The EL question probably belongs there.- Sinneed 17:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- The external link needs to be on the article. Since its inclusion is not in the article, and many editors do not consider it a reliable source (yet) for reference, it should be included in the EL. It is an important part of the article, just like the suicide EL that was fought hard to keep out of the article. In the end, fighting an anti-school site's inclusion in the article is not keeping the article neutral. It needs to and should be included in the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, many MANY anti-everything sites are excluded from articles. Just because a site hates X does not mean it needs to be mentioned in the article on X.- Sinneed 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have dropped the part not related to FFS.
- The site's comments that were specific to it in the article, I remain dubious of using. It is presented as a blog, being used to provide pure opinion about a business, and would not add it.- Sinneed 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The external link needs to be on the article. Since its inclusion is not in the article, and many editors do not consider it a reliable source (yet) for reference, it should be included in the EL. It is an important part of the article, just like the suicide EL that was fought hard to keep out of the article. In the end, fighting an anti-school site's inclusion in the article is not keeping the article neutral. It needs to and should be included in the article. Flyboi9 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The website that SINEED is speaking about is www.TheFamilySchoolTRUTH.com and should be considered a reliable source for this article. There is evidence posted on the website to back up the claims that it says and the website is already spoken about in a published newspaper article and on the CAFETY website which means these two organizations consider the website reliable and so should WIKI Flyboi9 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Several questions regarding sources used at Twisted Scriptures
I should state upfront that I have doubts that Twisted Scriptures passes WP:BK. It certainly fails points 2-5, and I'm doubtful about #1. Taking a look at the sources used in the entry have brought forth several concerns I would appreciate additional input on.
- Is it problematic to use blurbs or reviews posted on Amazon.com, by Amazon (as a marketing tool to sell books) as evidence of the "reception" of a book? The entry creator is arguing that Midwest Bookreview is open about the fact that their "reviews are also available through Internet bookstores such as Amazon.com" (from website). If Midwest Bookreview is a notable publication, and if the independently published review is cited I would not be asking this question, but the issue is that Amazon.com is being linked instead, and their use of this material is, in my mind, equivalent to cherry picked quotes used by publishers on back covers. After all they are just trying to sell the book.
- If someone wants to use information from a footnote of a book or journal article how should this be done? See just below for the text in question. The problem here is that the journal author being cited does not ever mention Chrnalogar or her book (Twisted Scriptures) in the body of her article, but uses it, along with another author to exemplify a point in a footnote. The quoted text below is from the footnote. I find using footnote text like this dubious in general, but if it is allowable doesn't it need to be qualified heavily? When I read this I expect that Wong is discussing the book directly. Indeed it adds a lot of credibility to the notability argument -- but alas its just an example used in a footnote.
- Chrnalogar points out that mind control does not need to occur only with sever tactics, writing: "All that's needed is an environment where the information can be controlled, and more importantly, the way people perceive that information."[2] She cites mind control characteristics identified by Robert Jay Lifton, and asserts that only six of his "psychological themes" are required in order to manipulate followers in a cult.[2]
- Does anyone know what What Magazine is? Since it is being used as a primary source for the "reception" of the book I'm not entirely sure that "reliability" is the issue, but notability certainly is. Should reception criticism published in non-notable sources by non-notable authors be used to establish notability? Especially if there is no indication that the publication or the author of the criticism have any expertise in the relevant fields?
Thank you for your comments. Another set of eyes on this entry in general would be appreciated because, like I said, I do not believe it meets WP:BK but this is only evident when one digs deeper into the sources and how they are used.PelleSmith (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Discussion of Question 3
- What? seems to be a self-published site.- Sinneed 17:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure that is the same What Magazine. This one is indexed by findarticles, highbeam research, and Infotrac. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I should have noted that I came across that online mag but it appears to be a different publication. Besides Highbeam's indexing I've found zilch on this publication. The fact that Highbeam indexes it is of little value as well since they are a for profit business.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm but findarticles links to www.whatmagnet.com which is dead and for sale (warning links to an advertisement-to-sell-the-site).
- Appears to be "What! Magazine" published by "http://www.gale.cengage.com/about/" - looking at the copyright at Highbeam.- Sinneed 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I should have noted that I came across that online mag but it appears to be a different publication. Besides Highbeam's indexing I've found zilch on this publication. The fact that Highbeam indexes it is of little value as well since they are a for profit business.PelleSmith (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure that is the same What Magazine. This one is indexed by findarticles, highbeam research, and Infotrac. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
:I see this article which mentions the book and the author. Most of the other refs I see through google for the book are "author speaking at" types of things.- Sinneed 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Anglo-Celtic.org
Please advise if the site Anglo-Celtic.org.uk here can be considered a reliable source - in general, and specifically for the inclusion of 'parts of England' in the sentence "Limitation to these six is sometimes disputed by people from Asturias, parts of England, and Galicia – territories that have also retained some Celtic cultural traits." in the second paragraph of the introduction on Celtic nations. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Since there is no indication at all on the site who writes it or maintains it, it's impossible to assess their reliability, therefore I would say it cannot be treated as a RS. Barnabypage (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. There's no way to assess the reliability of the site. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, that's fine. Thanks for your time and consideration, Daicaregos (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. There's no way to assess the reliability of the site. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
British national party
I objected to this addition , well to the citations actually..are these wikipedia reliable....
In an audio message Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a “Zionist false flag operation” and added that “This is a neo-con operation.”. They went on the say that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war. [23] [24]
Ones a blog and the daily star, well, it shouldn't be considered a reliable source for anything excepts titillating tabloid commentary....the star article if you can call it that, starts with the neutral .....
BONKERS Nick Griffin has decided who is behind all his troubles – this newspaper. The blundering BNP leader bla bla....
Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Blog is Simon Darby's own blog, I think he may be a notable expert on what he says. As to the star, as far as I am aware it is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by involved user The Star is an RS for the purposes of citing a direct quote from a politician. The blog of the Deputy Leader of a political party is an RS for the purposes of citing direct quotes made on behalf of that party. --FormerIP (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion regarding the possible insertion of the comment and the citations can be found here . Off2riorob (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The key here is to phrase what is being discussed in terms of being the opinion of Nick Griffin and Simon Darby, and not phrasing it as being accepted fact. Whether their opinions are noteworthy enough to mention in a specific article depends on who these men are and the topic of the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well Mr Griffin is is leader and Mr Darby it deputy Leader of the BNP! it safe to say their views are notable on this subject (the BNP!). Well its the section mof teh BNP article that discuses links between tehr BNP and the EDL.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Still looking for some more comment regarding these two [25] [26] citations. Are these two citations the really type of thing that we as writers of an encyclopedia should be linking to in order to support our content? Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone specify what statement these two sources are intended to serve as citation for ? Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- At present the BNP article says: In an audio message Nick Griffin and Simon Darby claimed that the EDL was a “Zionist false flag operation” and added that “This is a neo-con operation.”. They went on the say that this was an attempt to provoke a low level civil war. --FormerIP (talk) 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- So Mr Darbey's Blog is Being used to souurce Mr Darbey's views.14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is this... (apparently) the EDL (English Defence League) is alledged to be tied to the BNP (as a "front" organization)... and the quoted material was Griffin's and Darbey's response to this allegation. In this context, I think we have to say that the sources are reliable self-published sources. The alternative is to not mention the allegation about the EDL (in which case there is no need to include their response). Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- See [[27]]. If its removed from one page it woould have to be removed from both.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is this... (apparently) the EDL (English Defence League) is alledged to be tied to the BNP (as a "front" organization)... and the quoted material was Griffin's and Darbey's response to this allegation. In this context, I think we have to say that the sources are reliable self-published sources. The alternative is to not mention the allegation about the EDL (in which case there is no need to include their response). Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- So Mr Darbey's Blog is Being used to souurce Mr Darbey's views.14:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Daily Star article does support the statement cited by FormerIP, and since we have the exact audio, there are no WP:REDFLAG concerns here, which would have made us deprecate a "tabloid". I don't know enough about the subject to comment on due weight. A few of minor corrections:
- Use "said" instead of "claim" (see WP:WTA);
- The statement about "low level civil war" precedes the statement about "Zionist false flag operation" in the audio, so we shouldn't say that "they went on to say". Can simply say, They also said ..."
