TheOldJacobite (talk | contribs) →Unreality Magazine: ---Response. |
|||
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 254: | Line 254: | ||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
<small>So far involved editors are the only ones discussing it here. There's no point of referring to RSN if we keep on flooding. I think so many comments will discourage neutral editors to participate since it takes a lot of time to read. We've all made our points, lets wait for neutral input.</small> --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
<small>So far involved editors are the only ones discussing it here. There's no point of referring to RSN if we keep on flooding. I think so many comments will discourage neutral editors to participate since it takes a lot of time to read. We've all made our points, lets wait for neutral input.</small> --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | Per the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources|questionable sources]] section of the policy, both these websites are not reliabale in the Wikipedia sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content and while Bharat-Raksahak.com does provide a list of at least 3 editors over the last decade and a half, we are not provided with information on the reputation of these editors (or what qualifies them as editors). Since the reputation for checking facts for both of these sites cannot be determined and since either do not have editorial oversight (Pakdef.info) or an unverifiable editorial oversight (Bharat-Rakshak.com), we should treat them as unreliable sources. Between the two, Bharat-Rakshak does seem to have two editors who are known for their work in this area but only in a limited way (Jaideep E. Menon, an editor and Security Research Review team member, writes for Rediff.com and Airavat Singh, an editor, is the author or Op Kartikeya). [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Shifted good faith comment by the user to the main section as a consensus is there to consider both sources separately. About the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources|questionable sources]], the section doesn't require the mention of the editorial board. Also an editor commented in the Pakdef section that the website is cited in other reliable sources making it reliable. In addition the website cites and credits the articles and quotations properly where required as per [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources|questionable sources]]. --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===Pakdef.info=== |
===Pakdef.info=== |
||
Line 304: | Line 307: | ||
::::::::::Let me clarify this again, This Dispute is still active and not yet closed (dont [[wp:ASSUME]]) things on your own we only have a view from a neutral user, also the discussion is not a [[wp:FORUMSHOPPING]] if you are not interested in an active discussion there is no need for you to comment uselessly to flood the thread and deviate and mislead others from the topic. Please refrain. their mission statement of accepting thesis, randomly accepting and rejecting contents to publish and they produce no sources citation in their articles all these ''highlights their Non Reliability'' --[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::::Let me clarify this again, This Dispute is still active and not yet closed (dont [[wp:ASSUME]]) things on your own we only have a view from a neutral user, also the discussion is not a [[wp:FORUMSHOPPING]] if you are not interested in an active discussion there is no need for you to comment uselessly to flood the thread and deviate and mislead others from the topic. Please refrain. their mission statement of accepting thesis, randomly accepting and rejecting contents to publish and they produce no sources citation in their articles all these ''highlights their Non Reliability'' --[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
{{od}}HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO can we please get a final decision on this important discussion (before it gets archived)--[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 01:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
{{od}}HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO can we please get a final decision on this important discussion (before it gets archived)--[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 01:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
:You are disruptively trying to keep the topic open, check the difference in dates between your comments. No one wants to drag this already settled discussion anymore. I doubt you understand the meaning of consensus. Its not a ''decision'' by a single user that is followed. A consensus has been attained above. Suggest the repetitive comments by above editor be removed and the discussion be tagged as closed. --[[User:Hassanhn5|lTopGunl]] ([[User talk:Hassanhn5|talk]]) 15:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
|||
===bharat-rakshak.com=== |
===bharat-rakshak.com=== |
||
Line 331: | Line 335: | ||
:::Its already mentioned multiple times above by various editors that all the sources are judged by their own merit, the results are not based on what the result of other is. --[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
:::Its already mentioned multiple times above by various editors that all the sources are judged by their own merit, the results are not based on what the result of other is. --[[User:DBigXray|<font color="indigo">Ð</font><font color="maroon">ℬig</font>]][[User talk:DBigXray|<font color="lime">XЯaɣ</font>]] 17:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
===Pakdef.info not reliable, Bharat-Rakshak.com only in a limited way=== |
|||
⚫ | Per the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Questionable_sources|questionable sources]] section of the policy, both these websites are not reliabale in the Wikipedia sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content and while Bharat-Raksahak.com does provide a list of at least 3 editors over the last decade and a half, we are not provided with information on the reputation of these editors (or what qualifies them as editors). Since the reputation for checking facts for both of these sites cannot be determined and since either do not have editorial oversight (Pakdef.info) or an unverifiable editorial oversight (Bharat-Rakshak.com), we should treat them as unreliable sources. Between the two, Bharat-Rakshak does seem to have two editors who are known for their work in this area but only in a limited way (Jaideep E. Menon, an editor and Security Research Review team member, writes for Rediff.com and Airavat Singh, an editor, is the author or Op Kartikeya). [[User:Zuggernaut|Zuggernaut]] ([[User talk:Zuggernaut|talk]]) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
== These webpages for the notability of the graphic novel ''Dark Age'' == |
== These webpages for the notability of the graphic novel ''Dark Age'' == |
Revision as of 17:15, 6 November 2011
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Advice needed on newspaper site
In general terms would this qualify as a reliable source [1], or can it just be ruled out straight away? Van Speijk (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, "in general terms", as is says at the top of the page, it depends on context: what do you want to use it as a reliable source for?. I can't find much about The Bonaire Reporter, but it seems to be a printed newspaper, with online archives going back to 2000, and paper archives allegedly dating back to 1994, so it's not just some guy's blog. This is Bonaire we're talking about, total population 15,000. So despite having an amateurish-looking web site, this could even be the newspaper of record. We may be wary to rely only on it for highly controversial matters without knowing more about it, but certainly it can't be ruled out straight away. --GRuban (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with GRuban. Can you elaborate on what you are using the Bonaire Reporter for? --Togna bologna (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it. I'm interested in this page from the website [2]. The story makes this statement; The first of the new generation of ships was the HSS 1500, a 1500-passenger catamaran built by Finnyards Ltd., Rauma, Finland. She went into service as the Stena Explorer to ferry cars, trucks and passengers around the British Isles.. My interest stems from editing HSS 1500 where the point about the British Isles was made, but as is so often the case with the term "British Isles" (which is in everyday use and wouldn't normally require a reference) another editor objected to its use and forced the issue about providing a reference. I found this one. I think it's good enough, but what does anyone else think? Van Speijk (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well as a statement of fact there are inconsistencies in the article as it originally talks about "around the British Isles" and then mentions a more specific reference to "crossings between Britain and the Netherlands". So if you fancy using it as a reference will you just pick and choose the bit that fits your POV? I also noticed that it doesn't attribute the article to an author either. Bjmullan (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say it's good enough, if there aren't sources that contradict it; "where a ship was built to work in" isn't such an inherently controversial issue. There is no inconsistency, there are just two interpretations of the word "around", one meaning only within the isles, and one meaning within the neighborhood of. Clearly the second is being used. The fact the article doesn't have an author byline is a style issue, for example, half the New York Times articles in Philip A. Payton, Jr. don't have one. --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- My issue with this reference and the last proposed by Van Speijk is what makes the British Isles unique to High Speed Ferry design? This reference (which seems more creditable) talks about a more general "northern European waters". If Van Speijk can perhaps elaborate on why the craft is specifically designed for the British Isles, this might help. And yes I don't like the term British Isles unless it is clearly referenced and applicable. For more information see here. Bjmullan (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion GRuban. Since you're not, as far as I know, involved in the British Isles debate I'll take it as being impartial. The points made above by Bjmullan deserve further consideration but here is not the right place, so I'll copy the above paragraph to Talk:HSS 1500 and continue the debate there. Van Speijk (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- My issue with this reference and the last proposed by Van Speijk is what makes the British Isles unique to High Speed Ferry design? This reference (which seems more creditable) talks about a more general "northern European waters". If Van Speijk can perhaps elaborate on why the craft is specifically designed for the British Isles, this might help. And yes I don't like the term British Isles unless it is clearly referenced and applicable. For more information see here. Bjmullan (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say it's good enough, if there aren't sources that contradict it; "where a ship was built to work in" isn't such an inherently controversial issue. There is no inconsistency, there are just two interpretations of the word "around", one meaning only within the isles, and one meaning within the neighborhood of. Clearly the second is being used. The fact the article doesn't have an author byline is a style issue, for example, half the New York Times articles in Philip A. Payton, Jr. don't have one. --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well as a statement of fact there are inconsistencies in the article as it originally talks about "around the British Isles" and then mentions a more specific reference to "crossings between Britain and the Netherlands". So if you fancy using it as a reference will you just pick and choose the bit that fits your POV? I also noticed that it doesn't attribute the article to an author either. Bjmullan (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it. I'm interested in this page from the website [2]. The story makes this statement; The first of the new generation of ships was the HSS 1500, a 1500-passenger catamaran built by Finnyards Ltd., Rauma, Finland. She went into service as the Stena Explorer to ferry cars, trucks and passengers around the British Isles.. My interest stems from editing HSS 1500 where the point about the British Isles was made, but as is so often the case with the term "British Isles" (which is in everyday use and wouldn't normally require a reference) another editor objected to its use and forced the issue about providing a reference. I found this one. I think it's good enough, but what does anyone else think? Van Speijk (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with GRuban. Can you elaborate on what you are using the Bonaire Reporter for? --Togna bologna (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
After Midnight Project
Just to let you know. After talking to an informed source via Derek Gallegos( band manager),After Midnight Project has been disbanded.
callahan.8k.com
I wanted to bring this here, as the editors on this board are knowledgeable about the reliability of sources, and can hopefully clarify this for me. This source is being used on the West Memphis Three article, and seems to me to fall squarely into WP:SPS, as anyone could very easily go to 8k.com and create any website they wanted, that contained any content that they wished to insert. The user inserting this into the article was also inserting very odd websites into the article as "sources", which makes me question the reliability of this website further. - SudoGhost 05:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you that this falls into WP:SPS. I think there is nothing inherently wrong with the information being referenced, as it is relevant to the article. The information stems from a criminal investigation report, however, the fact that it is cited as coming from callahan.8k.com, is as you mentioned, is troublesome. If the article cited the criminal report from its original source, I think the material would be considered reliable.--Togna bologna (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can anyone else offer an opinion as to this source? - SudoGhost 06:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly http://8k.com/ is not a reliable source as it is "Free Web Hosting from Freeservers.com". Unless the author of the particular free website has a good reputation as an authority in the field (as established by reliable sources), then the site is not reliable. It may be that in this particular case the information is 100% accurate, neutral, and generally excellent—nevertheless, it is not suitable for use at Wikipedia because editors have no procedure to distinguish an excellent self published site from one that is poor (no procedure other than to rely on actual reliable sources, which should be used instead of the SPS). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can anyone else offer an opinion as to this source? - SudoGhost 06:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Salim Al-Hassani and muslimheritage.com
After noticing today that muslimheritage.com is being widely used across Wikipedia, I came across this thread about its employment. Can we do something about this with a bot or something? Also, the Salim Al-Hassani—is this not little more than a puff piece? I also note that he's behind the extremely dubious 1001 Inventions exhibitions (i.e. every claim made in this official trailer alone—the camera obscura, flight, surgery, astrolabes, clocks, etc.—is blatantly pre-dated by a non-Islamic source). After the massive Jagged incident not long ago, it would seem to me that some sort of bot may be appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I looked over the article. It is phrased somewhat positively, but seems ok overall. Sourcing is a mixed bag, but I checked that many of the claims are supported by reliable sources, and none seems wrong. Notability is not a question. The "1001 Inventions" exhibition is shown by major museums and has won prices. Thus, while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Schulz, click any of those articles I link to; camera obscura, aviation history, surgery, astrolabe. They blatantly and demonstratably contradict the claims made by this "1001 Inventions" exhibition; we cannot simply use this as a source when it's blatantly wrong and misleading. These are by no means reliable sources, and they shouldn't get some kind of pass because the exhibition and its creator are famous. Rather than attempt to push a serious concern off without doing the necessary research to understand the situation, please step to the side until someone else who is willing to put the time in may appear. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I should note that I have been asked to contribute to this debate, but anyway, with that disclaimer: as your link to the previous discussion shows, bloodofox, it has been previously agreed that muslimheritage.com is not a reliable source, especially with regard to scientific history, and specifically with regard to claims of "being first". I've had to try to pin down some of the references used by the 1001 inventions exhibition, and I've not been wildly impressed. In one case I looked at, no page reference is given for an 800 page work! When I tried to pin it down how this 100 year old source (not exactly modern scholarship) supported the claims that the medieval Islamic city of Cordoba had public lighting and litter collection, I didn't have a great deal of success. The source said that the city was well lit and kept clean, but I could find absolutely nothing to support the assertion that there was public litter collection (as opposed to, say, efficient street cleaners). According to other Wikipedians, the "public lighting" in Cordoba was essentially half a dozen lamps in the main square, provided by the local ruler. I should check the other source given, which has page references, but in any case that source is not anything as helpful as a history of medieval Cordoba by a specialist in that area; it's a book on "The Mind of the Middle Ages", which apparently mentions Cordoba in passing. So in both cases, the 1001 inventions assertions are not well referenced, and to the extent that they may be true, 1001 inventins seems rather slanted to give an impression of a more advanced society than actually existed. The suggestion of it being first in these areas strikes me as nearly impossible to prove, given our incomplete knowledge of the ancient world (and the fact that writers rarely bother writing about litter collection). I'd be surprised if a reputable ancient scholar would be prepared to make such a claim without much more conclusive proof. Cordoba was certainly an advanced city for its time, but to say it had public litter collection and public lighting (with bad referencing) gives the reader the impression of weekly bin collections and public lights on every street, which as far as I can tell wasn't the case.
- In terms of the specific question of using a bot for muslimheritage and 1001 inventions, I guess a bot could at least find all the references for checking, but I'd be wary of it doing automated deletion or whatever, at least until a significant sample of the references had been checked by a human.--Merlinme (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agree that all these need checking against good historical sources. Gies & Gies on medieval technology have a chapter on the transfer of technology from Asia to Europe. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Probably most ancient cities had street cleaners. There is some story about an emperor of Rome having mud stuffed down the toga of an official who was in charge of keeping the streets clean because they were muddy. Dmcq (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- As always WIkipedia has something about it, aediles were in charge of street cleaning. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Schulz, click any of those articles I link to; camera obscura, aviation history, surgery, astrolabe. They blatantly and demonstratably contradict the claims made by this "1001 Inventions" exhibition; we cannot simply use this as a source when it's blatantly wrong and misleading. These are by no means reliable sources, and they shouldn't get some kind of pass because the exhibition and its creator are famous. Rather than attempt to push a serious concern off without doing the necessary research to understand the situation, please step to the side until someone else who is willing to put the time in may appear. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- A bit more on why Muslimheritage.com is unreliable: It was previously discussed at RSN#18 and RSN#27. In summary, muslimheritage.com is unreliable because, among other things, it releases a lot of non-peer reviewed work, has no clear review board or process, sometimes publishes articles with no author attribution, and has published a number of works with numerous citation problems, including the Arslan Terzioglu article mentioned in your RSN#27 link and 'Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times' discussed on my talk page User_talk:Dialectric#Problem_Source:_Islamic_Medicine:_1000_years_ahead_of_its_times. As to the cleanup process, fortunately muslimheritage.com as a string is unique enough that wikipedia's special search page will pick up most (all?) instances of it. I've used the search to remove the site when it was used as a sole reference for a number of claims in history articles. Dialectric (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Use Special:LinkSearch to find external links: this shows 296 occurrences of muslimheritage.com (which includes usage in 119 articles). One of the non-article occurrences is this report by Spacepotato, and another, which explain some problems with the site. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Stephan Schulz's statement was clear: "while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we". Therefore, any removal of MuslimHeritage links will be reverted as it appears to be a unilateral decision not based on any strong argument. Dialectric linked to several pages where some editors have discovered some mistakes in the works published on MuslimHeritage.com. Issues like failing to note an earlier European invention, and thus reached the conclusion that it is an unreliable and biased reference. By that logic, Dialectric will have to remove any works by any Western academic who has failed to mention an earlier invention by Indian or Chinese scholars. It is also astonishing how an editor in one of Dialectric's linked pages argued for its unreliability, claiming that it "exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" because one work contrasts the advancement of the Medieval Islamic civilization with the darkness which enveloped Europe during the Middle Ages. In other words, a scholar is not allowed to criticize the European Middle Ages, and it's worse if that is followed by a praise for a non-European civilization, because ridiculing Medieval Europe is only permissible when talking about the Renaissance, otherwise that scholar is exhibiting a strong pro-Islamic or pro-Chinese bias. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Attempts at lawyering like this do not help any of us. It has been well illustrated that this source is deep red on the "unreliable" scale by the various users above who have checked into it here (and those that have done so prior, as illustrated by the unsurprising amount of incidents where the issue has come up before). It must thus be treated as such, no matter what religious beliefs any of us may hold or what cultural sphere we may stem from. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- "exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" was in reference to a specific paper hosted on muslimheritage.org, and not the site in general. That specific paper, Islamic Medicine: 1000 years ahead of its times link has problems well beyond just an unfavorable comparison of medieval European and Muslim civilizations; I will elaborate on the issues with this paper on Al-Andalusi's talk page. Dialectric (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I believe Stephan Schulz's statement was clear: "while you may have doubts, without reliable sources criticising it, neither should we". Therefore, any removal of MuslimHeritage links will be reverted as it appears to be a unilateral decision not based on any strong argument. Dialectric linked to several pages where some editors have discovered some mistakes in the works published on MuslimHeritage.com. Issues like failing to note an earlier European invention, and thus reached the conclusion that it is an unreliable and biased reference. By that logic, Dialectric will have to remove any works by any Western academic who has failed to mention an earlier invention by Indian or Chinese scholars. It is also astonishing how an editor in one of Dialectric's linked pages argued for its unreliability, claiming that it "exhibits a strong pro-Islamic bias" because one work contrasts the advancement of the Medieval Islamic civilization with the darkness which enveloped Europe during the Middle Ages. In other words, a scholar is not allowed to criticize the European Middle Ages, and it's worse if that is followed by a praise for a non-European civilization, because ridiculing Medieval Europe is only permissible when talking about the Renaissance, otherwise that scholar is exhibiting a strong pro-Islamic or pro-Chinese bias. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Use Special:LinkSearch to find external links: this shows 296 occurrences of muslimheritage.com (which includes usage in 119 articles). One of the non-article occurrences is this report by Spacepotato, and another, which explain some problems with the site. Johnuniq (talk) 07:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Esports news
I would like to ask, as in the case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bu_Yanjun, is reliable official gaming media partners such as Gosugamers ([3]), sGamer ([4]) and mymym.com (official site for oldest gaming organization MeetYourMakers [5]) could be counted as reliable sources?