- Shouldn't the statements be attributed to Griffin alone ? Can say something like, "Ina recorded conversation with Darby ..."
- These are minor issues that don't affect the substance of the content, but we should get it right anyway. Abecedare (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The Daily star does attribute the comments to both men.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- This Daily Star article (rightly) attributes the comments to Griffin alone and doesn't even mention Darby. Am I missing something here ? Abecedare (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Opps sorry. This was origional found on the Hopenothate site, which does use the Griffin/Darby line. when it was inserted that was gopouing to be the source. Anyway the page was changed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Daily Star article does support the statement cited by FormerIP, and since we have the exact audio, there are no WP:REDFLAG concerns here, which would have made us deprecate a "tabloid". I don't know enough about the subject to comment on due weight. A few of minor corrections:
Use of journal articles as sources for MigrationWatch UK article
An editor is arguing at Talk:MigrationWatch UK that an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal should not be used as a source since members of the public don't have free access to it. It would be good to get a third-party perspective since it's just a discussion between the two of us at the moment. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- See wp:PAYWALL. LeadSongDog come howl 18:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've quoted this on the article's talk page. It would be helpful if someone would back me up there as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would probably be better practice for you to put a note on the talk page with a link to this discussion. It's quite clear-cut. Having to pay for downloading a journal article is in the same category as having to buy a book. Neither are a barrier to verifiability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK, will do. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would probably be better practice for you to put a note on the talk page with a link to this discussion. It's quite clear-cut. Having to pay for downloading a journal article is in the same category as having to buy a book. Neither are a barrier to verifiability. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I've quoted this on the article's talk page. It would be helpful if someone would back me up there as well. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Media Matters for America, Huffington Post, and NewsHounds
Are any of these sources indicators of WP:DUE by themselves? I know this has been brought up many times on the page but I can't seem to get a definitive answer and it keeps coming up. I am of the opinion that they're good for fact-checking but need something like the NYT, Washington Post, or LA times to substantiate their weight. After all, MMFA was created counter conservative bias and are thus going to go after the same targets (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News, Republicans, anyone who uses the right turn signal too much, etc.) while HP and Newshounds are primarily blogs. Soxwon (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is any of their news false or outright lies? How are they less a news source then what you want to use?
- For those reading Soxwon is only asking as he is one of the right wing editors here that keeps removing anything negative about Rush, Fox, etc… and these sources have printed true stories against his POV. He wants to be able to remove things that are backed up by them. Look at his edits and it’s pretty clear. His pretext that he is trying to work things out is false and his agenda should not be supported. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm such a biased editor, that's why I asked Blaxthos to comment on this before anyone else. I ask that you refrain from making personal attacks and instead actually contribute to the discussion. Can you back up your claim that I wish to use equally biased material as sources? Can you point to where I said that what they printed was false? I have simply stated that they represent very partisan viewpoints and don't necessarily warrant coverage unless they are commenting on something that has already been established as notable. Soxwon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did contribute by pointing out you have not shown any false and/or lies that would show these sources as bad. The only thing you have done is show they do not support your POV and you don't like it when they point out bad things from your biased POV. These sources are good and meet the reliabile requirments by even Wiki's standards. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, I never said they were factually inaccurate, merely that they perhaps blew incidents out of proportion that received little attention from MSM publications. I could easily have included Free Republic and World Net Daily into this but they aren't the sources being discussed at the moment. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did contribute by pointing out you have not shown any false and/or lies that would show these sources as bad. The only thing you have done is show they do not support your POV and you don't like it when they point out bad things from your biased POV. These sources are good and meet the reliabile requirments by even Wiki's standards. --Marlin1975 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm such a biased editor, that's why I asked Blaxthos to comment on this before anyone else. I ask that you refrain from making personal attacks and instead actually contribute to the discussion. Can you back up your claim that I wish to use equally biased material as sources? Can you point to where I said that what they printed was false? I have simply stated that they represent very partisan viewpoints and don't necessarily warrant coverage unless they are commenting on something that has already been established as notable. Soxwon (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there is a definitive answer here. I think it certain cases they might be reliable, others not so much. If they're being used in criticism sections, I likely think they are okay, since they are staffed by valid and well known political commentators. AniMate 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't fully understand the question here... WP:UNDUE is a content policy with the intent that specific cited information is given the proper weight - a source in-and-of-itself can't be evaluated under WP:UNDUE; the policy, as I understand it, is only applicable to specific issues. Perhaps the question is better presented as Do MMFA/FIAR/whatever qualify as reliable sources? For those answers, each source listed needs to be evaluated individually. FAIR, MMFA, and Huffington Post are all widely cited by a plethora of third party sources (especially the mainstream media)... I personally don't think NewsHounds qualifies in most circumstances, but the other three certainly do with regards to media accuracy and criticism. Lately there has been a large push by editors who seem to ideologically disagree with those sources to exclude them using various rationales, the most common being a claim of "biased source", which indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. RS require sources to have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy", NPOV requires that Wikipedia presents the issue neutrally (not that the source itself be neutral), and UNDUE requires that the source be presented with due weight. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that AniMate's answer will have to do. Each source will have to be judged on an individual basis. Blaxthos, what I am referring to is that do HP, FAIR, and MMFA, by themselves, qualify as Op-ed pieces on issues that may or may not warrant coverage, or are they on more of a level of say the NYT, WP, or USA Today. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for clarifying. Singular criticism in any one of those sources I mentioned isn't prima facie evidence that the relevant incident is inherently significant... so to answer your question directly, no I don't believe that "just because MMFA published a criticism, that criticism qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia." However, in most cases their criticisms are either republished or referenced by other reliable sources, or that criticism is raised separately by other organizations (for example, MMFA and FAIR and HuffPost often seem to all criticize the same things). Both of those circumstances would generally indicate sufficient weight. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that AniMate's answer will have to do. Each source will have to be judged on an individual basis. Blaxthos, what I am referring to is that do HP, FAIR, and MMFA, by themselves, qualify as Op-ed pieces on issues that may or may not warrant coverage, or are they on more of a level of say the NYT, WP, or USA Today. Soxwon (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Material which is editorial in nature is RS only as to the fact that the source has an opinion. This includes most of HuffPo and similar sites. Where a factual claim is made within an editorial, best practice is to find a non-editorial source for the fact. In most cases, HuffPo provides proper links for citing facts - but where they do not, it is not proper to give HuffPo as the source. Collect (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
All of those media outlets can be cited if their work is sourced and they have proof of their statements. There should be caution when pulling the opinions from partisan organizations, but there is absolutely no reason not to use any of those organizations as reliable sources if their material is true. DD2K (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's not remotely the case. This relates to their use in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, an article on which the Wikipedia:Biographies of living people policy applies. WP:BLP#Self-published sources is clear on this point: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject". -- ChrisO (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would not call the Huffington Post "self-published" (except possibly for material that is actually written by Ariana Huffington herself)... we have long understood that there is a difference between a personal blog and award winning news commentary sites that publish in "blog format". Yes, the material there is political commentary, and so should be presented as being "opinion" and not "fact"... but it is reliable when used as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- (after ec) It's quite possible that an individual article on the Huffpost would be reliable -- say, a sober, neutrally written piece on an uncontroversial topic, written by an expert. But most are opinion pieces, scandal, breaking news, gossip, etc. In addition to the liberal bias, another problem (I think - I may be wrong) is that they don't do any fact checking or editorial oversight on their articles. It's basically user-submitted content, with some very high profile users. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- (before ec) I agree with Soxwon and to some extent ChrisO on this. Even if it weren't a BLP, blogs... and most reliable sources for that matter... don't bootstrap themselves above the threshold below which WP:UNDUE says they aren't noteworthy enough to mention at all. To make an extreme example of it, suppose the North Grand Rapids Chess Club Beacon reports that President Obama is a lousy chess player. Yes, for purposes of verifiability we can look to the publication itself to back up the statement "Several local papers, including the NGRCC Beacon, reported that Obama was no good at chess". But looking directly at the source does not lend any weight to the statement. On the other hand, if the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Economist, and Le Monde all said that "several local newspapers, including the NGRCC Beacon, made negative comments about Obama's chess playing", then that gives it some weight. That's without the BLP layer of analysis, just the sourcing part of things. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would not call the Huffington Post "self-published" (except possibly for material that is actually written by Ariana Huffington herself)... we have long understood that there is a difference between a personal blog and award winning news commentary sites that publish in "blog format". Yes, the material there is political commentary, and so should be presented as being "opinion" and not "fact"... but it is reliable when used as such. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't agree with that and believe it's a misreading of that policy. The Huffington Post is not 'self-published' and hire journalist to write, edit and fact-check much of their work that is published. Most definitely The Atlantic can't remotely be considered any of those on the prohibited list for WP:BLP. As for the Huffington Post, like I wrote, it depends on what's being reported. Without one of the staff at that establishment there would never have been any 'bitter-gate' controversy. Since it was Mayhill Fowler who not only broke the story, but provided the audio. Are we suipposed to ignore obvious credible information coming from a news outlet because some people don't like that outlet?
- Media Matters for America was founded by journalist David Brock, and Eric Burns is the President of the organization. MMFA also has a large staff of researchers and fact checkers, whom are very respected professionals. If one looks up the definition of the prohibited sources, none of these meet the criteria and I think there is a misreading of the rules here. For example, Zines doesn't mean that you can't cite any Magazines. The definition is there for anyone to read. You can't rule out citing Time Magazine when it obviously does not fit the definition. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
General comment. I'm not sure about the others because they don't come up that often here, but the HP is a reliable source, even for BLPs. They're not the tops for controversial BLP stuff, but they are quite good. Maybe the same for the other two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that's always the case, I've read things coming out of there that sound like they were written by someone for the Democrat Underground. Their editorial review, while good, still isn't as good as say a more mainstream publication. Soxwon (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- More mainstream like Fox News? As I've noted elsewhere, your continued assertion that Huffington Post is some sort of edge view is not supported by the evidence. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is rather ridiculous to claim that Huffington Post is not mainstream. [28]. Dlabtot (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist
There is a discussion regarding the spam blacklist and the reliability of sources here.--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Guidestar.org
At Kripalu Center, a very great deal of information, including some information about living persons, is being pulled from [guidestar.org].
Looking through the press, there seems to be a great deal of credibility placed in the information there, and I am leaving the BLP information (positions of employment, money) in the article on the assumption that this is a strong enough source to carry it. If there is any concern, I would love to know. - Sinneed 21:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only citations to Guidestar.org appear to be returns that the center itself filed with the Internal Revenue Service, which would then have been supplied to Guidestar by the IRS. (Nonprofit organizations' returns are open to public inspection under U.S. law, and Guidestar posts substantially all of them.) The names, titles, and compensation of the top officers of a nonprofit organization are required to be disclosed in those returns. As long as the Wikipedia article accurately reports the information included in the return, I don't see a WP:BLP problem. The only way I could imagine such a problem arising would be if the nonprofit organization submitted a return to the IRS containing inaccurate information about its own officers, directors, etc. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements
On the topic on global climate change, I would like to cite a report conducted by two climate scientists currently providing input for UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, namely Shaopeng Huang and Henry N. Pollack.
The report can be found all over the web (at least 98 hits when using Google’s search engine (source)), however I am not sure if it has been cited before. The report in its shortest form can be accessed for free in the following link:
Since I am not totally sure about what standards are required in order for a source to be deemed reliable, I would appreciate any input on this topic regarding the climate report above. Wejer (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?... if so, it definitely needs to be discussed... so, I would call it reliable for attributed statements as to what the report says ... but WP:NPOV would require that these statements be ballanced by criticism. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?" - I did not intend to cite the report for the purpose of the climategate-controversy. However if it is used for that purpose, I agree that added precautions are valid. Wejer (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can we assume that this report is part and parcel of the whole "climate-gate" controversy?... if so, it definitely needs to be discussed... so, I would call it reliable for attributed statements as to what the report says ... but WP:NPOV would require that these statements be ballanced by criticism. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It would be usual to add the ref to an article, or discuss it on an article tlak page *first*: that way, you'll get the opinion of knowlegeable editors. I don't think you've done that (I'd expect to have noticed). If this is related to [29] or [30] then I wouldn't be surprised if it was controversial; it would depend on what wording you'd want to wrap around it. It might well be helpful to indicate where you ran across this William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- "It would be usual to add the ref to an article, or discuss it on an article tlak page *first*: that way, you'll get the opinion of knowlegeable editors." - I discussed the topic privately with some of my friends. I showed them the article, asked for their opinions, but they said they were not sure and asked me to post it here for input from the community. Essentially, I am looking for a definite answer either way concerning if the article is reliable or not. Wejer (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Peer-reviewed article by established scientists. Published in Geophysical Research Letters. Hence "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. " Collect (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- (editconflict) I think the problem is that it is quite out of date now. Moreover, it seems to be reporting results of preliminary investigations. Later papers by the same authors should be preferred. And in science articles, journal papers may be regarded as primary, this one would be particularly likely to fall into that category since it is a "letter", albeit a peer-reviewed one. If there are meta-analyses or overviews that include this paper then that is a point in its favour; the contrary is also true, in that if there are meta-analyses that omit it, its status as RS in this encyclopedia will also be jeopardised. In summary: be guided by how the paper has been discussed since it was published. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- In many controversies, a timeline orchronology would not be unencyclopedic. So, if you have a tentative or even "unreliable" result ( say the Pons and Fleischman news conference announcing the discovery of cold fusion), it may be reliable for some claim but not a conflusive scientific result. A letter that was cited in legislation for example may have some significance to the article, you really need to examine context here. Undue weight and prominence relate to coverage, this may not follow scientific merit too well. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Letters" are considered as peer-reviewed in many sciences. The usual usage has more to do with length than anything else. The Physical Review Letters is just as authoritative as Physical Review, for example. The decision as to which journal an article is published in has nothing to do with "preliminary" or the like. This article specifically is on a 20,000 year scale, which suggests that it makes no comment regarding anthropenic GW at all. The article states the dataset used, and has not been superceded by any article based on those data (as far as I can find in a careful search). Again "Letter" is used in scientific journals in a far different manner than you seem to imply. As for being "primary" this sort of article is regarded in WP:RS as the best possible level of source. Collect (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I should have probably checked what the OP meant but PRL, letter to Nature, letter to editor, scarlet letter, etc, could be anything. The comment was about a result being teantative and likely to have been superseced by something more current. Assuming that was true of the pub in question, I just thought it more relevant to consider ways a seminal or controversial paper may be included without being the latest and greatest opus magnum. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Letters" are considered as peer-reviewed in many sciences. The usual usage has more to do with length than anything else. The Physical Review Letters is just as authoritative as Physical Review, for example. The decision as to which journal an article is published in has nothing to do with "preliminary" or the like. This article specifically is on a 20,000 year scale, which suggests that it makes no comment regarding anthropenic GW at all. The article states the dataset used, and has not been superceded by any article based on those data (as far as I can find in a careful search). Again "Letter" is used in scientific journals in a far different manner than you seem to imply. As for being "primary" this sort of article is regarded in WP:RS as the best possible level of source. Collect (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
What article do you want to use this is? It can't be global climate change because that is a redirect. Are you aiming for CC or GW? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not wish to forcefully exclude the use of the report when it comes to one article but not to the other. Possibly, it could be useful in both instances. However, since I am not a qualified climate scientist myself, I much prefer input from others on this topic. Wejer (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with those who have expressed reservations on the following grounds:
- it's published in a letters journal
- it's ancient history and there should by now be plenty of better research that should be cited in preference.