Here is an introduction for gosugamers :
GosuGamers is a computer game community with 110,000 visits per day. The community, which has existed since 2002, focus on high quality eSport news and user created materials for the best-selling games by Blizzard Entertainment: StarCraft and WarCraft.
While the main office is in Malmö, Sweden, the people, also known as the “GosuCrew”, who work with the website, are from all over the world. The GosuCrew consists of more than 60 people who moderate, publish and polish the contents of the site, making sure it’s up to day every day of the year.
We believe that in electronical gaming, as in any sport, fair-play, sportsmanship, respect, and good manners are important. Further establishing these values in the online gaming community is the vision of GosuGamers.
The website has grown from being a small scale hobby project to a company that covers all the largest international gaming events, offers advertisement spots that reach thousands of gamers and organize our own national and international events.
Found from : [6]
introduction for sgamer history of mymym.com
- Let me answer to those:
- dota.178.com: It's a fansite, by and for players of DOTA, as the address and banner clearly show.
-
- mymym.com: It's about a DOTA team/faction/group of players, about and by them.
-
- GosuGamers.net,': Doesn't "look" quite as bad, but is very
MMO-centricfocused on its coverage (on a couple ofMMOsMultiplayer Online Games). "GosuGamers is a computer game community with 110,000 visits per day. The community, which has existed since 2002, focus on high quality eSport news and user created materials for the best-selling games by Blizzard Entertainment: StarCraft and WarCraft." I might consider it for fact-checking about gaming events and so-called "pro gamers" but it does not establish notability in my eye, being a platform dedicated only to a certain niche of information. That is not "independent", as just about every staff member must be players or members of the games they cover, and the articles' target audience is undoubtedly players and fans of the game(s); in that way, no possibility of neutrality is plausible.
-
- I'm no chinese expert, but sgamer.com seems to suffer from the same flaws, covering a niche of specific videogames and offering advice and game guides more than "independent coverage".
Hope that answers your questions. Salvidrim (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Gosugamers is a "company that covers all the largest international gaming events" while the sGamer site, was official media partner with all the biggest dota competitions in the world (eswc, wcg, wdc). mymym.com is NOT only about their own dota team, but dota in general as well. I hope this gets noticed. And where is the video gaming notability page?
- Note : WC3, SC2 and DotA ARE NOT MMOs.
- Redefining history (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- If sGamer is an "official media partner" of DOTA competitions, it is by definition not independent.
- mymym.com , as you've said, is about DOTA specifically, thus not disinterested.
- GosuGamers does NOT cover "all the international gaming events", it only covers those linked to a specific subset of games (GosuGamers is the main source for StarCraft, WarCraft and DotA news.), making it appear strongly tied or interested to these topics, reducing greatly the likelihood of any kind of neutrality.
- I agree that gosugamers does not cover "all the international gaming events", but it does cover "all the national and international gaming events in its specific area of reporting (warcraft, starcraft, dota) isnt that sufficient if i want to write an article about a dota player/team/event?
- I would require some help here. What is by definition independent? mymym.com also covers games such as league of legends, heroes of newerth in addition to Warcraft, starcraft and dota. what would be a sufficient source for notability in this case? As i would like to point out in the case of sports, does a site need to cover all the sports out there (football basketball volleyball baseball) to be considered a reliable source? `Redefining history (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- To quote WP:INDY:
- An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).
- I think in this case it is clear there is significant connection (as you've said, by being an "official media partner", or at the very least written by and for obvious fans of the subject), and is most certainly nowhere near being disinterested. It is unclear, also, if there is gain from reporting, either by having more access to the game themselves and/or special status inside these gaming communities. In short, something written by a player and fan of the game about something related to the game is not independent/disinterested. Salvidrim (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and as a secondary answer, if you want to compare to sports, here's how I see it:
- Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
- Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
- Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
- For these reasons, I would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual player just because it discusses it, because it is written by and for fans. A site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability if it had significant independent coverage of a single player. At least, that is how I see it, others may think differently.Salvidrim (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, as much as i would like to discuss that being a reporter for gosugamers and others earns next to nothing and they are heavily based on facts. I found this website pchome.net, which also covers about dota and these players. That would be an independent source right? I have changed most of the references of my articles to news on pchome.net, would that be sufficient now? Redefining history (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Redefining history (talk) 09:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This is what i think here : Covering sports at large would be akin to covering gaming at large Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (warcraft, starcraft, dota) Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single gaming club. Covering a single sports player would be akin to covering a single gamer. since you argued that "it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested" so if you spend time reporting about a game, you are a fan of every single team? and bias towards every single team? Redefining history (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Summary
The arguments on sources would only go on this section, I am sorry to have posted them in other talk pages. So there you go, this is a summary of the argument. Quoted from : Salvidrim (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- dota.178.com: It's a fansite, by and for players of DOTA, as the address and banner clearly show.
-
- mymym.com: It's about a DOTA team/faction/group of players, about and by them.
-
- GosuGamers.net,': Doesn't "look" quite as bad, but is very
MMO-centricfocused on its coverage (on a couple ofMMOsMultiplayer Online Games). "GosuGamers is a computer game community with 110,000 visits per day. The community, which has existed since 2002, focus on high quality eSport news and user created materials for the best-selling games by Blizzard Entertainment: StarCraft and WarCraft." I might consider it for fact-checking about gaming events and so-called "pro gamers" but it does not establish notability in my eye, being a platform dedicated only to a certain niche of information. That is not "independent", as just about every staff member must be players or members of the games they cover, and the articles' target audience is undoubtedly players and fans of the game(s); in that way, no possibility of neutrality is plausible.
-
- I'm no chinese expert, but sgamer.com seems to suffer from the same flaws, covering a niche of specific videogames and offering advice and game guides more than "independent coverage".
Hope that answers your questions.
Quoted from Salvidrim (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC) :
- To quote WP:INDY:
- An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (no potential for personal, financial, or political gain from the publication).
- I think in this case it is clear there is significant connection (as you've said, by being an "official media partner", or at the very least written by and for obvious fans of the subject), and is most certainly nowhere near being disinterested. It is unclear, also, if there is gain from reporting, either by having more access to the game themselves and/or special status inside these gaming communities. In short, something written by a player and fan of the game about something related to the game is not independent/disinterested. Salvidrim (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and as a secondary answer, if you want to compare to sports, here's how I see it:
- Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
- Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
- Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
- For these reasons, I would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual player just because it discusses it, because it is written by and for fans. A site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability if it had significant independent coverage of a single player. At least, that is how I see it, others may think differently.
Quoted from : Redefining history (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which i have noted as a very very bad argument. In my opinion, it should be like this.
- Covering sports at large would be akin to covering e-sports at large (this is very complicated, as e-sports isn't based on a single game)
- Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (dota, starcraft, cs)
- Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single e-sports team
- For these reasons, I would not consider a website about (for example) Moscow Five and Natus Vincere to assess notability for any individual player just because it discusses it, because it is written by and for fans. A site covering dota (gosugamers and others) would perhaps be able to assess such notability if it had significant independent coverage of a single player.
- Which i have noted as a very very bad argument. In my opinion, it should be like this.
Quoted from Redefining history (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC):
- For those who still has the misconception on gosugamers/sgamer/mymym and other such sites... I would like to explain. These sites actually has forums/blogs features, however, they are not the main focus of these sites being brought up here and does NOT satisfy being reliable sources. Hence, all content on these forums/blogs cannot be cited. However, i am talking about the news features of these websites. For example, the news section of gosugamers is maintained by journalists/editors employed (is there a better word?) by the company to update the latest news about players, teams and competitions in certain games (most prominently dota and starcraft). It is generally reputable and cited by other reliable sources (this is from the alexa rankings). It is disinterested (the argument is "if football sites reporting about football teams/players/competitions are reliable, so is dota sites reporting about dota teams/players/competitions). I think it has everything to satisfy as a reliable source.
Quoted from : Redefining history (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Another Chatlog from the IRC:
- [12:29] <redefinehistory> could you help me check this site? http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gosugamers.net
- [12:29] <redefinehistory> does it count as well known or something?
- [12:30] <redefinehistory> compared to this http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sgamer.com
- [12:30] <+Alpha_Quadrant> redefinehistory: hmm, the first one appears to be used by other reliable sources
- [12:31] <+Alpha_Quadrant> suggesting that it may be reliable
- So check these sites out, it should be considered reliable
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/prodota.ru
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/pchome.net
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mymym.com
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/178.com
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/gosugamers.net
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/sgamer.com
- http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/replays.net
So whats your opinion on this? I feel that it satisfies as reliable. Redefining history (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, the above conversation occurred in #wikipedia-en-help connect (which has a no public logging policy). The comments above are a bit out of context. I told Redefining history that alexa could be used to help establish a source's reliability. I didn't say that it should be solely relied on. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- For that, i am really sorry. But is there anything else out there proving me wrong? Redefining history (talk) 06:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just a quick note, the above conversation occurred in #wikipedia-en-help connect (which has a no public logging policy). The comments above are a bit out of context. I told Redefining history that alexa could be used to help establish a source's reliability. I didn't say that it should be solely relied on. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Even more concise summary for everyone who thinks "TL;DR"
- Salvidrim stated that gosugamers.net/sgamer.com/178.com and others are unreliable sources due to them being focused on a few games and therefore should be considered as "fansites".
- Salvidrim then compared it to sports:
- Covering sports at large would be akin to covering entertainment at large
- Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of entertainment (movies, music, gaming)
- Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single video game (it is likely if you devote time and effort covering that topic, you're either fan or a detractor, thus not neutral or disinterested).
- He would not consider a website about (for example) the Montreal Canadiens and Ottawa Senators to assess notability for any individual players, but a site covering hockey would perhaps be able to assess such notability.
- Redefining History noted this as a bad argument, in his opinion
- Covering sports at large would be akin to covering e-sports at large
- Covering a single sport (hockey, volleyball, baseball) would be akin to covering a single type of game (dota, starcraft, cs)
- Covering a single sports team would be akin to covering a single e-sports team
- He would not consider a website about (for example) Moscow Five and Natus Vincere to assess notability for any individual player, however a site covering dota (gosugamers and others) would perhaps be able to assess such notability.
- Redefining History offered an explanation for GosuGamers.
- Redefining History asked help from the IRC, in which they replied that the alexa ratings should be referred to. It seems that Gosugamers is reputable and reliable enough.
- Thus he requested source checking on the following sites:
- Any opinions? Redefining history (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: Redefining history is haunting #wikipedia-en-help connect, asking people if his sources are verifiable and help with notability. He also wants video gamers to be like sports, and that is why they need to be included. (Implication: Help him so he can win this battle.) He's been aggressive with this, and as some one who occasionally helps new users, I'm finding him incredibly disruptive as he's been told these things on this thread and in the room. This behaviour is beginning to feel like canvassing. --LauraHale (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for that. I'll go to sleep first. Won't canvass anyone of you in chats, wont go aggressive again. I never knew what is the criteria for canvassing. Redefining history (talk)
- @Laura I genuinely feel that the above argument is never answered, and thus the asking. But seriously, if you consider that spamming, i can only sit back for a while and hope that someone answers. Nite! Redefining history (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
You've already been told that you were guilty of forum shopping on two different locations. On IRC today, you were told that your question had been answered, and you were asked to not ask the question again. When some one provided you with an answer, you did not like the answer and continued to ask the question. You were told that you were being disruptive, and you continued to ask the question until a channel operator had to silence you because we were unable to help others in the room. While I am trying hard to assume good faith, it is hard. You aren't spamming: You're being disruptive and forum shopping to get your sources treated as reliable and help with notability. Some one has already told you if you don't stop, you'll be reported to WP:AN/I for this and you haven't yet done that. If you're seriously sorry, you'll stop engaging in the activities people have told you to stop with. Otherwise your la la la! I didn't hear that! will get you blocked.--LauraHale (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
New sources for Bu Yanjun a.k.a. PIS or YaphetS
Redefining history (talk) 07:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
bharat-rakshak.com vs pakdef.info
Collapsed for clarity; the two specific cases are under discussion below
|
---|
I'll like to point out this previously discussed archive [17] which regards pakdef.info as a non reliable source (calling it a self published website) by some editors while bharat-rakshak.com on the other hand is being widely quoted on wikipedia. Note, that both are military consortiums of Pakistan & India and have articles on military histories of the two countries. Either both these sites should be considered unreliable or both should be allowed to be quoted since they have similar mission statements and similar objectives. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
We have to consider the two cases separately. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
|
So far involved editors are the only ones discussing it here. There's no point of referring to RSN if we keep on flooding. I think so many comments will discourage neutral editors to participate since it takes a lot of time to read. We've all made our points, lets wait for neutral input. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Per the questionable sources section of the policy, both these websites are not reliabale in the Wikipedia sense. Pakdef contains absolutely no information on who forms the editorial board for their content and while Bharat-Raksahak.com does provide a list of at least 3 editors over the last decade and a half, we are not provided with information on the reputation of these editors (or what qualifies them as editors). Since the reputation for checking facts for both of these sites cannot be determined and since either do not have editorial oversight (Pakdef.info) or an unverifiable editorial oversight (Bharat-Rakshak.com), we should treat them as unreliable sources. Between the two, Bharat-Rakshak does seem to have two editors who are known for their work in this area but only in a limited way (Jaideep E. Menon, an editor and Security Research Review team member, writes for Rediff.com and Airavat Singh, an editor, is the author or Op Kartikeya). Zuggernaut (talk) 04:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Shifted good faith comment by the user to the main section as a consensus is there to consider both sources separately. About the questionable sources, the section doesn't require the mention of the editorial board. Also an editor commented in the Pakdef section that the website is cited in other reliable sources making it reliable. In addition the website cites and credits the articles and quotations properly where required as per questionable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Pakdef.info
It's a notable military consortium for Pakistan military disclaiming influence of Pakistani government sources and claiming unadulterated POV. The users dbigxray, swift&silent & uplinkansh have been repeatedly claiming it to be a self published source (which it is not). The site has reviews written by other sites like cambridgeforecast.org & [24]. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Making pakdef.info as wiki reliable will end up making all wiki articles about Pakistan showing glorious (read as over exaggerated ) past and the loving (read as Biased) present(source: [| misssion statement] of pakdef.info ). In my opinion the articles of pakdef.info are severely biased and often wrong.not a Wiki Reliable source in my opinion the current status where it is marked as un-Reliable is correct. Others are free to give their opinions on this.----ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are assuming their right to publish as their biasness. This is not on what judgements are based, because all publishers retain these rights. In addition to that, their mission statement includes provision of unadultered truth. Unlike bharat-rakshak.com's publications, their publications are usually not in contradiction with so many other neutral sources.