The briefness and preliminary nature of a research letter is good because it gets high impact results out quickly, but it isn't the kind of thing we would want to rely on. Moreover if it's an isolated paper the fact that it's a primary source is material--are there review papers looking at this field and synthesizing the results of a range of papers? Again, we should be looking for such material, especially after 12 years have elapsed. --TS 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is true that I have not linked to the whole report and that it is only a letter. However, I am not sure how to get acces to the full report (if it exists) - such data is often restricted to climate scientists only. And on the comment of the source's age, I must confess that I haven't found any abundance of reports showing temperature records over the last 20.000 years, which also feature such an extensive data of boreholes ("more than six thousand continental heat flow measurements"). Wejer (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- This seems like a case where you or someone needs to do some more trawling through the scientific papers to find out where this research thread has led to in the last 10 years. On my reading, the letter was intended to make other scientists aware that this kind of research was going on, which is why the authors say they did not find any results that contradicted what was known from other methods. We would expect one of two things to follow: either the method was found to be valuable and further papers ensued (from the original authors and others), or it was not particularly valuable and interest simply petered out. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
(out) "Letters journal" is not a problem -- the only difference between Physical Review and Pysics Review Letters is exactly thr length of the article. The requirements for peer review and for content are exactly the same. The article is not a "letter" in any usual sense of the word - it is a scholarly article under four pages of dense text on a large page. It is misleading and inaccurate to distinguish between the two journals. Collect (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, it's peer reviewed. But it's brief and really should, by now, have led to more substantial follow-ups. --TS 19:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't speak to climatology, but on medical articles, situations like this were a major impetus for drafting WP:MEDRS. Individual peer-reviewed publications are "reliable", but they need to be used carefully since they can easily be cherry-picked or cited selectively. We had recurring problems with people highlighting and emphasizing one or two peer-reviewed papers to "rebut" a well-established scientific expert opinion. "Reliability" of individual papers isn't really the operative issue - it's more one of WP:WEIGHT. One could easily create an article on HIV citing only peer-reviewed, "reliable" sources which would leave the reader with the impression that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS - but that would be a travesty for a site that aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work.
Rather than "is this paper a reliable source", a better question to ask is: how have experts in the field synthesized this sort of literature? If the findings of this paper have had an appreciable impact on the opinion of reputable scientific expert bodies, then that should be relatively easy to demonstrate. However, the paper should not be juxtaposed to "rebut" or counter established expert opinion, because that would be an editorial insertion of undue weight. MastCell Talk 20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to explain. And Tony Sidaway is right about the Letters publication. This is an academic, peer-reviewed paper, but whether and how it should be used must be decided in the context of papers that may have gone before and papers that came after. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I can determine, this is the only definitive study of this data set. It makes no claims at all as to causes of any climate change, and really should be quite uncontroversial indeed. Very few such studies get redone by others as the data should be unambiguous. Collect (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um... looking at the Google search results
youWejer posted, this paper seems to be a particular favorite citation on "skeptical" blogs. Which, in turn, makes me skeptical about the uses to which the paper will be put on Wikipedia. Bloggers are, of course, free to mine and arrange the literature any way they see fit, but our usage on Wikipedia needs to defer to expert synthesis of the published literature - that's all I was getting at. MastCell Talk 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Um... looking at the Google search results
- As far as I can determine, this is the only definitive study of this data set. It makes no claims at all as to causes of any climate change, and really should be quite uncontroversial indeed. Very few such studies get redone by others as the data should be unambiguous. Collect (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to explain. And Tony Sidaway is right about the Letters publication. This is an academic, peer-reviewed paper, but whether and how it should be used must be decided in the context of papers that may have gone before and papers that came after. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't speak to climatology, but on medical articles, situations like this were a major impetus for drafting WP:MEDRS. Individual peer-reviewed publications are "reliable", but they need to be used carefully since they can easily be cherry-picked or cited selectively. We had recurring problems with people highlighting and emphasizing one or two peer-reviewed papers to "rebut" a well-established scientific expert opinion. "Reliability" of individual papers isn't really the operative issue - it's more one of WP:WEIGHT. One could easily create an article on HIV citing only peer-reviewed, "reliable" sources which would leave the reader with the impression that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS - but that would be a travesty for a site that aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work.
- Results I posted? To what do you refer? WP:RS esteems scholarly articles from peer-reviewed major journals as RS of the first water. This article makes no claims about any causes of climate change, and can not be used to make any claims about it. Indeed, I find it singularly unadaptable to claims about causes of anything at all. It stands as RS on its own -- just like any other scholarly article in a scientific field. Collect (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're mistaken because in science articles scholarly papers do not "stand on their own". I learnt that the hard way through participation in the cold fusion debates, see the multiple archives. And MastCell knows it through editing hundreds, perhaps thousands of medicine-related articles. In science a single paper is in general to be regarded as primary. Would be interested to read further comments from those who edit science articles a lot. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Results I posted? To what do you refer? WP:RS esteems scholarly articles from peer-reviewed major journals as RS of the first water. This article makes no claims about any causes of climate change, and can not be used to make any claims about it. Indeed, I find it singularly unadaptable to claims about causes of anything at all. It stands as RS on its own -- just like any other scholarly article in a scientific field. Collect (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm you say that "this is the only definitive study of this data set." - but that is incorrect.. whats wrong with these rather newer papers[31]?
- Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1126/science.282.5387.279, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi= 10.1126/science.282.5387.279
instead. - Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1038/35001556 , please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi= 10.1038/35001556
instead. - Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1029/2008GL034187 , please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi= 10.1029/2008GL034187
instead.
- Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi: 10.1126/science.282.5387.279, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
- As far as i can remember, the only thing that distinguishes that particular paper (the one Wejer wants) is that it does some extrapolation further into the past, that all later papers (by the same authors with the same datasets) have dropped. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
(out( The 2008 paper points out that the 500 year report used a smaller set of data than did the 20,000 year study. It also maintains the HPS97 data and graph of temperature in Figure 1. It does not in any way contradict or reinterpret the 97 data, hence I do not regard it as being anything more than expository of fitting measured temperatures onto the graph. Or did you miss Figure 1? Collect (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- And did you miss what they say about the MWP and misuse (by Deming)? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- And why are you ignoring fig. 2 - and the text about it:
- The reconstructed peak temperatures in the MWP appear comparable to the AD 1961–1990 mean reference level, with the bold mid-range curve slightly below. None of the reconstructions show MWP peak temperatures as high as late 20th century temperatures, consistent with the conclusions of both National Research Council [2006] and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [2007] about the warmth of the MWP. The LIA temperature minimum shows an amplitude about 1.2 K below the MWP maximum, and about 1.7 K below present-day temperatures.