- You should not mislead any potential neutral editor by giving it a current status as the previous RSN on this source was inconclusive with only one neutral editor adding a single line in comments as explained by User:Hj108 above. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- PakDef's mission statement
'Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world. We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.' They recently changed it but it shows their bias in a clear light. Swift&silent (talk) 06:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: that Swift&silent misquoted the mission statement in his attempt to stuff the ballot box, even when quoting in inverted commas the user has skipped the statements like "At PMC, our mission is to counter disinformation about Pakistan by providing unadulterated truth." from the mission statement and only added the reservation of rights sentence. This is manipulation by misquoting to push prejudice into neutral editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Its not Misquoting. An imp line has been highlighted that need to be considered while judging this case. if you are angry with that, you are welcome to Copypaste the whole mission statement, and spam the space here(and overstuff the ballot box) (while a link is already there that leads to the statement, thats needless), Their mission and content of website gives a clear message that the site is purely a propaganda site meant to appease people by exaggerating some points while downplaying others, i doubt if we can accept such a source as a citation on Wiki Articles. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 11:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is called misquoting when you quote something in inverted commas and omit sentences at your will. Infact as you said, there wasn't even a need to paste the mission statement as the link is there and editors can see that on the site. Quoting a sentence or even a paragraph is one thing, while using different sentences from different paragraphs and putting them in one and quoting that in inverted commas is strictly another. I hope you know that difference. This is stuffing of ballot box when some one manipulates like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- [25] Might be of use to editors asking for notability and reliability of the site. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- To all who have bolded their text here: it isn't generally encouraged, as it can look like shouting. Italics work too. Jesanj (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look at PacDef. I have to say their Mission Statement raises a red flag right off the bat, but let's have a look at the GBooks: 76 hits. Right off the bat, we find one that's a RAND study - but it appears to be citing its forums as an example of web discussion on a subject [26]. Same for the United States Institute of Peace [27] - cited, but also as an example of web chatter. We do have an Oxford University Press book that uses it as a source [28], while a book by a private security company cites it extensively [29]. Books by Stanford University Press and Cornell University Press each cite it once [30] [31]. My gut feeling here is that PacDef has strong possibility as a reliable source, but the low gBooks hits (noting, as with B-R, that a number are Wikimirrors/reprints and self-published) has me add the caveat insufficent data for high confidence in result - use with caution. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. The only useful input we got here. :)
- Yes, I think even though there is some caution involved but it is definitely not non-RS because of the fact that reliable sources like [32] & [33] quoted it as a reliable source. The site publications are mostly in coherence with other reliable sources. I'll also like to note that Pakistan's online presence is not as much as India and hence it is likely of not having mirrors and self referencing as in case of BR. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The OUP and CUP books with references pakdef are actually citing articles published in the Defence Journal and News Intelligence Unit, which were cached on pakdef. They don't cite pakdef's original content. The citation from SUP was for missile data point, again not for original pakdef content. So it seems, pakdef maybe cited with caution for content it has cached from other reliable sources or for factual data. It doesn't seem advisable to rely on the site's original content. --Skcpublic (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think we need to have a clear consensus about the Reliability of Pakdef.info, Most of the Articles of Pakdefinfo does not cite any verifiable sources. In the mission statements Pakdef.info have clearly mentioned that they accept Thesis Glorifying pakistan. Anyone who has written Thesis [opinion] glorifying Pakistan can be accepted by them and published as an article without citing any source below. Using these Pakdefinfo articles as a reference for Editing wikipedia article is bound to create problems for Wikipedia editors, as it will often clash with the reliable sources. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- For example there has been [| extensive edits] by the above user lTopGunl (talk) and the article Operation Chengiz Khan and the site http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/airforce/1971war/warinwest.html has been used as a major source. It is important to note that this Pakdef.info article does not state any source or reference for this information. Also Pakdef.info has clearly mentioned that Pakdef.info have nothing to do with the Government of Pakistan, its military establishment or any civil agency.. Even then it gives various detailed information in [| the above page] Their source is questionable and I encourage the Members to give a extensive review about Pakdef.info or else the editors at Wikipedia have to be ready to face a number of disputes that will surely arise in future because of the edits on wiki articles based on the thought provoking thesis on Pakistan published on http://pakdef.info/mission.html --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 20:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- We already got a clear consensus. You are disruptively pushing it long after a consensus was established. Articles on the source are cited and credited. As for the operation chengez khan, you are wrong. The source has credited then Indian air force chief's book for most of its information. You have repeatedly been wrongly framing the issue and forum shopping. Lastly for your point about the disclaimer that it is not related to the military only makes it neutral like the other sources, which too are not related to Pakistan military. Please read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Skcpublic, the reference is given to the pakdef and not the mirror content you claim hence citing pakdef and verifying its reliability. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Involved editors who are trying to WP:FORUMSHOP here, please note that this is a concluded discussion.--lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- THe article that i have brought into notice does not give any sources or citations. this clearly raises a red flag. also the Discussion is not concluded. dont assume things. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is cited from the Indian airforce chief's book (credited on pakdef as well as separately credited on the article). Yes, it was concluded, you keep coming back day after day to this to repeat your claims. A consensus was already achieved. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- i have checked [| the article again ], it does not cite
anysources for it, dont mislead and give wp:OR . The dispute is not yet closed. your repetition of words wont make any difference. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 15:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)- Here's to your out right lies. [34]:
- "All the preceding passages are from a narrative of events by Air Chief Marshal P C Lal, who commanded the IAF during the 1971 war, from his book “My Days with the IAF.”
- --lTopGunl (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Its imp to underline that only the source of Narrative (i.e. the quotes) has been attributed. in the next line the article says
- Bomb damage reports except the last one (Bhuj) have been positively identified from the book as relating to the first day of the PAF’s counter air campaign ie 3 December. It would be reasonable to assume that similar levels of damage continued to occur during the next thirteen days as well.
- A source which gives information on such ( historically incorrect and) wild assumptions (using the offensive of first day to be a basis for next 13 days), It would be unwise to accept the articles on Pakdef.info as a reliable one, This is just one example that came out because of the wiki article in question , there would be many such instances, that would add fuel to future disputes.Such occurances are not surprising if we look the fact that anyone with a Glorious thesis would be published on pakdef.info . I would request the fellow editors not to go on feelings but to decide logically, as the wiki articles are based on reliable facts and not wild assumptions especially when we are dealing with Important Historical wiki Articles --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, you have now come to accept it to be as source that was attributed to the passages in contrast to your previous claim of none (which is an obvious fact that a publication will not simply copy-paste the whole book)... You keep reframing the issue to your own accord. The assumption is not given as a source's assumption but as a damage analysis assumption since PAF didn't needlessly send so many reconnaissance sorties after the first day due to the inherent danger and assumed further damages to be of similar kind as of operation chengez khan. You mentioned a "fact" that anyone with a glorious thesis would be published on pakdef, while the mission statement says it will only publish unadulterated truth. So don't count your own opinion as "facts", All your comments on the article are baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let me clarify this again, This Dispute is still active and not yet closed (dont wp:ASSUME) things on your own we only have a view from a neutral user, also the discussion is not a wp:FORUMSHOPPING if you are not interested in an active discussion there is no need for you to comment uselessly to flood the thread and deviate and mislead others from the topic. Please refrain. their mission statement of accepting thesis, randomly accepting and rejecting contents to publish and they produce no sources citation in their articles all these highlights their Non Reliability --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, you have now come to accept it to be as source that was attributed to the passages in contrast to your previous claim of none (which is an obvious fact that a publication will not simply copy-paste the whole book)... You keep reframing the issue to your own accord. The assumption is not given as a source's assumption but as a damage analysis assumption since PAF didn't needlessly send so many reconnaissance sorties after the first day due to the inherent danger and assumed further damages to be of similar kind as of operation chengez khan. You mentioned a "fact" that anyone with a glorious thesis would be published on pakdef, while the mission statement says it will only publish unadulterated truth. So don't count your own opinion as "facts", All your comments on the article are baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here's to your out right lies. [34]:
- i have checked [| the article again ], it does not cite
- It is cited from the Indian airforce chief's book (credited on pakdef as well as separately credited on the article). Yes, it was concluded, you keep coming back day after day to this to repeat your claims. A consensus was already achieved. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- THe article that i have brought into notice does not give any sources or citations. this clearly raises a red flag. also the Discussion is not concluded. dont assume things. --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 13:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Involved editors who are trying to WP:FORUMSHOP here, please note that this is a concluded discussion.--lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO can we please get a final decision on this important discussion (before it gets archived)--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 01:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- You are disruptively trying to keep the topic open, check the difference in dates between your comments. No one wants to drag this already settled discussion anymore. I doubt you understand the meaning of consensus. Its not a decision by a single user that is followed. A consensus has been attained above. Suggest the repetitive comments by above editor be removed and the discussion be tagged as closed. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
bharat-rakshak.com
Military consortium run by retired Indian military officers. Its publications are often in contradiction with neutral sources (as seen on Operation Dwarka's talk page. It was claimed on [35] that it is checked by Indian military sources, but as it turns out by running a whois on the website that it is hosted outside Indian jurisdiction in united kingdom, so this claim turns out to be invalid. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since Operation Dwarka has been quoted above. I would like to include that user lTopGunl has included all the contradictions using non reliable sources and redundant citations. I have Raised the matter on the Talk:Operation_Dwarka. The wiki Discussion on bharat-rakshak.com can also be viewed in the above links, bharat-rakshak is a widely cited source by Wiki Editors, as it gives valid citations to its works from books and newspapers, and is often cited by Media. we need to concentrate on Pakdef.info --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 22:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- All the inclusions in Operation Dwarka are well cited with sources other than these two and can be reviewed. Just like bharat-rakshak, pakdef is also giving appropriate sources, so we should be concentrating on both as that's the topic of this RSN, and separate headings are there for separate discussion on each. I would like to comment here that if a site has been quoted in so & so other places in wikipedia, it does not become a reliable source, infact the decision here will impact all those citations as well. I think we should let this be fair and let neutral editors add their comments to each section after properly reviewing the sites. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Bharat-Raksakh is considered an respected source throughout. It is cited in most respected publications like
- Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies
- University of California
- Berkeley Institute of International Studies
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
- US military naval manual.
An google book search reveals that Bharat-Rakshak is cited in about 1100+ books [36] - unsigned. Swift&silent (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[[37]]
- I think it was dbigxray or swift&silent in the above comment and forgot to sign the comment. Bharat-rakshak directly translates in to 'defenders of India'. May be that rings a bell about propaganda in place because we don't know how they're here to 'defend' India. You just gave a google search link for the site. It is not an evidence for its reliability since it includes search results from forum talks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Forum talk doesn't count. Also, quoted among some peers (who also seem to be sister projects) like the "immortal soldier" (seems even biased from the name) don't make it notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- this is an extensively cited highly respected "go to" site for info about Indian military matters. the evidence of its reliability is its extensive use by other reliable sources as mentioned above. The fact that ii is run by Indians does not make it any less reliable than The Indian Express or the The Times of India.[39]--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be an involved editor from here [40]...? I'd rather you clarify. If you were not an involved editor I'd like you to know, in that case, this [41] attempt by User:Swift&silent comes under vigorous WP:canvassing. As for the source, well generally, when any source has contradictions with many neutral sources, we call it Non-RS even if people in so and so country use it for their general knowledge on an average day. Another thing to note is the chauvinistic tone of the site's publications as a trend. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- this is an extensively cited highly respected "go to" site for info about Indian military matters. the evidence of its reliability is its extensive use by other reliable sources as mentioned above. The fact that ii is run by Indians does not make it any less reliable than The Indian Express or the The Times of India.[39]--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Forum talk doesn't count. Also, quoted among some peers (who also seem to be sister projects) like the "immortal soldier" (seems even biased from the name) don't make it notable. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I took a look at B-R. The statement above that "You just gave a google search link for the site. It is not an evidence for its reliability since it includes search results from forum talks." is both right and wrong - while the link given was in fact a common Google search, a Google books search does indeed score 1,120 hits. Now, a number of those will be those accursed Wikipedia reprints and self-/vanity-published titles, but checking a couple of those that aren't show B-R given as a source in a U.S. Air Force-sponsored report by RAND Corporation [42]. Yyou also have the United States Institute of Peace [43], Nova Science [44], William Stewart [45], and Oxford University Press [46] citing B-R in books published by them. I think it's pretty conclusive that reliable sources consider bharat-rakshak.com to be a reliable source, and that therefore it is a reliable source. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- both b-r and pakdef should be used with caution. b-r is a "consortium of indian millitary websites", and many articles are written by retired indian military personal. what is reliable or not should be discerned carefully by cross-checking with reliable secondary sources. all the books you mentioned cite b-r together with additional sources. imo, one should avoid using b-r or pakdef as a sole reference. my two cents.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
These webpages for the notability of the graphic novel Dark Age
This past weekend, I covered the New York Comic Con for Wikipedia, as I normally do, and two comics creators, Nick and Adam Hayes, gave me a copy of their graphic novel, Dark Age, and handed me a press release, asking if an article could be created on it. I explained to them the site's notability policy required that the books be covered in verifiable, secondary sources, and that a print copy of their press release was neither, but if they could forward me secondary sources for it, I would see if it were possible. Nick Hayes emailed me an iFanboy writeup and 2 Bleeding Cool writeups that I believe would help qualify the book for an article, but I have some uncertainties about two of the other sources he gave me, and need to run them by you folks here.
- Grovel.org
The first is this review at Grovel.org. It looks like a good site, but I really don't know how to judge whether it's considered authoritative in the field, aside from the fact that I've never heard of it.
- The Font Feed
The second site is this review at The Font Feed. Again, it looks like a respectable site, but how it looks is hardly an objective criterion, I'd imagine. Aside from this and the fact that it's used in the Quantum of Solace and National Punctuation Day articles here on Wikipedia (which by itself doesn't make it an rs), I'm not sure how to evaluate it.
Can you give your thoughts on these two sites? Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO????????????????????? Can I get an answer? Nightscream (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's helpful on this noticeboard to post the disputed claims and how it relates to the RS policy without asking us to be instant subject matter experts. If the dispute is whether grovel.com is an RS, from its "about" page there is not enough disclosure to consider it to be one. From fontfeed.com: "FontFeed as a standalone blog dedicated to typography and it officially launched in its new space on 9 September, 2008." So this is a group blog of mixing business and personal interests. It is not RS for reviews of graphic novels. patsw (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
First, there is no "disputed" claim, just a question. Second, I was unaware that I asked anyone here to become an "instant subject matter expert". (I was also unaware that having to wait a week for a response was "instant".)
As for the graphic novel, I thought that coverage in RS's qualfies a subject for notability. This one has been covered in several. But now you're saying that it has to have won awards? Seriously? Nightscream (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- My impression is that patsw was using the awards phrase just an an example of the kinds of things that help establish notability. I might be wrong, but I don't think he was saying it was a requirement, which obviously it's not. That said, I'd agree with Nightscream that nothing is being "disputed" and no one asked anyone to become an "instant subject matter expert."
- I wonder if the most judicious course might be to take a "wait-and-see" stance. A couple of write-ups in relatively small hobbyist sites (and not just relatively small, by Entertainment Weekly and The New Yorker standards, but small compared even to Comic Book Resources and IGN.com) seems a bit insubstantial. I think what tips the balance in favor of holding off is that it's self-published; pretty much anyone can publish something himself and get a couple of websites to review it — I'm not sure it's feasible to have an encyclopedia article for every one of the hundreds of self-published graphic novels. We're on no deadline, and encyclopedias take the long view. Perhaps it'd be prudent to wait and see if it gains additional attention or fades away.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- 2¢
- I tend to agree "award winning", depending on the award, is one of many things that are needed, but not the sole thing, or even the most important thing.
- Write-ups in (very) small blogs isn't isn't what Wikipedia's guidelines look for, though they can flesh out an article in some cases.
- I'm leery of the phrase "not feasible" here. This is an on-line encyclopedia, it should be feasible to cover most things. In cases like this we may not wind up with much in the article, but it can be covered as appropriate. J Greb (talk) 18:55, November 1, 2011 (UTC)
- 2¢
Tenebrae, I've since been given reviews and reports by Wired magazine, Bleeding Cool, iFanboy and Jay-Z's website. Nightscream (talk) 07:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Question about the reliability of the following sources
Dear Sir/Madam, I am going to write an article about Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund (local equivalent to the FDIC in the US). Could you please tell me if the following external sources of information for this article would be considered reliable by Wikipedia:
- Member profile of Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund on the website of International Association of Deposit Insurers: http://www.iadi.org/profiles/kazakhstan.pdf
- ATF bank’s website (one of the biggest commercial banks in Kazakhstan) http://www.atfbank.kz/en/about_2/depozit.php
- British specialized magazine Central Asia Finance: http://www.eufinancemags.com/CAF.pdf
- Website of the National Bank (Central Bank) of the Republic of Kazakhstan: http://www.nationalbank.kz/?docid=175
Also, could we use the same article about Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund already uploaded successfully (and not deleted) on Wikipedia in Russian language and translated word for word in English for this new planned article as a reliable source of information for the new article. A simple logic tells me that if the article about KDIF in Russian has already been successfully uploaded on Wikipedia, there should be no problem in uploading the article with the same information in English?
Thank you very much in advance for your help! Best regards, Igor Zagorskiy
- It partly depends on what you're going to use the sources to say. If you're going to use them to give opinions or say controversial things about the fund (that it is being mismanaged, or it is the only thing saving the country), then we will need to consider if these sources (the banks, especially) have an interest in the issue. #4 seems like it would be a source writing about itself, so take care not to just quote them about how wonderful they are. If you're going to use them for straightforward things, like names of directors, dates of founding, etc., they should be all right. I'd also be a bit more specific than just giving link #4, though, that page just seems to give a form to fill out (though links from it seem to go to more useful places). You want to give the actual page giving the statement you're referencing, not just the first page on the site. No, you can't use another Wikipedia article as a source. You can use it for inspiration, and as a place to find more information, but for sources you need to find information that can't be edited at any minute by a bored 10 year old. --GRuban (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If "how wonderful they are" is a snide reference to the notability of National Bank of Kazakhstan, please note the all central banks of recognized nations are notable and WP:BIAS is applicable. To the question of should Kazakhstan Deposit Insurance Fund have its own article, I recommend adding it to the bank's article which is currently very short and would benefit by including this content. patsw (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing about notability was mentioned, merely a caution about the uses of WP:ABOUTSELF, hence the link. I'm a proud and contributing member of WP:CSB meself. :-) --GRuban (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Cite using a TV programme
I have a copy of a BBC documentary that provides information I need. Can I use this as an inline citation and how would I do it. I'm presuming a BBC documentary would be a reliable source of course. I can't find anything in the archives that would help. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can cite it if videos (download, CD, tape, etc.) are or were available. If it was only broadcast, and you taped it off the air, then it isn't available for verification. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) A BBC documentary in most cases would be a reliable source, but if the programme is not publicly available i.e. through iplayer/available on DVD/available through a publicly accesible archive then it is not a verifiable source. Sources have to be accessible in some for or another because every claim on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- {{Cite episode}} can also be used for formatting, as it contains multiple fields which can aid verification for others. As a BBC documentary it's likely to be mentioned on their website, and may even be available on their iplayer service for online viewing, which you can link to as well. Whether or not it's readily available for others to verify does not prevent its use as a source, as unavailable newspapers or print sources are also still perfectly valid. Most, if not all, of these programmes are released on home media by the BBC anyway, which will make it verifiable. You don't have to own a copy, nor does anyone else, as the information is able to be viewed, which is the key. GRAPPLE X 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of BBC documentaries can be found in libraries, so if you can find it on WorldCat, that also makes it verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of BBC documentaries can be found in libraries, so if you can find it on WorldCat, that also makes it verifiable. --FormerIP (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- {{Cite episode}} can also be used for formatting, as it contains multiple fields which can aid verification for others. As a BBC documentary it's likely to be mentioned on their website, and may even be available on their iplayer service for online viewing, which you can link to as well. Whether or not it's readily available for others to verify does not prevent its use as a source, as unavailable newspapers or print sources are also still perfectly valid. Most, if not all, of these programmes are released on home media by the BBC anyway, which will make it verifiable. You don't have to own a copy, nor does anyone else, as the information is able to be viewed, which is the key. GRAPPLE X 15:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The BBC is a reliable source. The aspect of access is covered in WP:SOURCEACCESS and was incorrectly stated above: "If it was only broadcast, and you taped it off the air, then it isn't available for verification". This is not the letter nor spirit of WP:V which actually states "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources." And it is the case for the BBC there are the BBC Archives. In the United States, there is the Paley Center for Media, formerly the Museum of Television and Radio. The availability of sourced content for personal purchase has never been a criterion for verifiability in Wikipedia. patsw (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that interpretation: ease of access still implies a level of accessibility. The policy states The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The policy does stipulate that it must be possible for readers to check the claim. A rare out of print book may be difficult to check, but it is still accessible on some level. The BBC archives aren't, it is impossible for a reader to check them so anything available just via the archive fails verifiability IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Is Lawrence Lessig part of the Occupy movement?
Does Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" (Discovery / TreeHugger.com) support the fact that Lawrence Lessig is part of the Occupy Wall Street and "Occupy" protests movement, and in particular, does it support inclusion of this section below, which has been deleted as unreliably sourced?[47][48]
- Harvard law professor and Creative Commons board member Lawrence Lessig called for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution[1] at a September 24–25, 2011 conference co-chaired by the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator,[2] in Lessig's October 5 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It,[3] and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC.[4] Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book could serve as a manifesto for the protesters, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections.[5] Lessig's initial constitutional amendment would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals (see Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.) Lessig also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.[6] Lessig's web site convention.idea.informer.com allows anyone to propose and vote on constitutional amendments.[7] Similar amendments have been proposed by Dylan Ratigan,[8] Karl Auerbach,[9] and others.[10]
TreeHugger is an established Discovery Communications blog with a general reputation for fact checking and accuracy, in my opinion. Tackett has a journalism degree. And there are two videos of Lessig on that page, the second of which has him speaking to the Occupy DC protesters using their "human microphone" technique.
This is being discussed at Talk:Occupy Wall Street#Constitutional Convention. It is unbelievable and petty that people are seriously trying to claim that Lessig and his call for a constitutional convention are not part of the movement after Froomkin and Shane, both cited in that paragraph, have both reported just so, and here is Lessig speaking to Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say it is a reliable source, although I question giving that much coverage in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
None of those sources says that Lessig's book and conference were "part of" the Occupy Wall Street protest. There's an ongoing problem with you exaggerating perceived connections; for example, you were going around saying that Lessig was obviously "part of" the movement because he "wrote a manifesto" for the movement, when in fact the book was unrelated to OWS (instead, one reporter happened to mention that it "could serve as" a manifesto). Likewise, you cherry-picked a quote from George Will's sarcastic column ridiculing OWS, and presented it out of context as if it were gushing praise. And after this was pointed out to you, you still edit-warred to re-insert the material in total disregard of the objections raised.
It's fine to discuss reliably sourced connections, but it's not fine to exaggerate them or to imply to the reader that OWS somehow is responsible for, or deserves credit for, anything anyone does that bears any similarity or relevance to OWS. It's also not OK to present sources in a misleading way. I'd like to note that you have also been inserting and edit warring over all of this material without any effort to garner consensus at the talk page, and now have taken the additional measure of making accusations of bad faith against other editors, raising objections of WP:TAGTEAM and saying they are conspiring against you with sinister motives—without any basis whatsoever. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are mistaken. Dan Froomkin says Lessig's book offers a manifesto for the protesters[49] and Peter M. Shane goes further than that.[50] And here is Lessig speaking to the movement on the Maddow show and at Occupy DC. Dualus (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dualus, as I already mentioned days ago, when you phrase it that way, you give the very misleading impression that Lessig intended the book as a manifesto for OWS. He didn't, and nobody has said he did. Rather, Froomkin says:
"The protesters occupying Wall Street have been famously without a formal manifesto. But if they wanted one, firebrand Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig's new book about how money has corrupted Congress might be a contender."
- [emphasis added] That's a very, very big difference, especially when it comes to the question of whether Lessig's actions can be somehow attributed to OWS. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I can appreciate that take, Centrify. Not so much an RS question, then, more about whether the link is too tenuous, which it looks like it might be. A question for ORN instead? --FormerIP (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't given thought to noticeboards. That said: It's clear that Lessig is someone whom OWS protesters should admire and who has made many arguments that are directly relevant to their interests. And it's clear that Lessig shows support for the general spirit of the protests. But Dualus seems to insist that the article say more than that and his edits tend to create the distinct impression that OWS is somehow responsible for Lessig's arguments, the conference he held, the book, etc. As yet another example, he brought up the conference at the article talk page, noting that a Tea Party leader co-chaired the conference with Lessig, and suggested that this should be reflected in the article as "collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party". As I said at the time, unless there was a major thread of sources that Dualus forgot to mention, this was an absurd conclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- If co-chairing a conference isn't collaboration, then what is? I am happy to ask this question on WP:ORN as well. Dualus (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think Centrify's point is that Lessig doesn't represent Occupy. If he co-chaired a meeting with the Tea Party, that is a collaboration between the Tea Party and Lessig. But all that has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which I why I suggest another board. --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- [edit conflict -- Yes, exactly, thanks] This is mind-numbing. Again, as I said several days ago, this is a clear instance of Prof. Larry Lessig collaborating with one Tea Party group's leader — not, it should be clear, an instance of OWS collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I find it mind-numbing that you continue to ignore Froomkin and Shane, who both specifically say that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Prove it. With quotes. (You can't.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, [51] and [52] are replete with support that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Prove it. With quotes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- People can read for themselves by clicking on the links. Start with the headline of the first. Dualus (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The headline doesn't support your contention.
- And we're not mind-readers.
- And I have read the entirety of both articles and they don't support your contention. You've been saying this for days and editing combatively based on this assumption that you're right, but you have not yet bothered to demonstrate that any of these sources actually provide support for the (exaggerated) contentions you're making.
- Cite specific article text or drop this argument. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are plainly mistaken. Readers can judge for themselves. Here are several more sources. Dualus (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- People can read for themselves by clicking on the links. Start with the headline of the first. Dualus (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Prove it. With quotes. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- On the contrary, [51] and [52] are replete with support that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 22:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Prove it. With quotes. (You can't.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I find it mind-numbing that you continue to ignore Froomkin and Shane, who both specifically say that Lessig is part of the movement. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- [edit conflict -- Yes, exactly, thanks] This is mind-numbing. Again, as I said several days ago, this is a clear instance of Prof. Larry Lessig collaborating with one Tea Party group's leader — not, it should be clear, an instance of OWS collaborating with the Tea Party. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think Centrify's point is that Lessig doesn't represent Occupy. If he co-chaired a meeting with the Tea Party, that is a collaboration between the Tea Party and Lessig. But all that has nothing to do with whether the source is reliable, which I why I suggest another board. --FormerIP (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- If co-chairing a conference isn't collaboration, then what is? I am happy to ask this question on WP:ORN as well. Dualus (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't given thought to noticeboards. That said: It's clear that Lessig is someone whom OWS protesters should admire and who has made many arguments that are directly relevant to their interests. And it's clear that Lessig shows support for the general spirit of the protests. But Dualus seems to insist that the article say more than that and his edits tend to create the distinct impression that OWS is somehow responsible for Lessig's arguments, the conference he held, the book, etc. As yet another example, he brought up the conference at the article talk page, noting that a Tea Party leader co-chaired the conference with Lessig, and suggested that this should be reflected in the article as "collaboration between OWS and the Tea Party". As I said at the time, unless there was a major thread of sources that Dualus forgot to mention, this was an absurd conclusion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we don't consider Huffington to be a very reliable source, see [53]. As for [54] and [55], I don't think that's enough to support inclusion of the material in the article on OWS--it seems to me that would be UNDUE weight, especially given the question of reliability. It may be appropriate to include that material in the article on Lessig, since he's quoted. But those are not really issues for this board. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The latest version has seven additional sources, including two showing that the protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment, and a Slate piece saying Lessig adds credibility to the movement. Dualus (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lessig's view on OWS is in Huffington Post
If the Wikipedia article in question is either Lawrence Lessig or Occupy Wall Street, or both, then Lessig's view is presented in the Huffington Post. What possible concern about its reliability could exist about Huffington Post presenting Lessig's view? patsw (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I am working on replacing the Huffington Post sources with more reputable sources such as [56]. Dualus (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- In this context, what are your concerns with Huffington Post not being reliable in presenting Lessing's views? patsw (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- The following sources have emerged:
- On October 15, the Occupy Wall Street Demands Working Group, published a declaration(ref name=99percentdeclaration>New York City General Assembly Demands Working Group (October 15, 2011) "The 99 Percent Declaration." Retrieved 20 October 2011.</ref> of demands, goals, and solutions.(ref name=duda>Duda, C. (October 19, 2011) "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Call for National General Assembly, Put Forward Possible Demands" Juvenile Justice Information Exchange</ref>(ref name=lopez>Lopez, L. (October 19, 2011) "Finally! The Protesters Have Drafted A Set Of Demands For The Jobs Crisis" Business Insider</ref>(ref name=haack>Haack, D. (October 24, 2011) "How the Occupy movement won me over" The Guardian</ref> The protesters have joined the call for a constitutional amendment.(ref name=manning>Manning, B. (October 21, 2011) "Lynch Shares Views on 'Occupy' Movement" Needham, Mass. Patch</ref>(ref name=crugnale>Crugnale, J. (October 14, 2011) "Russell Simmons: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want Constitutional Amendment" Mediaite</ref>(ref name=niose>Niose, D. (October 13, 2011) "What the Occupy Wall Street Protesters Want — Constitutional amendment on corporations is a starting point" Psychology Today</ref>(ref>McCabe, J. (October 21, 2011) "Dear Occupy Wall Street: 'Move to Amend' (the Constitution)" NewsTimes.com</ref>
- Critiques of those sources are most welcome. Dualus (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do any of these sources mention Lessig or is this just more synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Asked—and answered. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do any of these sources mention Lessig or is this just more synthasis?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Critiques of those sources are most welcome. Dualus (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm depending mostly on this Slate story and Lessig's speech to the DC protesters for that connection, but I will be happy to look for more sources associating the two. Dualus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- That story demonstrates that Lessig has made supportive statements about OWS and encourage his followers to join the protests. As I said days ago when you first mentioned that source, there's no problem saying that in the WP article. But you can't use it as the basis for some OR misadventure and make all kinds of claims not supported by any source. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm depending mostly on this Slate story and Lessig's speech to the DC protesters for that connection, but I will be happy to look for more sources associating the two. Dualus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
The Huffington Post can be used as a reference with caution. The discussions linked within the link above provided by another editor shows many reasons that don't hold water for total exclusion and one editor says this: "The HP is reliable only for opinions correctly placed with their authors." So the deletion of the Huff reference and statement from the lede of OWS violates this as it was pulled from the body of the article having used the HP in this very manner. The lede does not require the reference as long as it's in the body of the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand there were other sources. That wasn't in dispute. In this context, what are the concerns with Huffington Post not being reliable in presenting Lessig's views? patsw (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a letter from Lessig himself so it's opinion and not fact based.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- This particular content dispute really doesn't hinge on reliability of sources. Rather, after starting seven individual discussions of this topic at the article talk page—no particular reason why he had to keep starting new sections—Dualus was determined to press forward but seemed to struggle with figuring out where else to raise the debate, and ended up starting four different noticeboard discussions, as well, as you can see at the NPOV noticeboard. Despite the continued posting, I think this particular discussion is actually moot and should be closed. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're right. It's not (aside from the Huffington Letter).--Amadscientist (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
CelebrityAccess
Is CelebrityAccess a reliable source usable in a BLP? Specifically, is the so-called "industry profile" here usable in the article Brian Camelio to support for instance that "he spent 15 years as a professional touring musician, composer and producer"? My opinion is no, it can't be used. CelebrityAccess is a business directory and these industry profiles should be considered self-published material since the subject of the page is likely to have full control on the content of the page. This, however, is disputed on the talk page. Is my assessment incorrect? Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- For BLP this should be fine. There seem to be different rules pertaining to biographical information even if it is self published:
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
1. it is not unduly self-serving; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
72.52.203.143 (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hi 72.52.203.143, your editing pattern (compared to User:Jamesrand's editing pattern) indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. --Edcolins (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Which WP:SELFPUB test(s) does the disputed content from Celebrity Access fail? patsw (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- The statement "he spent 15 years as a professional touring musician, composer and producer" is unduly self-serving. He may have struggled for 15 years. This being said, I am not sure whether WP:SELFPUB applies to the portion of the source preceding the interview (i.e., preceding the first question "Why ArtistShare?" - the disputed content in the article is based on what precedes the first question). Regarding this portion, we are not in a case where the (living) person himself published material about himself. It seems we are just facing a source which, in my opinion, cannot be considered a high quality source, as requested in WP:BLP, second paragraph. --Edcolins (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ed, why are you putting a spin on this? How does "spent 15 years as a professional touring musician" turn into "struggling" and being unduly self serving. It doesn't say that at all and I think you may be reading into it. It appears to be just a fact. As far as the other part is concerned your argument is not clear to me. Why is this not a reliable source? Because you are guessing that it is self published or that it not self published? That does not make sense to me. If the person conducted an interview, perhaps they asked the subject about their background first. Either way it is all speculation and probably way too much attention being paid to it as the information is very factual and neutral in tone. Jamesrand (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how the statement is "self-serving" much less "unduly self-serving". See our own Self-serving bias article for what constitutes a self-serving statement. The statement seems descriptive and rather ordinary, and should be included unless there's evidence to show otherwise. patsw (talk) 10:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Patsw, many thanks for your opinion and pointing to our article "self-serving bias". Very useful. Let's say it's not self-serving. I had read the statement as being rather promotional and I had evaluated the source as not reliable enough for a BLP, because the site looks like a business directory and the overall tone of the source is pretty promotional. But for you the statement and the source are both fine, aren't they? --Edcolins (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Master Thesis is RS
As far as I understand a master thesis is a reliable source. In Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship it says "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community;".
That would mean that this thesis is RS:
Evidence-Based Public Policy toward Cold Fusion:
Rational Choices for a Potential Alternative Energy Source
by Thomas W. Grimshaw, Ph.D.
Professional Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin December 2008
There are maybe a few things we could use for Cold_fusion.
--POVbrigand (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- The guidelines state Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. This is a Masters dissertation, so for it to be passed as a reliable source you have to demonstrate its scholarly influence. Until you do that it is not reliable. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for clarifying --POVbrigand (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
On Libertarianism
Hi, there are a number of questions in relation to content added at Libertarianism. I apologise for the quality of citations, I am not the editor who supplied these citations or advocated their use. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is a tertiary source given as the bare link: [58] superior to a peer reviewed journal article by a scholarly expert Roderick T. Long (1998). "Towards a Libertarian Theory of Class" (PDF). Social Philosophy and Policy. 15 (2): 303–349: at p. 304. doi:10.1017/S0265052500002028. in supplying a grounding definition of libertarianism?
- Is a bare link to wikipedia given as:
- [59] ("Left-libertarianism") reliable for the claim "Left wing libertarianism sides with the individual against the concentrated economic and political power of wealthy individuals and large corporations."
- Is the source given as: Peter Richards, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903): Social Darwinist or Libertarian Prophet?