- --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Medieval Warm Period
It was painfully obvious that Wejer was fishing for some text here so that he could push his POV off in some article. He was rather shy of saying where, but the answer turns out to be Medieval Warm Period. His text there is grossly POV [32] and has been removed, of course. Wejer has quoted Collects comment of 22:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC) above; but oddly enough none of the other feedback he received William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- "grossly POV"? I simply quoted from their publication. I figured that since I received enough positive feed-back, I saw that as a go-ahead. Also, your accusation that the quotation is orginal research is totally unfounded - I cannot see how any rational individual came to such a conclusion, when I obvisouly have provided a legitimate peer-reviewed source. Wejer (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Specifically, this was the quotation I used:
”(…) A warming followed [in medieval times], yielding temperatures that averaged 0.1-0.5 K above present in the interval 500-1,000 years ago. From the peak of this warm period some 700-800 years ago, the temperature declined until about 200 years ago, reaching a minimum of about 0.2-0.7 K below present-day, at which time a warming commenced that continues to the present.”[3]
- Given the speed at which the science has been advancing, a primary source from 1997 should not be given anywhere close to equivalent weight to a study published in Science in 2009. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't agree that you got enough "positive feedback" here to allow you to add a point based on this source to an article. Right from the start I advised you that this was an old paper and that you should see how its findings had been treated in the intervening 10 years. Others repeated that advice, and we were willing to take the time to explain it all to you in detail. And not telling us where you wanted to use it - what was all that about then? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wejer is being fundamentally dishonest. He did not simply quote; his addition begins This contradicts an earlier study, conducted by IPCC climate scientists... [33]. I really don't know why he is bothering, because this is so obviously not going to work. Can we just close off this discussion now? We're all agreed that the source is, in and of itself, reliable: it is a bona-fide published scientific paper. We're all also agree that does not of itself entitle it to appear in a given article; whether it does or not depends on other issues - more recent research -that is best discussed in the context of the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't agree that you got enough "positive feedback" here to allow you to add a point based on this source to an article. Right from the start I advised you that this was an old paper and that you should see how its findings had been treated in the intervening 10 years. Others repeated that advice, and we were willing to take the time to explain it all to you in detail. And not telling us where you wanted to use it - what was all that about then? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Given the speed at which the science has been advancing, a primary source from 1997 should not be given anywhere close to equivalent weight to a study published in Science in 2009. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you have still ignored the 2008 paper by HS&P - specifically you are (still) ignoring this in the abstract (emph. mine):
- Below we describe their respective datasets, and show why the results of HPS97 cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th century. We then proceed to integrate the two datasets into a new reconstruction, one based on the combination of the climate information carried by the independent data sources of these two previous studies, as well as the 20th century instrumental record
- Can you explain why? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- And you have still ignored the 2008 paper by HS&P - specifically you are (still) ignoring this in the abstract (emph. mine):
- As the first paper made no claims about causes of global warming, it should be considered a nice neutral source. There was no change made to the findings of the first study - indeed they affirmed the first study for the 20,000 year period. Nor has anyone published an article on the 20,000 year timeframe which shows that the graphs provided are wrong or incorrectly found from the data. The quibble appears to be "but some people are reaching conclusions about anthropogenic global warming not directly drawn from the article" or thereabouts. In short -- the article is clearly conceded to be RS, the quibble is how the article is to be used -- which is not really an issue for RS/N. Collect (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Publicintelligence.net
Is this [34] a reliable source, in particular for this confidential fax? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Domain is registerd in Cayman Islands - so we do not know who it is for sure. It does appear to get hold of some important documents if a US Army request for immediate reoval of a file means much. Collect (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- There may be different views out there, but IMO it is fine for reporting that a person is on the invite list (I'm making an assumption that that is the proposed purpose), provided there is no indication anywhere that the list might be a forgery. Consideration might be given to how noteworthy it is that the person is on the invite list. Bilderberg is a significant and interesting conference, but it is not the meeting place of the illuminati, as some would have it.--FormerIP (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I just thought about it some more and I think, although it is an RS, I think in most cases it will only meet WP:N requirements in relation the the article on the Bilderberg Group. In articles on individual attendees, I would prefer their attendance to be only included if it is subsequently mentioned in the mainstream media, otherwise it seems a bit too much like investigative journalism. --FormerIP (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Google Books/Gale Research
I feel like an idiot even bringing this up, but various admins insists on it. Gale Research is one of the largest and most reputable publishers of reference works in the US, if not the world. I added a routine birthdate citation to the Chase Masterson article, citing a Gale-published reference work available through Google Books [35]; Worldcat shows nearly 1000 library holdings, in case anyone wants more indicators of reliability for this reference work. A serial vandal with 75 edits to its name, mostly personal attacks on me like this [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] reverted the addition as vandalism, denying both the validity of the reference and attacking the reliability of Google Books as a source, and insisting the matter is giverned by a nonexistent talk page consensus after a months-old discussion including examination of various naked pictures/screenshots of the article subject. (But now I'm getting really cranky.) I don't see anything of substance to discuss here, but further input seems to be needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's a reliable source, although of course it could be mistaken. If there's another reliable source saying something different then you probably have to report both versions. You're clearly not an idiot, but you might be getting a bit personally involved. Can you and the other side go back to the Mediation Cabal, as they will be able to defuse the situation. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- There aren't any reliable sources for any different date. I added this cite because it recently became available through Google Books. I don't have any personally involvement in the underlying dispute, but I can tell you that it's extremely frustrating that after months of personal attacks from this user and his various socks, another recurrence of his personal attacks is apparently handled with kid gloves, and a thinly disguised 3RR violation has been ignored. Take a look at the recent history of my user and talk pages, and notice that granting the user's request in this dispute apparently triggered another round of turning my userspace into a free fire zone. (irony alert) With this level of attacks over basic policy enforcement, maybe I ought to be named an honorary admin (end alert). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do any of these help? [41][42][43] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- While I do wonder what the source of Gale's information is, and it's possible they're wrong, they're certainly a reliable source. I can't see any reason for deleting the date of birth with that reference. It's ridiculous that anybody would delete it once, much less persist in doing so. Incidentally, Masterson appeared alone on the cover of Femme Fatales Volume 6 #2 August 1997 and in a group shot on 12:3 July/August 2003; I don't know if that constitutes a distinction. Don't think I'll support the honorary admin campaign though :-} Шизомби (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Major publisher of references - clearly scholarly references are specifically RS by WP guidelines and policies. Tell the other person that they can as an NPOV issue <g> give references which meet WP:RS for different dates. Googlebooks is not a "source" -- it is a tool used to examine huge numbers of books quickly, and, as such, is not an issue. The source remains the book which is so found. Collect (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Midwest Today and power line health effects
Is Midwest Today, April/May 1996 "DO HIGH-VOLTAGE [sic] a reliable source for the claims about power line health effects found at Electric power transmission#Health concerns? I am concerned because an old article from the popular press is being used to make controversial claims, rather than a recent article from a scientific journal. Also, I am unfamiliar with Midwest Today and don't know how good a publication it is. --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unreliable see WP:MEDRS Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The [sic] is inapt as the title is "Do high-voltage power lines cause cancer" which does not appear to have any misspelling. Midwest Today is a current magazine, and hence not self-published, etc. RS by WP guidelines and policies. See [44] if you want a BMJ article from 2005. Collect (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this a news article or an opinion piece?
Certain sections read like an opinion piece, but it's published in the Science section and not the Opinion section. Or is it an opinion piece that passed editorial review and counts as a news article?[45] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The first part appears to be written as "news." As soon as it goes into first person narrative, it departs from being a news source and becomes a personal column. Anything written in the first person is attributable only to that person, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be an opinion piece written by a journalist to lead off a "blog" type discussion. Therefore treat as an opinion piece. It starts off by rehearsing factual info, which seems to be sourced to AP, therefore you could use AP instead. It does seem to be increasingly difficult to find out where the line is drawn between news and opinion even in the most reputable media. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I found a straight news article from The Chronicle of Higher Education[46] that I can use. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Anthropographia Publications
This is some confusion and disagreement at Sheriar Mundegar Irani over whether Anthropographia Publications, as well as Philosophical Press and New Media Books Ltd, are reputable publishers. If the publishers are questionable, would Kevin Shepherd be considered a sufficient expert in the field to qualify the sources for use under WP:SPS? Thank you for any assistance and feedback in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, not an easy one. My instinct is no. He seems such an interesting scholar, but what actually is his field? Why's he turning to self-publication or publication with a minor press? It doesn't fall clearly into the category of an established scholar with a string of related publications who has one non-reviewed publication. Any other opinions here? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Persecution of Zoroastrians.