- Reliable for the claim: "By contrast, right wing libertarianism defines the government as the only threat to individual liberty. Left wing libertarianism is often associated with human rights movements (which emphasize human dignity and equality), while right wing libertarianism is often associated with social darwinism (survival of the fittest)."
- Is it an adequately detailed citation (Publisher, publisher location, date, location in text supporting claim), sufficiently detailed to allow other users to verify that this claim comes from the text?
- Is the source given as: Richard Hofstadter, Social Darwinism in American Thought 1860-1915
- Reliable for the claim: "By contrast, right wing libertarianism defines the government as the only threat to individual liberty. Left wing libertarianism is often associated with human rights movements (which emphasize human dignity and equality), while right wing libertarianism is often associated with social darwinism (survival of the fittest)."
- Is it an adequately detailed citation (Publisher, publisher location, date, location in text supporting claim), sufficiently detailed to allow other users to verify that this claim comes from the text?
- Is the source given as: Alan Haworth, Anti-libertarianism: markets, philosophy, and myth
- Reliable for the claims:
- "Left wing libertarians have described right wing libertarianism as propaganda that provides intellectual cover for increased corporate power and massive inequalities of income wealth"
- "Under this view, right wing Libertarianism's attack on government power is in fact a veiled attack on the broad diffusion of economic power through universal voting rights."
- Adequately cited for verification purposes
- Reliable for the claims:
- Is the source given as: Thomas Jefferson; The Jefferson Cyclopedia, University of Virginia
- Quoted as: "Jefferson wrote: "Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general prey of the rich on the poor." [7] "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."[8] "Aristocrats fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society." [9] "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." [10]" (edited at Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC))
- A secondary source
- A high quality reliable source in the sense of a modern scholarly source?
- Is it an adequately detailed citation (Publisher, publisher location, date, location in text supporting claim), sufficiently detailed to allow other users to verify that this claim comes from the text?
- Is the source given as: Jane Mayer, Covert Operations, New Yorker
- A high quality reliable source in the sense of a modern scholarly source?
- Is it an adequately detailed citation for other editors to verify the claim comes from the text?
- Does it support the claim, "The modern libertarian movement in the United States has in fact largely been funded by a small number of conservative billionaires, who exercise tight control over the "libertarian" institutions that depend on them for funding."
- It seems typical. Someone wants the article to express a viewpoint and they google search for sources that appear to support their viewpoint. TFD (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Re #6. Is IP citing from http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tje ? Looks like WP:RS to me.--S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- These are my impressions, subject to closer examination of what is to be sourced from each:
- Both OK. Long as a secondary source better.
- No.
- Editor who wishes inclusion of the material should supply page numbers.
- Ditto.
- Good source in principle, publisher and date can easily be added. No use without page numbers though, not verifiable that the source is correctly summarised.
- Not sure how to locate this one/these ones, so can't comment.
- Not a top quality source for a political science article. Probably counts as op-ed, although at the top end of that category. Would have to be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Didn't look at the others, but you're way off base re #7. It's not an op-ed, it's investigative journalism, and the New Yorker takes its fact-checking very seriously (see under WP:RSVETTING#Supplementary material under "Journalistic entities known to have good fact-checking operations" for some proofs). You may be assured that every single statement of fact that appears in the New Yorker has been rigorously checked by a top-tier professional who knows that if they get it wrong Perry White's crankier brother will be all over their case.
- These are my impressions, subject to closer examination of what is to be sourced from each:
- Re #6. Is IP citing from http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tje ? Looks like WP:RS to me.--S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the article supports the material is a whole nother thing. This is arguable. The article is about the Koch family, and while the Koch brothers are "a small number of conservative billionaires" it might be more accurate to say "The Koch brothers". The Koch brothers are libertarians, but its not clear that what they fund is "The modern libertarian movement". They fund a lot of things. Their key arm, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, is libertarian -- kinda sorta. They don't (I think) take a stand on abortion rights, drug laws, freedom from surveillance, philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, or stuff like that. The are really focused mainly on lower taxes, lower services, and getting government out of the regulation business. It's more of an old-line pro-business conservative-Republican line, but on steroids. They don't use the term "libertarian" in their self-description, so you'd need notable reliable sources with standing, saying that they are libertarian. It's a long article, and it might be better to selectively quote it directly rather than synthesize. But you may be assured that the source is extremely reliable for statements of fact. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Herostratus that #7 is perfectly reliable for statements of fact, and also that, however, the source doesn't appear to support the content. Some of the libertarian movement is not the whole of the libertarian movement (unless I missed something in the article.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whether the article supports the material is a whole nother thing. This is arguable. The article is about the Koch family, and while the Koch brothers are "a small number of conservative billionaires" it might be more accurate to say "The Koch brothers". The Koch brothers are libertarians, but its not clear that what they fund is "The modern libertarian movement". They fund a lot of things. Their key arm, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, is libertarian -- kinda sorta. They don't (I think) take a stand on abortion rights, drug laws, freedom from surveillance, philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, or stuff like that. The are really focused mainly on lower taxes, lower services, and getting government out of the regulation business. It's more of an old-line pro-business conservative-Republican line, but on steroids. They don't use the term "libertarian" in their self-description, so you'd need notable reliable sources with standing, saying that they are libertarian. It's a long article, and it might be better to selectively quote it directly rather than synthesize. But you may be assured that the source is extremely reliable for statements of fact. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Unreality Magazine
Is Unreality Magazine considered a reliable source? It looks like a sci-fi/superhero fanboy blog to me, but I would like to hear the opinions of other editors. It is currently being used as a source for an obscure reference to A Clockwork Orange in the video game Conker's Bad Fur Day in the List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange article. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- I am still hoping for a response here. Does anyone have an opinion as to the reliability of this source? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, after looking at the website concerned, it appears to be a self-published blog and so according to WP:SELFPUBLISH it does not meet Wikipedia reliable sourcing standards.--Namk48 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you! My thoughts exactly. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 14:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, after looking at the website concerned, it appears to be a self-published blog and so according to WP:SELFPUBLISH it does not meet Wikipedia reliable sourcing standards.--Namk48 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Opera website
Simon Keenlyside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This source is being used to support a long list of operas and roles for Keenlyside (I had tagged the list as unsourced). I reverted the addition of the source saying it was a WP:SPS, but the other editor reverted me saying it was not. On closer examination, it does not appear to be produced by Keenlyside, although I think it's fair to say he probably plays a large role (all puns intended) in what information is included. Apparently, it is produced by two people and their friends - see here.
I still maintain it's a WP:SPS pursuant to WP:USERG ("Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.").
I haven't reverted the editor's reversion. I'd rather obtain some comments here first.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The people who run the site have been following and documenting his career for years and and have a large anount of material on the website itself to document it. I've been attending the Royal Opera House for 25 years and I've personally seen him in virtually every one of those roles. My own view is that it is a very accurate source for the role list (and yes, I know that doesn't matter). Whether or not it is technically an "unreliable" and/or "self-published" source is another issue. Technically it probably is. However, an opera singer's role list is generally not a controversial issue. I personally don't see why even a clearly self-published source couldn't be used for that per Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF. It's not a list of crimes committed, ex-girlfriends, awards, etc. Since there is no other one place that documents all the roles, it would require an inline cite for every single role. Is that what you are suggesting? It can be done, although it would be rather laborious and not particularly visually attractive. In any case, does it need complete removal of the source plus a humongous ugly tag for something relatively uncontroversial? Why not just add {{third-party-inline}} next to the current citation? Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've started adding refs for every single role. I think what's there now gives a reasonable indication of how accurate the original source was, but I'll keep adding them until the list is a veritable sea of bright blue footnotes. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- In my estimation B double flat's estimation of the quality of www.simonkeenlyside.info (to which I have not the slightest connection) is almost disagreeably uncharitable. If one takes a thorough look at it and its contents one will see that it is a rigourously maintained source of accurate information, one that puts a fair proportion of WP's own pages to shame. Yours dispairingly almost-instinct 19:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I've glanced at what Voceditenore has done to the page, and I think it's commendable. I have no problem with the "sea of bright blue footnotes"; many lists of this kind look like that. It all has to be sourced. My belief is when it comes to opera singers, actors, and other performers, many editors are happy to bend the guidelines when it's too hard to find sources for things.
As for the original issue, which when Voce is done will hopefully become moot, we're really talking about two different issues with respect to WP:SPS. If this were Keenlyside's own website, a list of what roles he's performed would be self-serving and therefore impermissible. As it is, the website is unreliable because it's a personal website (WP:USERG). I don't even think there's any wiggle room for that as the two individuals are not "experts", and even if they were, the guideline prohibits it for use in BLPs. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Sources in List of vegetable oils
Over at List of vegetable oils, we're near the end of a thorough cleanup of the references. We've probably replaced 60% of what we started with, and the article is much stronger, but we have a few left that we have questions on. From the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, which bills itself as "an electronic, national resource for producers interested in value-added agriculture":
- Michael Boland (January 2011). "Safflower". Agriculture Marketing Resource Center. Retrieved 2011-10-17.
- Ray Hansen (August 2011). "Sesame profile". Agriculture Marketing Resource Center.
- Boland, Michael; Stroade, Jeri (August 2011). "Sunflower profile". Retrieved 2011-10-17.
- Dan Burden. "Meadowfoam". AgMRC Web site. Retrieved 2011-10-24.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
From the Canola Council of Canada:
- "Canola Oil - The Myths Debunked". Canola Council of Canada. Retrieved 2011-10-19.
From New Agriculturalist:
- Busani Bafana (July 2009). "Mongongo - a tough nut worth cracking". New Agriculturist. Retrieved 2011-04-28.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
From the Texas (A&M) AgriLIFE Extension Service:
- J. Benton Storey. "Pecans as a health food". Texas AgriLIFE Extension Service. Retrieved 2011-10-24.
There may be another few by the time we've crossed the t's and dotted the i's on the cleanup, but we'd love to have your input on these. Waitak (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm really alarmed by the article. There are lots of health claims and implications. WP:MEDRS applies to those. The AGMRC material, on the other hand, appears to be oriented towards practical advice to farmers. On the one hand, it has a definite bias, giving reasons why someone should cultivate the crop rather than not cultivate it. On the other, it seems to be well researched and succinct. AGMRC could do with some more consideration here, would be interested to read other people's take on it. In the meantime, I am going to post at WP:FTN about the alt.health claims, as part of the trawl through medicinal herb articles that's going on there. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that you're alarmed. I just reviewed the article, and am having a lot of trouble finding any medical claims at all, other than "used medicinally", each instance of which is backed by a reliable source that says (usually a lot more than) exactly that. I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how that constitutes a health claim, and having even more trouble seeing why that merits posting the article on a board dedicated to fringe theories. If I'm missing something here, would you please point out (on the talk page) what you're alarmed about so that it can be addressed? What is it that you think the article is claiming or implying? Waitak (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, everyone.
Please view the talk page here: Talk:Halt_and_Catch_Fire#MIPS-X_HSC. There is information that is being included in Wikipedia that sounds credible, but in fact it is a joke. I seek some way of being able to confirm that the cited "fact" is in fact a joke. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please follow the instructions at the top of the page.
- The question is whether private correspondence trumps Chow, Paul (May 1988). "MIPS-X Instruction Set and Programmer's Manual". Stanford, California, United States of America: Computer Systems Laboratory, Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Stanford University. p.65. in supporting or not supporting the phrases, "The MIPS-X was a processor supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The Programmer's Manual for this chip describes an HSC (Halt and Spontaneously Combust) instruction, that is only found in a version of the processor designed for the National Security Agency."
- The answer is: Chow (1988) is a reliable source. Private correspondence is not a reliable source. The article's construction that the manual describes a
hsc
is correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)- The solution would be to have Chow state it was a joke in a reliable published source. Alternatively, he could (or perhaps already has) give the URL of his web site in a reliable published source and then place a statement about the joke on the website. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- While this is being sorted out it is probably a good idea to keep in mind that we do not have to use all citations from reliable sources. If removing the possible joke would not distort the article's neutrality, editors should probably agree to remove while sourcing is being checked. If not, then at least consider whether the wording can be neutralized so as not to claim too much about whatever is considered controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- With respect to all who are contributing, I think that we've successfully described the problem but are no closer to finding a solution. I don't think that I personally have the resources to fix it. Can someone fix this? - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- While this is being sorted out it is probably a good idea to keep in mind that we do not have to use all citations from reliable sources. If removing the possible joke would not distort the article's neutrality, editors should probably agree to remove while sourcing is being checked. If not, then at least consider whether the wording can be neutralized so as not to claim too much about whatever is considered controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- The solution would be to have Chow state it was a joke in a reliable published source. Alternatively, he could (or perhaps already has) give the URL of his web site in a reliable published source and then place a statement about the joke on the website. Jc3s5h (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Wiley - Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia: Science, Technology, and Applications
Wiley published a Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia
It covers every form of nuclear energy generation, i. all sorts of fission and fusion technologies.
I assume that this is without doubt a perfect reliable source.
It also covers LENR (aka cold fusion), therefore I assume that several WP-editors will go through lengths to find reasons to deny RS for this book, possibly also because the editor is Steve B. Krivit.
Now the status of acceptance of LENR by "mainstream science" is a bit unclear to me. APS and ACS have held sessions dedication to cold fusion / LENR in their annual meetings for some years now. To me that indicates that LENR is certainly gaining acceptance. Several peer reviewed journals publish cold fusion papers, amongst them "Naturwissenschaften".
side questions:
- 1) are the proceedings from annual meetings by the APS and ACS RS ? Do they suddenly become non-RS if they contain cold fusion / LENR papers ?
- 2) I would also like to know who defines what "mainstream science" thinks. Is it only the "Nature" and "Science" editorial team who decide for the rest of the world what is to be believed ?
- 3) When does fringe science stop to be fringe science and advances to emerging science ?
Back to Wiley. Is this publication RS, and if yes with what "tone" might it be used in Cold Fusion.
Thanks --POVbrigand (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any indication that the encyclopaedia is RS so far. Follow the instructions at the top of the page please. In particular who authored which article of what length that you intend to cite in which articles to verify what statements? Full citation please. Unsigned tertiaries are rarely considered RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- In particular this publisher description, "Filled with figures, graphs, diagrams, formulas, and photographs, which accompany the short, easily digestible entries, the book is an accessible reference work for anyone with an interest in nuclear energy" indicates that it is unlikely to be a scholarly tertiary. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to use: "Partially hidden among the unscientific claims in this two-decade controversy, a legitimate set of scientific phenomena has emerged." - Steve B. Krivit - Chapter 41 "Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research". Other authors are visible from the TOC
- Ch. 41 - Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research - Steven B. Krivit (New Energy Times)
- Ch. 42 - Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions: A Three-Stage Historical Perspective - Leonid I. Urutskoev (Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation)
- Ch. 43 - Low-Energy Nuclear Transmutations - Mahadeva Srinivasan (Retired, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre), George Miley (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) and Edmund Storms (Kivalabs)
- Ch. 44 - Widom-Larsen Theory: Possible Explanation of LENRs - Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA) and Steven B. Krivit (New Energy Times)
- Ch. 45 - Potential Applications of LENRs - Winthrop Williams (U.C. Berkeley) and Joseph. M. Zawodny (NASA)
- --POVbrigand (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to use: "Partially hidden among the unscientific claims in this two-decade controversy, a legitimate set of scientific phenomena has emerged." - Steve B. Krivit - Chapter 41 "Development of Low-Energy Nuclear Reaction Research". Other authors are visible from the TOC
- I looked at the sample article which was reprinted from Energy and Environment and was written by someone from The Heartland Institute.[60] Not only is this type of source questionable, but the article itself has no footnotes and therefore can be seen as a tertiary source at best. I would avoid it. TFD (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Wiley is an RS publisher. Where opinions are found in any book, it is always proper to name the person or group with the opinion, but that is not the issue here. There is no "perfect source" on anything - I recall texts which stated "facts" about crystals - which are now disproven by a Nobelist [61]. That "symmetry" was always true - shown now to be in doubt in matter-antimatter creation [62]. The Mendel "coin toss" genetics, now shown to be "close but no cigar." It is not up to Wikipedia to know the truth - it is only up to us to record what others say. Period. Collect (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited by Sam Vaknin
Citations to Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited are sometimes deleted in Wikipedia on the basis that it is self-published. That is not disputed but IMO the fact that it is self-published is irrelevant in this case as the book is commonly cited from other works on narcissism. I have seen quite a few books on narcissism published over the last few years and I would say that more than half either cite Vaknin or list his book as recommended reading. For example:
- Lisa E. Scott, He's So Vain He Can't See You (2008) p. 8
- Frank H. Columbus/Serge P. Shohow, Advances in Psychology Research, Vol 31 (2004) p. 5
- Simon Crompton, All About Me: Loving a Narcissist (London 2007) p. 31
- David Thomas Narcissism: Behind The Mask (2010) p. 28
- Ronningstam, Elsa F. Identifying and Understanding the Narcissistic Personality (2005) (can't remember the page number)
- Mary Farrell, Acts of Trust (2010) p. 191, refers to 'Sam Vaknin, an expert on this personality type'
- Alma H. Bond, in her biography of Margaret Mahler also cites Vaknin as a source (p.ix and p. 47).
- Lavender NJ & Cavaiola AA The One-Way Relationship Workbook: Step-By-Step Help for Coping with Narcissists, Egotistical Lovers, Toxic Coworkers & Others Who Are Incredibly Self-Absorbed (2011) Vaknin listed as recommended reading.
It seems bizarre that Vaknin's book is frequently cited in other literature but is not allowed to be cited in Wikipedia. Also Vaknin's views are widely sought in the quality media and he is an acknowledged authority and expert, for example:
- Megalomaniacs abound in politics/medicine/finance - Business Day, January 7, 2011.
- "The monster in the mirror", The Sunday Times, September 16, 2007
- "When narcissism becomes pathological", Financial Times, September 4, 2010
- Reality bites after the lights go out - CNN 2011
Vaknin has a huge longstanding reputation as a journalist and editor for serious journals such as:
He co-authored a book (Macedonian Economy on a Crossroads) with the later president of Macedonia Nikola Gruevski). --Penbat (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- To begin with, Vaknin's editing of Global Politician, on online political magazine, and co-authoring a book on the Macedonian economy have nothing to do with his expertise on the topic of narcissism.
- Secondly, Vaknin himself has a long history of editing Wikipedia, often with sock puppets, all of which involved self-promotion. He has also criticized Wikipedia in widely seen essays.
- Samvak (talk · contribs),
- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Samvak, (2nd), 3rd, (4th)
- Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23/In the news#Sam Vaknin, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive 9#The Wikipedia Cult, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-14/In the news#Is Wikipedia a cult?, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-14/In the news# Is Wikipedia a cult?,
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive70#Be ready for some POV edits to narcissism articles
- "The Six Sins of the Wikipedia" (circa 2006) and "Is Wikipedia a cult?" (circa 2010).
- Third, this has been discussed extensively in the past, including discussions in which Penbat participated. None of those previous discussions agreed that Vaknin qualifies as an expert and is therefore exempt from the prohibition on using self-published sources. See:
- User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Global Politician
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcissism and schizoid disorders
- Talk:Narcissistic personality disorder/Archive 2 (almost the entire page)
- Talk:Narcissism/Archive1#Things change
- Talk:Codependency#Removing content from Sam Vaknin
- Talk:True self and false self#Vaknin and Vaknin (continued)
- Talk:Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury#Comment
- Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive102#User:Will Beback and Sam Vaknin
- Fourth, Vaknin's Ph.D. is from an unaccredited correspondence school, Pacific Western University, and is in the field of the Philosophy of Physics. His list of qualifications/educational background does not include any training in psychology or related fields.[63] While he is occasionally cited by other scholars on the topic of narcissism, that is sometimes because Vaknin is a self-admitted narcissist and a useful example rather than because he is a recognized expert. Being called an expert by lay journalists means little. Even Snopes has disputed his credentials.[64]
- Fifth, there are plenty of scholarly sources for this topic, so there is no need to use self-published sources.
- Sixth, Penbat (talk · contribs) has continued to add material sourced to Vaknin despite other users telling him that it is not a suitable source. He has added material that is not even published in printed books but is simply posted on Vaknin's Tripod.com website.
- Seventh, where Vaknin is cited by published experts we can cite those experts and their views of his theories.
- Eighth, Narcissism is a medical topic and sources on it should probably meet not only meet the minimum standards of WP:V, but also the higher standards of WP:MEDRS.
- Ninth, Wikipedia hosts a large collection of articles on narcissism, including Narcissistic abuse, Narcissistic defences, Narcissistic elation, Narcissistic leadership, Narcissistic mortification, Narcissistic parents, Narcissistic personality disorder, Narcissistic Personality Inventory, Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury, Narcissistic supply, Narcissistic withdrawal, Collective narcissism, Malignant narcissism, and Healthy narcissism. See Category:Narcissism and Template:Narcissism. User:Penbat has been involved in editing most of these, and he should consider being more cautious about promoting the views of one particular source. Will Beback talk 21:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow i cannot believe that User:Will Beback has laid out so clearly how much he has come out in his true colours in the form of a personal agenda against Vaknin and in doing so i find it extremely offensive that he is trying to smear my name in the process. I must say that I find his attitude absolutely disgusting.
- There is a huge can of worms involving past victimization of Vaknin on Wikipedia, for example involving years of very sinister activity by permanently banned user User:Zeraeph and her self-admitted sockpuppets. Millions of words have already been written on Wiki discussion pages about User:Zeraeph's sinister cyberbullying activities and it would be very counterproductive to stir it up all over again, for example dredging up highly contentious stuff about Vaknin sockpuppets (what possible relevance has that got anyway)?
- User:Jacobisq, who is currently on a Wikibreak, has used Vaknin citations much more than me on Wikipedia. He is a bone fide independant scholar and nothing to do with me. By removing Vaknin citations you are undermining his judgement.
- I am a Vaknin agnostic not a Vaknin believer. But It is impossible to do justice to the field of narcissism without citing Vaknin - he is one of the top contributors to the field. The idea that I am trying to "promote" Vaknin is absolutely disgusting and is a smear in my personal integrity.
- There is no question of undue weight given to Vaknin, for example he barely got a mention in the main narcissism article.
- Why on earth is it OK for many works on narcissism to cite Vaknin but not Wikipedia ? That makes absolutely no sense.
- --Penbat (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow i cannot believe that User:Will Beback has laid out so clearly how much he has come out in his true colours in the form of a personal agenda against Vaknin and in doing so i find it extremely offensive that he is trying to smear my name in the process. I must say that I find his attitude absolutely disgusting.
- The "past victimization of Vaknin on Wikipedia"? That's quite a claim but it is not really germane to whether Vaknin meets Wikipedia's standard for granting an exception to the prohibition on self-published sources.
- Scholars have different standards than those set for Wikipedia editors. Scholars can cite primary sources including personal interviews and original research, but Wikipedia editors cannot.
- To the extent that Vaknin is cited in published works we can discuss his theories of narcissism. But Wikipedia standards do not allow citing a self-taught, unpublished layman, especially on a topic related to a field so closely related to psychological diagnoses. Will Beback talk 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is a long and complex story involving Wikipedia and Sam Vaknin. My posting above is more the result of using the search function and trying to present the salient points as they appeared than any independent memory or knowledge of these events in the past (with obvious exceptions). On reflection I could have organized it better. My intent is to flesh out the issue for those of us with poor memories.
- I hadn't seen this in my search because it's blanked:
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph Case Closed on 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was three years ago so I don't think we need to delve into it again now. While it's useful to pull all of the background together in one place, the narrow question here is just about WP:SPS. Will Beback talk 10:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes you are wise to remain focused on the narrow issue as otherwise nothing will ever get resolved here. There is no dispute that the book is WP:SPS but in my view that is incidental. Vaknin has never claimed that he has formal qualifications in psychology and often states that upfront. However it is very clear that he has studied theory by others on narcissism in depth. One of the attractions of Vaknin is that, being a self-confessed narcissist, he gives a rare insiders perspective of being a narcissist. So being a narcissist himself qualifies himself to write about his own condition. Many academics find his view useful to compliment their own more abstract theoretical description of narcissism and like to cite him. Although he does have some views unique to himself, much of his views on narcissism are rooted in mainstream theory. Where citations to Vaknin have been used in Wikipedia, a range of other views have often been given as well as alternatives, although Vaknin's views often overlap with others. So the reader can decide which views are the most credible and not depend on any one view. A link to Sam Vaknin is often given with citations so readers can easily read up about his background.--Penbat (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
WTH? Mr. Vaknin's BLP appears to be "not good." While he may be a nut, the fact is that he was used as a reporter by UPI ([65]) His c.v. makes clear that the "Pacific Western University" which was unaccredited in Hawaii was not where he got a Ph. D. so that sort of BLP violating claim should be redacted from this discussion entirely. The link to PWU-CA given in the article states that it is not affiliated with any other institution. Also the degree is not a "Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy of Physics" (per [66]) but a Ph.D with a major in Physics. In point of fact, not all physicists with doctorates have a D.Sc., many Ph.D. are around. I do not care how much a nut a guy is, it is wrong and contrary to WP:BLP to make such a claim in any article or discussion on Wikipedia. Also any bit about socks is not relevant to his actual status in current discussions. Once the "diploma mill" claim is shown inapt, the rest of Will's arguments fail, alas. Will - you did a lot of research here. But Wikipedia does not use what we know as the basis for what we assert in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Collect, I believe you are misreading the sources. It's pretty clear that Pacific Western University is where he received his one and only Ph.D. (you linked to his diploma yourself), and that the school had none of the usual accreditations at the time. There's no such thing as a "major" in a doctorate, which may be further reason to question its value. He says his dissertation was on "Time Asymmetry Revisited" - nothing to do with psychology. He also says that he only completed nine semesters as an undergraduate.[67] Combined, that's the extent of this formal education: no undergraduate degree and a Ph.D. from an unaccredited correspondence school in an unrelated field. (If anyone knows of other credentials, please share them). Again, this concerns the exception to WP:SPS. Let's refresh our memory about what it says:
- Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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.[4] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[5] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
- Vaknin has never had his work in this field published by reliable third-party publications. Therefore, his self-published work does not qualify as reliable sources. Will Beback talk 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is almost invariably true that a Ph.D. is in a particular major, Will. And diplomas show the "major" or "field of study" for which the degree is given. Almost invariably And it is also clear that "Philosophy of Physics" is not on the diploma, and not in any claim made by the person, and is a red herring of no validity in any article or talk page, and is a WP:BLP violation. Your claim is thus extraordinarily errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whether he does or does not have a valid PhD, and in what subject, does not affect whether or not he is a WP:RS. I have a PhD in Clinical Psychology, but only my peer-reviewed articles (and not my own website) would meet WP:MEDRS. But out of interest I did look at Vaknin's online CV. Assuming this is is site - I think it likely - it says there: 1982-3: Ph.D. in Philosophy (dissertation: "Time Asymmetry Revisited") – Pacific Western University, California. He also links to his degree certificate from that page. The certificate says the PhD is in Physics, the CV that it's in Philosophy. Either way he gained it in one academic year which is good going by anyone's standards! (I wish my supervisees would work as fast...) Describing a PhD as having a 'major' is not usual in the UK but then neither do our undergraduate certificates use that term - I assume it's a form of words that is maybe more common across the Atlantic. Either way, all this is moot as it would be my view that only his peer-reviewed articles would meet the criteria for WPMEDRS. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is almost invariably true that a Ph.D. is in a particular major, Will. And diplomas show the "major" or "field of study" for which the degree is given. Almost invariably And it is also clear that "Philosophy of Physics" is not on the diploma, and not in any claim made by the person, and is a red herring of no validity in any article or talk page, and is a WP:BLP violation. Your claim is thus extraordinarily errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whether or not Vaknin has a Phd is a red herring as if it exists it is not psychology related and Vaknin makes it abundantly clear that he is not qualified academically in psychology and is therefore not trying to deceive anybody. However he has clearly studied the theory of narcissism in huge detail and has credibility as he is able to give an insiders perspective as a self-confessed narcissist so therefore knows his subject in a direct way. I have already made it very clear that he is frequently cited by others.--Penbat (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually "time assymmetry" is far more likely to be a Physics issue than one of Philosophy. As for a Ph.D. in one year - unusual to be sure, but not impossible. I personally do not care if a person is a nut or not - WP:RS does not say "sources written by nuts are not allowed" - the principle of Wikipedia is that enough contrasting sources will be found to show other points of view. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- That gets us back to the clear language of the policy. Has Vaknin ever had his work on narcissism published by a reliable third-party publication? Will Beback talk 17:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- PS: Being cited frequently is not part of the criteria. Will Beback talk 18:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now you are just being tiresome and talking in riddles.--Penbat (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase the question. WP:V, a core content policy, forbids the use of self-published sources with one exception: sources written 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". Is there any evidence that Vaknin meets that standard for narcissism-related articles? Will Beback talk 19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Personality disorder is a professional specialty for me as a researcher in psychological therapies. I have not come across Vaknin before but using his own self-published material in an article about the man himself would be reasonable if the cite follows the SPS guidelines. However for articles about personality disorders I would not regard his work as reliable. He could be mentioned if third party reliable sources have anything to say about him (rather than merely citing some of his work in passing.) For example if a source meeting the criteria for WP:MEDRS said something about the influence Vaknin has had on theory or practice in the area. But we'd be citing the third party source, not Vaknin. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's an excellent summary. We are not seeing a PhD from an accredited university in a relevant discipline or a string of academic publications, so "self-publishing by an expert" doesn't really apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Personality disorder is a professional specialty for me as a researcher in psychological therapies. I have not come across Vaknin before but using his own self-published material in an article about the man himself would be reasonable if the cite follows the SPS guidelines. However for articles about personality disorders I would not regard his work as reliable. He could be mentioned if third party reliable sources have anything to say about him (rather than merely citing some of his work in passing.) For example if a source meeting the criteria for WP:MEDRS said something about the influence Vaknin has had on theory or practice in the area. But we'd be citing the third party source, not Vaknin. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 19:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let me rephrase the question. WP:V, a core content policy, forbids the use of self-published sources with one exception: sources written 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". Is there any evidence that Vaknin meets that standard for narcissism-related articles? Will Beback talk 19:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now you are just being tiresome and talking in riddles.--Penbat (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Will Beback, Kim Dent-Brown and Itsmejudith and the others elsewhere over the years who have stated that Vaknin is not a reliable source for anything connected to personality disorders. Given that these are medical topics, the more stringent WP:MEDRS apply. I can add yet another time when this topic has been discussed with Penbat. As requested by him/her, I analyzed the sources for his expert status here here. I am disappointed that once again s/he continued to claim (amongst other things) that the self-published books of Thomas and Scott are a source that Vaknin is considered an expert. It's good that this has come to WP:RSN and hopefully this can be the end of it. --Slp1 (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Occupy London
It has been reported in the Telegraph that the protesters at occupy London go home at night with only 1 in 10 tents occupied, [68] The people running the show have admitted this here [69] An IP has removed this based on the fact that the source is biased and junk. Is the source reliable for this edit? [70] The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- "The people running the show have admitted this here". No they haven't. You are misrepresenting the source, in further pursuit of your ongoing attempts to denegrate the 'occupy' protests. For another perspective on this, see the Guardian: [71]. When there are conflicting versions of an event, we don't get to assert that one is the 'truth', and another is false - particularly by blatant misrepresentation. Take your smear campaign elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- That guardian op ed it junk, the author questions whether thermal imaging actually works. There is a difference between an op-ed and an actual news report btw. The second link most certainly does have a member saying people go home at night. This has also been reported on by sky news and the BBC. Please remove your attack, this is the third time you have accused me of conducting a smear campaign. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the second link does support the assertion that people go home at night, but it does not support the assertion that only 1 in 10 tents are occupied, and the text of the first doesn't appear to support the 1 in 10 number (I did not watch the video). The diff words it as "very few protesters remain", and I don't think that's supportable either, I would suggest that "most" is as far as one should go. In regard to [72], Patrick Kingsley is listed as a feature reporter, and it is not presented as an op ed piece. That being said, these are all basically primary sources--reporters on the ground directly witnessing events, so caution is advised and I would suggest we not put too much weight on any of them. For example, I doubt any of the reporters are experts in the use of thermal imaging to determine tent occupancy. Also, some of the source appear to have a clear slant on the issue, another reason to use this sources with caution. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
All said and done - each source is RS for what it actually states, and the obvious conclusion is that only a small group remain overnight (the quibble that people do not sleep before 12:30 a.m. is weak, to be sure). All newspapers are "primary sources" if that is the quibble - but Wikipedia specificaly allows news reportage, so that quibble fails. And news reporters always use outsiders for such stuff as thermal imaging, etc. What we are left with is:
- The Telegraph reported that a thermal imaging study at 12:30 a.m. on (date) showed only 10% of the tents being occupied. The Guardian reported that organizers state that people are free to come and go, and that only 250 out of 1000 protesters are full-time at the site.
or thereabouts. (I think I got he Guardian figures right?) Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's always cherry-picking in covering current events that pass WP:NOT tests:
- To make coherent articles on any of the OWS's sites primary sources were used, are being used, and will be used.
- The whole point about primary sources is preference of secondary sources to primary sources to avoid original research. Using secondary sources only would result in 100 word summaries as opposed to the detail in the articles now.
- In this case, the actual occupancy of the tents is a relevant question and multiple points of view can be accommodated in the article. The mere restatement of the claim made in the article is not OR. 159.53.110.143 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Of course the BBC and Sky News have also reported on the fact the most of the tents are empty at night. The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's always cherry-picking in covering current events that pass WP:NOT tests:
Can this review from reuters be used?
http://blogs.reuters.com/indiamasala/2011/10/26/ra-one-this-aint-the-one/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shshshsh (talk • contribs)
- For what purpose in what article?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- For a negative film review at the film article Ra.One. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a blog stream hosted by Reuters, so you have to look at the blogger to see if they are a respected expert on the topic. The topic is Bollywood films and the blogger is Shilpa Jamkhandikar. She used to review films for the New York Post, and now covers the film world for Reuters. The critic has been quoted by others, and is referenced on Wikipedia at a half dozen film articles.