Hi,
- I had along exhausting discussion on Talk:Muslim conquest of Persia, with User:digitwoman over the issue of validity of information given on certain Zoroastrians websites about harsh persecution of Zoroastrians by Invading Arab armies in 7th century. The wesites mentions this, but Mainstream academic sources don't mention them. I mean if this was a universally accepted point of view then there must be no problem in finding this topic in modern well reputed books. But so far there isnt any source (western thrid party source) in my notice or in User:digitwoman's knowledge which have mentioned these atrocities by invading arab armies and in immediate aftermaths of the conquest, however there is a lot of reliable sources that talk about harsh persecution of zoroastrians at the hands of later muslim empires like later Abbasids, turks and mongols (Muslim mongols).
My question is that in these circumstances when no academic source supports the views of those websites, should the views of those websites be considered reliable or extremist ? These websites dont have any references to the source of their articles and provide no bibliography.
Following are those websites,
Following are the books that i have consulted and are already mentioned in the article as references to the section Religion...
These sources mentioned the immediate status of zoroastrians as dhimmis and thus protection of their temples and religious belives by paying an additional tax called jizya. Believes of those websites generally seems opposite to this.
regards
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- we have this source[[56]] and this [[57]]. So it would seem that it is some book sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the five sources you raise. The BBC site is an RS. Economic Expert appears to take its material from Wikipedia, so it is not an RS. It is unlclerat whether Encyclopedia Iranica will be an RS. It appears to be self-published, although an editorial board is mentioned. Becasue they are clearly partisan, Fezana and Vohuman would not be RSs for political claims, such as claims about historical persecution, although they could be RSs for other facts. --FormerIP (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also two of the contradicting sources do not in fact contradict the persuecution.
- Zoroastrians: their religious beliefs and practices Make mention of such things as having travel forbidden to htem, it also only appears to cover the 19thC.
- The Jews of Islam refers to them being subject to frequent vexations and persecutions. And that if the three main non Muslim groups in Iran the Zoroastrians faired the worst.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The books by Boyce, Lambton and Lewis are your reliable sources. Stick to them. Not the BBC for this - great for news, but this religious history stuff is just a basic introduction, doesn't compare with academic scholarship. The bar needs to be set high for history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Itsmejudith. The BBC can be used for information which isn't sourced in the other books mentioned (Boyce is considered probably the best extant source on Zoroastrianism, by the way), but otherwise the books are preferable. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- The books by Boyce, Lambton and Lewis are your reliable sources. Stick to them. Not the BBC for this - great for news, but this religious history stuff is just a basic introduction, doesn't compare with academic scholarship. The bar needs to be set high for history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the five sources you raise. The BBC site is an RS. Economic Expert appears to take its material from Wikipedia, so it is not an RS. It is unlclerat whether Encyclopedia Iranica will be an RS. It appears to be self-published, although an editorial board is mentioned. Becasue they are clearly partisan, Fezana and Vohuman would not be RSs for political claims, such as claims about historical persecution, although they could be RSs for other facts. --FormerIP (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, it would be really helpful.
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks. Some questions. I understand that books might be 'preferable' to BBC, but does that make BBC not WP:RS? BBC might be less 'preferable' than academic sources but I would still like to cite it since in my opinion it is a quite notable and credible, 3rd party source and I do not own physical copies of any of the books mentioned. Please clarify since there seems to be a confusion about this here, as another user said above that BBC will qualify.
Secondly, there is also an article on Britannica.com regarding this topic, what are your thoughts about that? Would that qualify as WP:RS? Lastly, I would like to reference the article from Federation of Zoroastrian Associations of North America for the following historic claims:
All non-Moslems were made to pay an extra tax called the Jizya. The penalty for not paying, was death, enslavement or imprisonment. Even when the Zoroastrians paid the tax, they were subjected to insults by the tax-collectors.
And:
Zoroastrians who were captured as slaves in wars were given their freedom if they converted to Islam.
Would those be acceptable? Please clarify.
Lastly, I would also appreciate a clear yes/no response regarding Encyclopædia Iranica as to whether or not it classifies as WP:RS. It is a project run by Columbia University according to the wikipedia article and hence, appears to be an academic and neutral 3rd party source.
Thanks and appreciate your help in advance for sorting this issue out. digitwoman (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify regarding BBC, I only want to use it as a reference for the following claims to make the Religion section of the article NPOV by also giving the Zoroastrian side of the story, currently this section appears too biased in the favor of muslims):
Many libraries were burned and much cultural heritage was lost.
There were also many other laws and social humiliations implemented to make life difficult for the Zoroastrians in the hope that they would convert to Islam.
digitwoman (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think the BBC is an RS, as stated previously. It has been said above, taking the same information from books would be preferable.
- I don't think any Zoroastrian website should be used to source claims about the historical persecution of Zoroastrians, including the two statements above. If the claims are correct, it should be possible to find them in an RS such as a book about the history of the relevant period, and this should be used as a source instead.
- The Encycloaedia Iranica, looking at it again, seems to have the bleesings of Columbia, but doesn't seem to be actually run by them (ie it would be misleading to say it is published by Columbia University). It does seem to have an impressive list of contributors, though, and an editorial board. So that means, IMO, it looks like it is an RS, unless anyone knows of any other reasons why it isn't. --FormerIP (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. What are your thoughts about the Britannica.com article?
I will drop the Zoroastrian source (Fezana) article. Looking forward to hear if anyone has any objections to Encyclopedia Iranica. digitwoman (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have limited time available to do this research since its volunteer work. Hence I would like to use the sources I've already spent the time looking for as long as they meet WP:RS :). Regarding Britannica, being a paysite will not affect its reliability, I believe, since the article being cited is freely available to browse. Furthermore it is not promoting any particular political agenda and remains neutral. What are your thoughts?digitwoman (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I hv given u a link to the book, its only 2 pages tht u need to read it will take less then 10 minutes. why dont u do tht ? i hope it will be helpful
الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- @Adil, I will read those pages and see if they can be cited. Regarding Encyclopedia Iranica, I thought I should mention that the Wikipedia page for it says that the wikipedia page for it does say that it is published by 'Center for Iranian Studies, Columbia University'.
digitwoman (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Anna Di Lellio on Kosovo
There's a dispute at Miloš Obilić as to whether a book by Anna Di Lellio (a sociologist, not a historian specialising in Balkan history) is a reliable source concerning his origins considering that no other sources have been found confirming her assertions. Outside opinions would be appreciated.--Ptolion (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Is "Diskus" RS?
I'm asking about Diskus (an online journal) as an RS. In particular, the article here, by Bryan Wilson (who is a long-time, internationally respected scholar in the field of New Religious Movements). The person who wrote the article seems RS, but I'm not certain about the site, and I don't have access to the Indian Missiological Review which originally published the paper. • Astynax talk 02:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The site has an ISSN number (online parallel to ISBN). This places is well above the "blog threshold" for being RS. As such, it is listed in British National Bibliography 1994. Edu sites list is as a publication, hence I would regard it as one. RS. Collect (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- This got my attention after making other comments about the "Real" review process of some online journals. A complete library may carry works of fiction or tabloid, but that doesn't give the publications a reputation for fact checking. A somewhat tautological claim, "A says B about C" can always consider "A" to be reliable as there is no real fact checking to be done but even here tense is important- "We told you that D would happen" can not be assumed to be true. Online journals may not be blogs but peer review may be advertized beyond what is actually performed. I'm not impugning this source, indeed I know nothing about it, just pointing to a larger problem. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
News of the World
There's a dispute on the The Beautiful Life article about News of the World being used as source. Even though the article isn't a BLP, the source is being used to cite something (a, IMO, very trivial point) about a living person. It was my understanding that papers like News of the World and The Sun shouldn't be used as they're tabloids and considered unreliable. Another user claims they're a-ok. Opinions please. Pinkadelica♣ 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- See the archive. LeadSongDog come howl 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've read that and another post in the archive which I used to support my removal of the content. Just to be clear, the consensus is to not use NOTW, correct? Pinkadelica♣ 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Consensus" wasn't quite established, but as I read it the NOTW certainly should not be considered a RS for anything remotely sensational. I suppose that leaves the football scores.LeadSongDog come howl 04:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Pinkadelica♣ 04:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Consensus" wasn't quite established, but as I read it the NOTW certainly should not be considered a RS for anything remotely sensational. I suppose that leaves the football scores.LeadSongDog come howl 04:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've read that and another post in the archive which I used to support my removal of the content. Just to be clear, the consensus is to not use NOTW, correct? Pinkadelica♣ 03:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Disclaimer -- this post relates to a content dispute between myself User:PelleSmith and User:Cirt at the entry for the book Twisted Scriptures.