- I think the review can be used to a very limited extent, perhaps one quote, and absolutely attributed to Shilpa Jamkhandikar as her opinion. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- If it's for the critic's opinion of the film then Reuters is a reliable source for the author's opinion. She seems a valid critic, her reviews count towards Metacritic scores [73], which are heavily utilised on film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
A Reuters blog is a opinion feature - to use the more accurate traditional media term. In some sense, the Wikipedia's editors are quite behind the curve looking at what media companies call "blog" and think of the Wikipedia's 2001 definition in 2011. patsw (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Aren't all movie reviews opinion features? If the author is a noted expert on bollywood films, then using this as source for a section treating critical reception seems appropriate. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Jailbreak developer blogs
At Talk:iOS jailbreaking, there's a disagreement between myself and another editor over whether developer blogs, such as the iPhone Dev Team's blog, are reliable, and I'm posting here for extra opinions. The argument basically is due to differing interpretations of WP:SPS: I believe that developer blogs of any kind fail SPS and secondary sources should be used instead, while Dreamyshade (talk · contribs) believes that the technical and non-commercial aspects make them an expert source and can be used alongside secondary sources. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would lean to thinking they are reliable as expert sources, but may run into primary source issues. I would compromise this way : They are a valid source as to technical features/flaws/vulnerabilities etc in apple products. But they should not be used as reliable for their own products/actions/etc (to the degree that any primary source is not). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Richard Dawkins.net
One thing I've come across is on the Jimmy Carr page, it states that Carr became an atheist due to becoming aware of dawkins's writings and it is sourced by a page from richarddawkins.net. Personally I think this could be a violation of WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:SELFPUB as its asserting a claim on (what is essentially) a personal website and is supposed to have been written by Carr himself (in what appears to be just a reproduction of a magazine interview). I just wanted to check if people agree that this particular example is an unreliable source and should be removed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a reproduction of an interview with Carr in Psychologies magazine. The interview is reliable for Carr's views and beliefs. Better to source it directly to Psychologies, but Dawkins' blog is OK as a convenience link. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Like Itsmejudith said, Psychologies magazine is the source, not RichardDawkins.net, but FYI the latter isn't really a personal site or blog – it's published by a nonprofit foundation set up by Dawkins. joe•roet•c 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
datingskillsreview.com
While there are spamming problems with the links and references to datingskillsreview.com as well, I thought it would be helpful to get others' opinions on this site as a reliable source. Here are the current articles and references:
- Richard La Ruina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [74]
- Seduction community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [75]
--Ronz (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This has a risk of being forum shopping on my part, but I see significant problems with the Lizzie Phelan article. It is currently up for AFD, with a lot of debate about her notability. None of the information in the article is negative - mainly because the article really isn't about her, she is being used as a soapbox for politics. I think the bulk of the sources are not reliable (lots of radical left "news" sites, but that is just my opinion. Looking to get more eyes on the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 2:58 pm, Today (UTC−5)
Christopher Walken impersonation sources
This is my first time posting on this board, please bear with me if I get it wrong, I've been reading for a couple of months and finally worked up the nerve to start a section.
The Christopher Walken article has a subsection that lists many of the various actors and comedians who do an impersonation of Walken. Every single one has a "citation needed" clinging to the name. I have located clips of some of these impersonations, but they are located on youtube. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems youtube is source(a) non grata around these parts. From what I can gather, the reasoning for this is that youtube is user generated, and thus unreliable, in addition to it being open for audio and visual manipulation, etc... However, the clips I found are pretty clearly NOT manipulated, and for many of them I was able to find multiple clips from different settings. For example, Kevin Spacey: [76] (that clip was uploaded BY AFI, a prestigious film institute, very unlikely they manipulated any clip of their yearly gala) [77] [78] [79].
Could I use youtube as a source JUST for this specific purpose, the Christopher Walken impersonations? Also, I would only use it if I could find a clip in settings like the ones I linked to above, galas and interviews or talk shows, and would not use any clip that could be perceived as sketchy or iffy.
Thanks in advance, and please let me know if I've put this in the wrong place. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- YouTube is not deprecated. We assume good faith that the Wikipedia editor has evaluated the content on YouTube for the inclusion and citatation guidelines. There is no presumption of fraud. If the content on YouTube is factually wrong in its description, irrelevant, or there are other objections, then editors work it out on the talk pages. patsw (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I searched the help desk archives and found this, which is why I was concerned and confused about the acceptability of YT as a source. Thanks for the prompt response, I am going to source that article into submission tomorrow :) --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I was always under the impression that Youtube was regarded as just a "host", and that the uploader was considered the source i.e. if I uploaded a clip to Youtube it wouldn't be RS, but if the NY Times uploaded something to Youtube then it would be RS? Betty Logan (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
gs.inside-games, generation-nt.com and Gamer.nl
I have an article up for FAC and a concern found on the nomination is if three sources, gs.inside-games generation-nt.com and Gamer.nl, are considered reliable. Can someone answer that? GamerPro64 00:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- What are your concerns (or the concerns of others)? The principal that applies in the absence of articulated objection is WP:AGF. patsw (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- The concern is that it there is uncertainty of the three sources being a reliable source for video games articles. So I'm asking if someone can verify it they are or not. GamerPro64 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- My question then is, what is prevents you from verifying that yourself? patsw (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to do that. I originally asked at WP:VG Sources but with not much response. Because of that one of the delegates suggested to go and ask here. So would be possible to determine if the sources are reliable? GamerPro64 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are the instructions given on Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources unclear, or difficult to apply to this case? patsw (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it says in the lead that, "For questions about the reliability of particular sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." So I'm here asking if these sources are reliable so I just want to know if they are or not. GamerPro64 20:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are the instructions given on Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources unclear, or difficult to apply to this case? patsw (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to do that. I originally asked at WP:VG Sources but with not much response. Because of that one of the delegates suggested to go and ask here. So would be possible to determine if the sources are reliable? GamerPro64 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- My question then is, what is prevents you from verifying that yourself? patsw (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- The concern is that it there is uncertainty of the three sources being a reliable source for video games articles. So I'm asking if someone can verify it they are or not. GamerPro64 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
tiltmode army about skateboarder Caswell Berry
On the article Caswell Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) there has been some dispute (but no talk page discussion) about the name of his girlfriend and/or fiance.
Is "tiltmode army", namely the "Kings Court" 19th April 2010 entry on this not-very-safe-for-work blog, an acceptable source for stating in the article that his girlfriend's name is, or at least was, Veronica?
(Despite it being spelled Veronika in the blog itself... I guess skateboarders are more phonetic than most.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Need a Reliability check please
Article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrownP/draft
Sources
cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://www.pharmacychoice.com/News/article.cfm?Article_ID=585085%7Cpublisher=Pharmacy Choice|accessdate=21 October 2011
cite web|title=Blue Cross of California Appoints Josh Valdez Senior Vice President, Network Development|url=http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=1852&cha=14%7Cpublisher=Hispanic PR Wire|accessdate=19 October 2011
cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games.|url=http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-facilities-hospitals/5153373-1.html%7Cpublisher=AllBusiness.com%7Caccessdate=20 October 2011
cite web|title=Aveta Inc. Names Josh Valdez President of MSO of Puerto Rico, Inc.|url=http://pressrelated.com/press-release-aveta-inc-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico-inc.html%7Cpublisher=Press Related|accessdate=21 October 2011
cite web|title=JOSH VALDEZ APPOINTED TO HHS REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE POST|url=http://archive.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010917a.html%7Cpublisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services|accessdate=27 October 2011
cite web|title=Josh Valdez Named 'Man of the Year' by Hollenbeck Youth Center/Inner-City Games|url=http://www.businesswire.com/multimedia/home/20050607006105/en/1191710/Josh-Valdez-Named-Man-Year-Hollenbeck-Youth%7Cpublisher=Berkshire Hathaway|accessdate=19 October 2011
cite web|title=Man Of The Year|url=http://www.hollenbeckpbc.org/pdf/New_Press_Release.pdf%7Cpublisher=Hollenbeck Youth Center|accessdate=19 October 2011
cite web|title=Josh Valdez Of Blue Cross of California Appointed to Advisory Council of The National Institutes Of Health|url=http://www.lexdon.com/article/josh_valdez_of_blue_cross/105429.html%7Cpublisher=Lexdon Business Library|accessdate=20 October 2011
cite web|title=The Latino Coalition Honors The Most Influential Hispanics|url=http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/the_latino_coalition_honors_the_most_influential_hispanics/%7Cpublisher=Havana Journal, Inc|accessdate=20 October 2011
cite web|title=Josh Valdez Appointed to State Health Policy and Data Advisory Commission.|url=http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Josh+Valdez+Appointed+to+State+Health+Policy+and+Data+Advisory...-a0146751865%7Cpublisher=Free Library|accessdate=20 October 2011
cite web|title=Aveta names Josh Valdez president of MSO of Puerto Rico|url=http://www.poandpo.com/who-is-promoted/aveta-names-josh-valdez-president-of-mso-of-puerto-rico/%7Cpublisher=Histerius%7Caccessdate=21 October 2011
Sites
Talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CrownP
Alex Jones, Mathaba, Pravda, and PressTV
User:Jagged 85 has been attempting to add material sourced to Alex Jones, Mathaba News Agency, Pravda.ru, and PressTV to pages such as Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya. To me, these sources are blatantly not WP:RS, as they espouse viewpoints far from mainstream, in WP:FRINGE-land. However, he does not seem to see this. I am having difficulty explaining myself further, as I pretty much have taken the gross unreliability of these sources for granted, so I brought the matter here to gain input. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- They all look bad. Alex Jones is the definition of fringe, Pravda.ru is a propaganda site for the Russian Communist Party (See the Russian front page where they're rather more upfront about their allegiance), Mathaba TV is of course not RS, being the mouthpiece for the Gaddafi regime. I don't know enough about PressTV, but it certainly looks dodgy. Andrew Gilligan resigned from it, saying that he did not want to "shill" for the Iranian government.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC
- I don't see any conversation on the talkpage about this, by the way. It might be worthwhile starting a discussion there.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, the lack of talkpage discussion was a bit improper. However, this matter is fairly open-and-shut, in my opinion. Discussion has been started here; starting another thread would be wholly unnecessary. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- If your previous claim that nationality has nothing to do with it really is true, then what alternative Libyan/Russian/Iranian news media would you consider to be reliable? It seems to me that the only reason why you consider them unreliable is mainly because they are based in, or funded by, places like Libya, Russsia, and Iran, countries that are known to have not-so-good relations with the West, and that they must therefore be anti-Western state propaganda mouthpieces. That's almost like saying UK or US state-funded or party-affiliated news media (BBC, Fox News, The Telegraph, Daily Mail, etc.) must be pro-Western propaganda mouthpieces for the UK or US governments and are therefore unreliable. Besides, didn't I also post a YouTube video actually showing the march on Libyan television? What makes you think the march is some fiction cooked up by the Libyan/Russian/Iranian governments? If you can provide more details (not related to nationality) why those sources are really unreliable, and provide any alternative reliable news media sources from those same countries, then I will gladly concede the argument. Jagged 85 (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- Don't be so silly. Pravda.ru is not a reliable source because it is a propaganda arm of the KPRF (did you not read the strapline on the Russian homepage?), a hardline nationalist (inter alia anti-American) political party. It's not a reliable news source. What possessed you to think it was a good source I've no idea (I presume you checked out its providence before you came here to accuse editors of prejudice). If you want Russian media sources, these days Kommersant is (in my opinion) reliable, and judging by reports probably Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novaya Gazeta, and Vedomosti as well. I wouldn't use Russia Today, as it can be a little off the wall at times, and RSF has criticised it for peddling propaganda. It's always a little difficult to say who's particularly clean because of the reassertion of Kremlin influence over the media since Putin came to power.
As for the official mouthpiece of a totalitarian state, such as Mathaba, it really takes an inordinate amount of naivety to think they don't cook things up ever. If you want a good Arab-based news source, Al Jazeera is excellent. Better than the BBC a lot of the time, especially in matters like this.
As for PressTV - it's the government-run broadcaster for, according to Reporters without borders, the country holding the record for the most journalists held in prison. As an example of the problem, PressTv has been censured by Index on Censorship for broadcasting an interview with an opposition journalist recanting under duress in an Iranian prison. We really shouldn't be touching it. I don't know much about other good Farsi news agencies, but then again, it's not clear at all why it's important to have Iranian sources as opposed to, say, Czech, Nigerian or Indonesian ones.
And as for Alex Jones - do you not know who he is? He is fringe. That's the point of what he does - tell people things The Man doesn't want you to know. If he were ever what the men in dark suits call a "reliable source", he would have sold out.
- I note with curiosity and (to be honest) amusement that you don't accuse editors of anti-American prejudice for rejecting Alex Jones as a source. It doesn't sound as cool as accusing someone of anti-Russian sentiment, I suppose. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
- None of those sources are even remotely reliable, by any standards, and certainly not by Wikipedia standards. Even if "Pravda" meant "verifiability", not "truth", it still wouldn't meet WP:VERIFY (and yes, that's a bad joke based on the many jokes made over the years about the laughable meaning of "Pravda"). First Light (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- The reliability of a source depends on the editorial oversight of its news reporters and fact-checking not the editorial position. I think pravda.ru probably meets rs but note that the article cited appears to be an opinion piece by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, who writes opinion pieces, which would mean it is not rs for facts. Even if we used this source, we could only say that Lizzie Phelan claimed that 1 million people demonstrated in support of Gaddafi. You should be able to find other sources that report her comments. TFD (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
bdfa.com.ar for Argentinian footballer BLPs
Hi all!
From the above:
- <ref>{{cite web|author=BDFA |url=http://www.bdfa.com.ar/jugador2.asp?codigo=3834 |title=Ficha de JOSE CEBALLOS - (perfil, ficha, profile, stats) |publisher=Bdfa.com.ar |date= |accessdate=2011-10-28}}</ref>
- link to root page
- Many. Some examples: José Luis Ceballos, Claudio Arturi & Amilcar Adrián Balercia
- Not supporting specific statements, these are being used as ELs and are being given as a reason to avoid BLP Prod - would like this confirmed!