Is the Midwest Book Review a reliable source for independent reviews or simply a PR resource for small publishers? Other than what they claim on their own website I can't find much of anything about them -- a news search results in next to nothing, and a book search results in either examples of their reviews or a variety of books giving advice on how to get PR for one's self-published book. Our entry on them has been unreferenced since it was created, and tagged for almost a year now. The only talk page edit was by someone who pointed out that Midwest Book Review puts thousands of reviews on Amazon and according to the poster they are all 5 star reviews. My more specific question is whether or not it is appropriate to use reviews from this group as examples of the "reception" that a book we have an entry on has received.PelleSmith (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Their reviews are littered with critical comments like these, which certainly do not help their credibility -- [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], etc. Here's a great Amazon review that 3/4 people claim was helpful yet it reviews the wrong book!PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to see this sorted. In an AfD, an editor commented (no source, so just opinion) that it is "a PR publication of the small press community." At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#dispute about Ruby McCollum listing a recent poster says about the author of a book " His own wife and co-author wrote the five star review in the Midwest Book Review and the claims as a "laud" a listing in the American Library Association book directory.". I'm pretty dubious about it. RS is not a default. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a valid source for book reviews. Coverage in other books, Recent news, Archived news. Cirt (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to see this sorted. In an AfD, an editor commented (no source, so just opinion) that it is "a PR publication of the small press community." At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#dispute about Ruby McCollum listing a recent poster says about the author of a book " His own wife and co-author wrote the five star review in the Midwest Book Review and the claims as a "laud" a listing in the American Library Association book directory.". I'm pretty dubious about it. RS is not a default. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Cirt can you explain what you mean by "valid" because I don't think anyone disputes the fact that they put out "book reviews". Regarding your links, I've already explained what "coverage" in other books amounts to -- listings in "how to get your book published and sold" type guides. Most of the "recent news" hits you post seem to be links to their reviews via pay service Highbeam with others being from PR wires and not news sources. Do you have any reliable sources writing about them as an organization in a way actually speaks to their credibility? Comments on their Amazon reviews are often like the ones I posted above. Look at them ... these negative feedback comments point out things like the fact that the Midwest Book Review mistook A Streecar Named Desire for a "musical" and in another instance reviewed the wrong book. Others just point out that the reviewers appear not to be familiar with the books they are reviewing.PelleSmith (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Meets RS. Not a highly notable source, but certainly acceptable and usable. Valuable because of its focus on smaller publishing houses and less widely reviewed books. Should be considered less desirable than more prominent review sources where available. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please explain by what criteria you know them to "meet RS" and is there any independent verification of that fact?
I do not question your motivations here at all, but this is the second time you've supported User:Cirt's POV in the larger content area this dispute regards so I would really appreciate something more than simply a vote of confidence.Thanks kindly.PelleSmith (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- You mean, like how you badgered me for umpteen explanations for what is meant by "false analogy"? No, I'm done offering increasingly detailed answers, pandering to your desire to waste my time in pursuit of your disagreement with Cirt. I've agreed, and disagreed, with virtually every Admin on this site. Spin that any way you want, but you need to stop short of accusing me of favoring individuals over the encyclopedia, or else supply some very strong evidence when you accuse me. I suggest the correct venue to be WP:RFC. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on a mo. This is at RSN now and you have uninvolved people trying to answer. I'm still unconvinced per Doug and would like to hear a more detailed argument referring to objective measurements of reliability for this source. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is that to me? I'm uninvolved, as I've never edited that article nor used them as a source. I rgularly comment on this board. However, if you are adressing Cirt I'll let him answer that. Regrding my rationale, MBR "accepts no financial donations from authors or publishers in exchange for our services, in order to avoid any conflict of interest issues." They're established, having been around since 1976. They've been used by libraries. They're volunteer, so some of their reviews suck more than others, hence my "less desirable" caveat. Let me know if this does not ddress your questions. If the question was not directed to me, apologies and suggest you give a name when you instruct others to "hang on" and ask questions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I meant, hang on everyone. It wasn't meant to be incivil, sorry if you or anyone took it that way. Thanks for presenting the arguments. Having read them, I'm still not convinced this is RS. Hope some more uninvolved people will post cause there could be other angles on it. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Is that to me? I'm uninvolved, as I've never edited that article nor used them as a source. I rgularly comment on this board. However, if you are adressing Cirt I'll let him answer that. Regrding my rationale, MBR "accepts no financial donations from authors or publishers in exchange for our services, in order to avoid any conflict of interest issues." They're established, having been around since 1976. They've been used by libraries. They're volunteer, so some of their reviews suck more than others, hence my "less desirable" caveat. Let me know if this does not ddress your questions. If the question was not directed to me, apologies and suggest you give a name when you instruct others to "hang on" and ask questions. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hang on a mo. This is at RSN now and you have uninvolved people trying to answer. I'm still unconvinced per Doug and would like to hear a more detailed argument referring to objective measurements of reliability for this source. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- You mean, like how you badgered me for umpteen explanations for what is meant by "false analogy"? No, I'm done offering increasingly detailed answers, pandering to your desire to waste my time in pursuit of your disagreement with Cirt. I've agreed, and disagreed, with virtually every Admin on this site. Spin that any way you want, but you need to stop short of accusing me of favoring individuals over the encyclopedia, or else supply some very strong evidence when you accuse me. I suggest the correct venue to be WP:RFC. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please explain by what criteria you know them to "meet RS" and is there any independent verification of that fact?
(outdent) As KC writes, the website claims that Midwest Book Review "accepts no financial donations from authors or publishers in exchange for our services". I wonder how they generate revenue (for the "staff" as opposed to the "volunteers") since they also have no advertising on their website. Does Amazon pay them for content? Do authors or publishers pay Amazon in return to have reviews listed on the website? Just curious in case anyone knows. I know next to nothing about these things.PelleSmith (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Amazon does not pay for reviews. Staff can be volunteer as well as paid. Why don't you go research this yourself, instead of raising straw men? You could have checked the Amazon question as easily as everyone else. This is not raising objections, this is pestering. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm asking a question I don't know the answer to. Isn't that the idea here? The Review's general revenue structure, which I cannot find out about on my own, is of interest because they seem to have an unofficial policy against publishing negative reviews (something attested to by the editor and chief himself in interviews). The editor and chief also distinguishes between "volunteers" and "staff" explicitly as two different categories of reviewers in these interviews. Unfortunately neither interviewer asked, (or published at least) anything about the company's revenue structure, anything about its employment structure and certainly not any questions directly regarding any business relationships with booksellers. Their website makes it clear that they have no direct relationship with publishers or authors, but says nothing about booksellers or any other entity that might benefit from the sale of a book. I'm assuming that someone here would know if having such a relationship is highly irregular or unheard of in general even if they know nothing about this company. That's why I asked the question. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- On the cached pages of a blog I found a repost of a blog post/Q and A from the editor in chief in which he states that foundation grants and the sale of "review books" to libraries and bookstores pays the bills -- [64].PelleSmith (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- As a sidenote I came across these comments about Midwest Book Review -- [65] and [66]. These sites are of limited reliability, notability, etc. but I'm having a hard time finding non-industry sources commenting on this group at all (e.g. things other than "how to publish" websites and books.)PelleSmith (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm asking a question I don't know the answer to. Isn't that the idea here? The Review's general revenue structure, which I cannot find out about on my own, is of interest because they seem to have an unofficial policy against publishing negative reviews (something attested to by the editor and chief himself in interviews). The editor and chief also distinguishes between "volunteers" and "staff" explicitly as two different categories of reviewers in these interviews. Unfortunately neither interviewer asked, (or published at least) anything about the company's revenue structure, anything about its employment structure and certainly not any questions directly regarding any business relationships with booksellers. Their website makes it clear that they have no direct relationship with publishers or authors, but says nothing about booksellers or any other entity that might benefit from the sale of a book. I'm assuming that someone here would know if having such a relationship is highly irregular or unheard of in general even if they know nothing about this company. That's why I asked the question. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Amazon does not pay for reviews. Staff can be volunteer as well as paid. Why don't you go research this yourself, instead of raising straw men? You could have checked the Amazon question as easily as everyone else. This is not raising objections, this is pestering. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Additional comments
- Book Review Index indexes reviews for the Midwest Book Review publications Bookwatch and Children's Bookwatch. — Ferguson, Dana (2005). Book Review Index: 2005 Cumulation. Detroit, Michigan: Thomson Gale. pp. xii, xiii. ISBN 0787678414. ISSN 0524-0581.
- American Library Association published book, Writing and Publishing: The Librarian's Handbook recommends Midwest Book Review as a resource for information for writers. — Smallwood, Carol (2009). Writing and Publishing: The Librarian's Handbook. American Library Association Editors. pp. 25–26. ISBN 0838909965.
- Online Computer Library Center described the website of the Midwest Book Review as "a resource to locate book reviews, resources and advice for writers and publishers" — OCLC 439279392
Cirt (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- All true - it's an excellent way to publicise a book, perhaps particularly self-published books which can have a hard time, and is an interesting source of reviews. Certainly in my opinion for anything that might otherwise be reviewed in a professional journal it should never be used. I'm worried about the idea of relatives reviewing books (something I saw recommended about Amazon, ie I saw a site today suggesting that authors get friends and relatives review their books favorably but without gushing). I think any use of it has to be justified for the particular use - in other words it should only be used when an editor can show that in that particular case it's a RS. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think some random IP post on a talk page about this source is less reliable than for example Book Review Index. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but that source, like the other two you mentioned, don't remotely address any of these issues so how are they relevant to what this person claimed?PelleSmith (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- They're relevant, but the complaint - the allegation with no evidence, not even a an asserted name, in the middle of a name-calling mudfight on another talk page is simply weightless here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- They are relevant only to what they assert, and as I stated they make no assertions regarding the issues raised by this IP editor. That said we clearly should not take some anonymous editor's word for it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- They're relevant, but the complaint - the allegation with no evidence, not even a an asserted name, in the middle of a name-calling mudfight on another talk page is simply weightless here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, but that source, like the other two you mentioned, don't remotely address any of these issues so how are they relevant to what this person claimed?PelleSmith (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) re Dougweller: I'd be a little more lenient. I would presume neutrality unless there is evidence of non-neutrality; keeping in mind my earlier caveat that other, more mainstream, sources are to be generally preferred. Given that all reviews are inherently POVs, a NYT book review is an opinion by a more notable person than a small concern's, but unless actual bias can be shown, this is a longstanding publication with no serious allegations of bias I have been able to locate. Proving lack thereof, which is what you seem to be recommending, is akin to trying to prove a negative. If you think it necessary to "show" lack of bias for individual instances, perhaps it would be simpler to simply say you don't feel its an acceptable source at all, as that would likely be the net result. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well from what we do know their reviews are at the very least creating bias within larger contexts, whether or not the exact allegations of this IP editor are true. The editor in chief makes no bones about the fact that he does not publish negative reviews, and outside observers out there in cyberspace have reached similar conclusions on their own. Indeed it is quite obvious if you check their reviews on Amazon, which aren't just "all positive" but are also, per the editor and chiefs own policy, all 5 star rated. Above and beyond the fact that he does not publish negative reviews he claims the five star uniformity is due to Amazon's flawed rating system (see the cached blog post above.) Yet he clearly works within this system with the knowledge that readers of the reviews are not aware of his philosophy and therefore are obviously going to read his 5 stars as superlative as opposed to through his novel way of disagreeing with Amazon. This also causes a problem here on Wikipedia when "Midwest Book Review" is cited in the "Reception" part of the encyclopedia as having received a book favorably. This clearly means something very different from stating that a book was favorably received in the NYT book review, and that is a problem because to our readers this difference is undetectable.
- However, there is a bigger issue here, which the IP comments relate to more directly, and that is the possibility of serious reliability concerns. Perusing the reviews on Amazon that have been responded to by others does not leave one with a lot of optimism on that front (though clearly such an exercise is not equivalent to verification from a reliable secondary source). Doing so I quickly discovered the review in which they called Street Car Named Desire a "famous musical", and what is supposed to be a review of a book about Bram Stoker in which they actually posted a review of a book about the Battle of the Crater. Magically 3 separate and clearly illiterate people tagged that completely erroneous review as "helpful". That's just the kind of thing that makes one say, WTF? The others I linked to above, and many more like them, complain that the Midwest Book Review reviews seem like they were written by someone who didn't read the books. These complainers are all different Amazon users, most of whom have multiple reviews and comments of their own (so there is no reason to believe that these are not legitimate complaints by different people). All of this is rather alarming. Given the lack of substantiation from reliable secondary sources either way it is ratehr easy to believe that the IP editor is onto something, even if s/he is exaggerating in her/his claims.PelleSmith (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The biggest issue is the wall of text with no cites you've pasted. Beyond that, though, your complaints are all about the Amazon account, not the publication. We don't use Amazon reviews. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Survey of Amazon.com reviews with comments
Looking at the Amazon reviews I mentioned above that have comments on them is quite frankly astonishing. Going back only to the beginning of this November (in terms of when the comments were posted) here is a list of reviews in which the commentators do not believe the reviewer could have read the book or else found some odd error with the review:
Questioning if the reviewer read the book (or simply copied promotional material) -- [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]
Found some obvious error with the review -- [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]
Noticed that the review was for the wrong book -- [84] [85] [86]
One of these commentators repeated his/her criticism, essentially spamming it onto multiple reviews, but I only posted one of those above. I should also note that at least half of the reviews with comments are not like this, but close to half are. Again, I think this is rather astonishing for a review journal we are meant to respect as reliable for a meaningful assessment of a given book.PelleSmith (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Is Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists a reliable source in discussions about the difficulties of permanent disposal of high level radioactive waste? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Are you speaking of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? If that is the case, it would depend largely upon whether the source being used is an article or an op-ed. In general, though, yes that's exactly the sort of topic for which that magazine is an excellent source. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- As always, make sure that opinions are cited as opinion. Too often that fine point is elided in articles. Collect (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I observed Talk:Gol_Transportes_Aéreos_Flight_1907#Relevant_omissions_in_this_article - There are users who are saying that some sources from Aviation Week and The New York Times are not reliable to use in this article, while another user is saying that Aviation Week and The New York Times are reliable sources to use to interpret findings in a primary source. This concerns a featured article. Would someone mind looking at this? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- They're both reliable sources. I don't understand how anyone could possibly claim otherwise. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- ^ http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2006/04/hamas-adopts-nazi-salute.html
- ^ a b Wong, Catherine (Summer / Fall, 1999). "St. Thomas on Deprogramming: Is It Justifiable?". The Catholic Lawyer. 39 Catholic Law (81). The St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research of St. John's University School of Law.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ “Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements” (page 3 of 4)