Thanks! Nikthestoned 15:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
BoxRec
Is this website ([80]) a reliable source for boxing statistics? Frankly, I can't tell how the site works or who is responsible for it. It also seems to somehow link with Wikipedia in both using information from Wikipedia (nothing wrong with that) and keeping track of what it perceives to be Wikipedia problems (odd). Although I don't think it matters much, the Freeda Foreman article uses the website as a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't anyone want to offer an opinion on this source so we can "fight" about it?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that it's considered reliable for modern and prominent boxers. Relatively speaking it's probably considered as the most reliable on-line source for boxing records but of course that's not a relevant criterion. It also has biographical info on some boxers but afaik this is an open or semi-open wiki so it should definitely not be used as a source. Pichpich (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would you then accept BoxRec as a reliable source for Freeda Foreman's record?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Neck rings
The article on Neck rings accurately states that the removal of rings does not pose a health threat. However, the article on Femininity claims that the removal of neck rings causes the neck muscles and head to collapse. Both statements are supported by sources. The argument on the Femininity article for keeping erroneous information is verifiability, not truth. Please comment on how to resolve this issue to reflect accurate information. Thanks. USchick (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- The source used in Neck rings is not reliable, whereas the source used in Femininity is. The source used in Neck rings also does not say that removal of neck rings poses no health risk. The source used in Femininity may be incorrect, but it is necessary to find superior sourcing in order to demonstrate that. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the Neck rings source is unreliable and doesn't even support the assertion. I'm not happy with the source used in Femininity, either, because although it supports the assertion and it's probably a usable source (a book), I have no idea what the qualifications are of the author for making such a statement. This would be better coming from a doctor or health professional than from a femininist.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- These sources might be considered: [81], [82], [83]. It appears to me that the both of the sources mentioned in the OP ought not to be used, the first because it is not reliable, the second because it is wrong. The wrongness of the sources should be demonstrated, not just asserted, though. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "in the OP", but I don't think the three sources you've identified relate sufficiently (some not at all) to the health issues of removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- The sources referred to are this [84] and this [85]. The sources I have suggested contradict the second of these: "Removing the coils is said to be harmless for all but the oldest women who have worn the heaviest rings since childhood"; "Contrary to popular belief, the women’s necks are not abnormally long and do not snap when the rings are removed". --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks much for your explanation, but I stick to my view that better sources are needed for health claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Better sourcing is always better, of course. But the immediate issue is whether to include material in Wikipedia that is demonstrably wrong (i.e. the question is about what standard of sourcing we need to exclude information - and the answer ought to be any sourcing that is as good as or better than the sourcing proposed for inclusion). --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- My question is about using common sense to determine what the source actually says. The article clearly states that women are removing their rings and continue to lead normal lives without their necks snapping. Is it necessary to have a medical source confirm this? More sources: Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization [86] “Originally, about 50 of us wore coils in this village,” Ma Hu Htee said, “But now only 23 still wear them." [87] Children's bioethics p 59 [88] USchick (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Better sourcing is always better, of course. But the immediate issue is whether to include material in Wikipedia that is demonstrably wrong (i.e. the question is about what standard of sourcing we need to exclude information - and the answer ought to be any sourcing that is as good as or better than the sourcing proposed for inclusion). --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks much for your explanation, but I stick to my view that better sources are needed for health claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- The sources referred to are this [84] and this [85]. The sources I have suggested contradict the second of these: "Removing the coils is said to be harmless for all but the oldest women who have worn the heaviest rings since childhood"; "Contrary to popular belief, the women’s necks are not abnormally long and do not snap when the rings are removed". --FormerIP (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean by "in the OP", but I don't think the three sources you've identified relate sufficiently (some not at all) to the health issues of removal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- These sources might be considered: [81], [82], [83]. It appears to me that the both of the sources mentioned in the OP ought not to be used, the first because it is not reliable, the second because it is wrong. The wrongness of the sources should be demonstrated, not just asserted, though. --FormerIP (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Surely the citing of any source (accurate or not) is good enough if the reliability of the source is such that an article written without bias can state that "According to X: a is 1 whilst according to Y: a is 2" where X and Y have both been published and have some measure of authority (even if accuracy can be challenged). Example: According to The Bible, Man was created by God whilst according to Geneticists, Man evolved from amoebas. That statement is unbiased and it's sources are not de facto correct but nevertheless the statement is sourced and provides insight into the subject ("How Man came about"). As an encyclopaedia we are not expected to state the truth but report on the facts. The facts are that two different sources tell two different tales. I suggest editing both articles to cite and report both sources and to not worry about which is right. fgtc 20:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good on the surface, but sometimes it's a bit more complex than that as it depends on what the source is, what the source actually says, and what is the basis of the source. An imperfect example. A source says two men got married in England. The source uses the word "married", but, in fact, it's not possible for two men to "marry" in England - they can only form a partnership. The source is some gossipy rag but not per se unreliable. It's just using the term "married" very loosely. I realize Wikipedia is all about verifiability, but we don't throw all of our common sense out the window as editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose a simpler way to express my reasoning would be: Wikipedia can without doubt state that "source a" has stated "issue a" without affirming or denying the validity of "source a"s claim. I come down fully in favour of finding out what is undeniably true/fact/accurate (and thus good sources) but where the evidence is not clear or available, any source will do if the Wikipedia article(s) is(are) written without bias. For the article to claim that "Two men married each other in England" we would need a source with indisputable quality and accuracy. However, we could have the article state "According to "source a" two men married each other in England" then follow with a statement derived from other sources leading the reader to question the validity if they so chose e.g. "Although according to "source b" same sex marriages are not legal in England". In the specific case of the neck rings and whether or not it is safe to remove them, there are simply conflicting sources and we (I don't anyway) don't know which (if either) is true/fact/accurate so, it would solve the issue in the interim (until better sources were found) to rewrite the articles to be utterly unbiased, clearly stating both/all sides of the argument. I'm a bit of a noob here by the way and am speaking as an interested party not an expert. All I have said should be viewed as purely my opinion. I would be very happy to be pointed at WP policy that clearly defines this subject if that definition contradicts my naive nonsense. fgtc 01:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Too impractical for me to cite to a source that says two men married in England followed by a source that says such a thing is not possible. I simply wouldn't use the erroneous source. Not sure what I would do (if it were up to me) on the neck ring stuff. I'd have to go back and revisit the articles and the sources, which I'll leave to others. In some ways, one connection between the same-sex marriage example and the neck ring question is they both have sociopolitical overtones, which, in my view, muddies the waters. I dunno about being a newbie - I think your "naive nonsense" is pretty good, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- My last on this (although it was nice chatting) since I am no expert (thanks for the flattery btw, right back at ya ). I feel that for a Wikipedian to choose which source to use based on un-sourced knowledge leaves us open to turning any/all pages into works of unbridled fiction. First we choose not to say "subject 1" because we can't find a source or we don't like the source. Then we choose to rewrite the article to support what sources we do like whist ignoring the difficult or ugly ones. It would (in a dark distant future) end up with all articles being technically "original research". The conflicting sources regarding neck rings should either both be mentioned or neither should be. To deny a point of view because we either don't like it or think it's wrong or it seems a bit fishy is poor style. The article needs to be written to include the conflict without any suggestion that either source is right or wrong. The fact is that the sources make conflicting claims. The truth is erm...no idea. State the facts and we can't go wrong. If sources come to light that change the accepted facts then the article gets rewritten. Think how Galileo, Einstein and Darwin were thought to be unreliable. It's a good job they weren't ignored. No sources should be either (within reason). fgtc 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Just saw this fgtc 00:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fred, there's a difference between real-world controversy and a particular source just being factually wrong. It's great for WP to report controversy, but we don't need to report error. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is clearly a notable real-world controversy. The sources themselves say as much: Contrary to popular belief, the women’s necks are not abnormally long and do not snap when the rings are removed. It's worthwhile reporting that there is such a popular belief, and it's wrong. If we can use the other sources as examples that the popular belief made it into print, so much the better. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a real-world controversy and a popular misconception. I don't see any problem with mentioning something along the lines of "although is is sometimes inocorrectly stated..." in the article if it can be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now you're splitting hairs. In nearly any controversy (at least!) one side has a misconception. What we've got are two sets of sources, one which says X, and one which says Y. We don't need to "decide" which is right, we need to give both sets of information. Sure, the fact that the second set specifically says the first set is wrong makes a stronger argument, but we can give that argument, and let the readers see it. We don't need to make up their minds for them. We shouldn't assume they're stupid; what we can see, they can too, we just need to let them. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- There's a difference between a real-world controversy and a popular misconception. I don't see any problem with mentioning something along the lines of "although is is sometimes inocorrectly stated..." in the article if it can be sourced. --FormerIP (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is clearly a notable real-world controversy. The sources themselves say as much: Contrary to popular belief, the women’s necks are not abnormally long and do not snap when the rings are removed. It's worthwhile reporting that there is such a popular belief, and it's wrong. If we can use the other sources as examples that the popular belief made it into print, so much the better. --GRuban (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fred, there's a difference between real-world controversy and a particular source just being factually wrong. It's great for WP to report controversy, but we don't need to report error. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Just saw this fgtc 00:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- My last on this (although it was nice chatting) since I am no expert (thanks for the flattery btw, right back at ya ). I feel that for a Wikipedian to choose which source to use based on un-sourced knowledge leaves us open to turning any/all pages into works of unbridled fiction. First we choose not to say "subject 1" because we can't find a source or we don't like the source. Then we choose to rewrite the article to support what sources we do like whist ignoring the difficult or ugly ones. It would (in a dark distant future) end up with all articles being technically "original research". The conflicting sources regarding neck rings should either both be mentioned or neither should be. To deny a point of view because we either don't like it or think it's wrong or it seems a bit fishy is poor style. The article needs to be written to include the conflict without any suggestion that either source is right or wrong. The fact is that the sources make conflicting claims. The truth is erm...no idea. State the facts and we can't go wrong. If sources come to light that change the accepted facts then the article gets rewritten. Think how Galileo, Einstein and Darwin were thought to be unreliable. It's a good job they weren't ignored. No sources should be either (within reason). fgtc 00:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Too impractical for me to cite to a source that says two men married in England followed by a source that says such a thing is not possible. I simply wouldn't use the erroneous source. Not sure what I would do (if it were up to me) on the neck ring stuff. I'd have to go back and revisit the articles and the sources, which I'll leave to others. In some ways, one connection between the same-sex marriage example and the neck ring question is they both have sociopolitical overtones, which, in my view, muddies the waters. I dunno about being a newbie - I think your "naive nonsense" is pretty good, actually.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose a simpler way to express my reasoning would be: Wikipedia can without doubt state that "source a" has stated "issue a" without affirming or denying the validity of "source a"s claim. I come down fully in favour of finding out what is undeniably true/fact/accurate (and thus good sources) but where the evidence is not clear or available, any source will do if the Wikipedia article(s) is(are) written without bias. For the article to claim that "Two men married each other in England" we would need a source with indisputable quality and accuracy. However, we could have the article state "According to "source a" two men married each other in England" then follow with a statement derived from other sources leading the reader to question the validity if they so chose e.g. "Although according to "source b" same sex marriages are not legal in England". In the specific case of the neck rings and whether or not it is safe to remove them, there are simply conflicting sources and we (I don't anyway) don't know which (if either) is true/fact/accurate so, it would solve the issue in the interim (until better sources were found) to rewrite the articles to be utterly unbiased, clearly stating both/all sides of the argument. I'm a bit of a noob here by the way and am speaking as an interested party not an expert. All I have said should be viewed as purely my opinion. I would be very happy to be pointed at WP policy that clearly defines this subject if that definition contradicts my naive nonsense. fgtc 01:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as the Femininity article goes, the question of reliability is moot because it's not a notable fact for that article. "Feminity" is a very broad topic and unless we want a near-book-length article we don't want to get into this level of detail. That section of the article properly points to Body modification as the main article, and it is there (or even just in Neck rings) that this level of detail should be covered. Herostratus (talk) 07:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The relevant assertions in the Neck ring article are
- When the coils are removed, there is no health danger.
- The only concern is that the neck muscles are atrophied, and are understandably weaker than the rest of the body.
- [T]here is no proven medical concern for the removal of the coils.
- this source is cited in support. Source reliability questions aside, (those concerns can hardly be set aside here, though) it doesn't look to me as if that source supports any of those assertions.
- The relevant assertion in the Femininity article is:
- The Padaung of Burma and Tutsi women of Burundi, for instance, practice this form of body deformation [referring to the wearing of neck rings].
- Two supporting sources are cited. Pages 24 and 25 in the first cited source support the assertion re the Pandaung and Tutsi. The second cite also supports the assertion re Padaung. That source also speaks of "deforming their collarbones".
- p.24 in the first source cited in the Femininity article disagrees with the assertions in the Neck ring article, saying that (in re the cases it addresses) that if the rings are moved the neck muscles are no longer able to support the head. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
RFC on excluding criticism of Nonviolent Communication
I'd welcome any input from editors familiar with RS in an RFC concerning exclusion of criticism of Nonviolent Communication. Jojalozzo 20:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Elias Chacour and David Hazard book "blood brothers"
A citation from this book was brought into the article about the village of Jish:
- Elias Chacour, now Archbishop of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church), whose family resettled in Jish, wrote that when he was eight years old he discovered a mass grave containing two dozen bodies.
The book is "Blood Brothers" by Hazard and Chacour (p.57), the latter claiming being a witness to events of the 1948 war, claiming being 8 years old [89]. The book seems to be largely an improvised story, rather than a witness account (he was 8 year old as he claims), heavily influenced by religious and political thought. Some numbers are extremely exaggerated, like "tens of thousands of killed" in the 1948 war, which puts real doubt on realism and accuracy of Chacour's "memoirs". We might be able to use this book for some information, but doubtfully it can be used to support claims of massacre. It has been discussed here.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear: Chacour is not used as a source on the massacre per se, (for that we have historians like Benny Morris and Yoav Gelber, see here.) Instead, the question is whether we can use Chacour´s testimony as a personal witness/autobiography, corroborating what the historians describe. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- If he is not a source for the massacre per se, what is the purpose of using him? He's a primary source, and not a particularly good one--eight year olds are not in a position to make judgements about such matters, the passage of time clouds memory, and if you already have good sources, I'm not sure what purpose including him serves. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Adding to this, the link between the "grave" of Chacour and the "killings" described by Morris (who is a WP:RS) is made by the editor, thus it is a synth. Chacour doesn't seem to specify whose "grave" was it, how did he know the amount of bodies there, and not even if the grave is recent or ancient. Chacour tells he saw a grave not a massacre.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- These objections are overdone. If I understand correctly, he was in the relevant village in the relevant year, he had heard gunfire, and he then was the first to find a body recently buried (he says "a boy's arm", not a skeleton) under shallow sand. When explored this turned out to be a mass grave and the bodies were re-buried. Why should he be "not a particularly good" source on that? As regards Jish the report is notable. He's a primary source, so we can attribute the statement to him, with no editorial synthesis, as in the citation given above. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think he's a good source because 1). he was 8, and the book is from 2003--first hand accounts written down soon after events are generally more accurate than those written decades later, 2). he's not an expert relative to the subject, 3). he's a primary source, and we favour secondary sources. We can't use this kind of source for controversial material. I cannot see the source in Google preview, can you provide a quotation? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll quote (p. 56 of the book cited). It was a children's ball game:
- Oddly, the ground seemed to have been churned up. I stopped and picked up the ball, noticing a peculiar odor. An odd shape caught my eye -- something like a thick twig poking up through the sand. And the strange color ...
- I bent down and pulled on the thing. It came up stiffly, the sand falling back from a swollen finger, a blue-black hand and arm. The odor gripped my throat ... [All these dots are his -- or the editor's -- but I now omit three sentences. P. 57:]
- The stiff arm lay in the sand at my feet -- a boy's arm. I imagined the face -- sand in the sealed eyes -- gagging the slack mouth. I thought I was yelling. No sound could escape my throat. Vaguely, I could hear Charles beside me calling ...
- Later, the shallow graves were uncovered. Buried beneath a thin layer of sand were two dozen bodies. The gunfire that the old man had heard had done its bitter work.
- The victims were hastily re-buried in honorable graves. There was seething anger and talk of retribution. But how could there be any retribution when we had no power against this madness? Most of the men, Father especially, would have no part of such ugly talk.
- As for me, the innocence and durability of youth were on my side. No one mentioned the incident to me at all. Mother, Father and my grandparents were overly kind, ignoring my outbursts of impatience or tears.
- Agreed, memories can be faulty and memoirs written down soon after the event are likely to be the most accurate; but this is what we have, the author is notable, the event is notable and this is verifiably what he says about it. Note: the sentence about the gunfire is evident "synthesis" -- but it isn't proposed to quote that sentence anyway. Andrew Dalby 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The author's notability is irrelevant, most scholars and reporters whose articles we use as sources are not notable. If the event is notable by our definition, it is because there are reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage--and I think you have at least one of those. The source does verify that this is the author's claim, but that is irrelevant, because the question is not did he make the claim, but rather is he reliable for the claim. This is a self published source, an autobiography, and we do not use those for anything controversial. Please note, we do not have to use something because we have it, we choose to use something if it improves the article, and I see no value added to the article by use of this source. I think he is not reliable, for the reasons I've stated. Others may disagree, but you have my thoughts on this matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Some background: "Blood brothers" was first published in 1984 (I think: at least the oldest copy I can find in my library or at abebooks.com, is from that year). At that time mentioning of Israeli mass-kiilings was outrageous; and Chacour suffered years of harassment because he had witnessed something official Israeli history at the time said were lies. Even as late as oct. 2011, an wikipedia editor tries to introduce it to wikipedia: see here
- However, after 50 years most (but not all! ) Israeli archives from 1948 have been opened…showing that Israeli military and political leader were perfectly aware the massacres in 1948, including one at Jish.
- Secondly: two wrong statements have been made here; the book "Blood brothers" is not "selfpublished" (a remarkable claim for a book which has been translated to 20 languages). And there has been no violation of WP:SYNTH; the experience of Chacour at the time of the 48-war is placed in its chronological time in the history of the village. However, if someone writes that the people killed were, say POWs (as Israeli sources say were killed at the time), then it would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, I was sloppy, it's not self published, but it is an autobiography, and thus a primary source the kind of which we seek generally to avoid. I don't think any of us doubt that the massacres occurred, and it seems that there are enough sources aside from Chacour, so why use him? --Nuujinn (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- The author's notability is irrelevant, most scholars and reporters whose articles we use as sources are not notable. If the event is notable by our definition, it is because there are reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage--and I think you have at least one of those. The source does verify that this is the author's claim, but that is irrelevant, because the question is not did he make the claim, but rather is he reliable for the claim. This is a self published source, an autobiography, and we do not use those for anything controversial. Please note, we do not have to use something because we have it, we choose to use something if it improves the article, and I see no value added to the article by use of this source. I think he is not reliable, for the reasons I've stated. Others may disagree, but you have my thoughts on this matter. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll quote (p. 56 of the book cited). It was a children's ball game:
- I do not think he's a good source because 1). he was 8, and the book is from 2003--first hand accounts written down soon after events are generally more accurate than those written decades later, 2). he's not an expert relative to the subject, 3). he's a primary source, and we favour secondary sources. We can't use this kind of source for controversial material. I cannot see the source in Google preview, can you provide a quotation? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- These objections are overdone. If I understand correctly, he was in the relevant village in the relevant year, he had heard gunfire, and he then was the first to find a body recently buried (he says "a boy's arm", not a skeleton) under shallow sand. When explored this turned out to be a mass grave and the bodies were re-buried. Why should he be "not a particularly good" source on that? As regards Jish the report is notable. He's a primary source, so we can attribute the statement to him, with no editorial synthesis, as in the citation given above. Andrew Dalby 10:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Adding to this, the link between the "grave" of Chacour and the "killings" described by Morris (who is a WP:RS) is made by the editor, thus it is a synth. Chacour doesn't seem to specify whose "grave" was it, how did he know the amount of bodies there, and not even if the grave is recent or ancient. Chacour tells he saw a grave not a massacre.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- If he is not a source for the massacre per se, what is the purpose of using him? He's a primary source, and not a particularly good one--eight year olds are not in a position to make judgements about such matters, the passage of time clouds memory, and if you already have good sources, I'm not sure what purpose including him serves. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pan Am (TV series)#Nancy Hult Ganis. Elizium23 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48
regarding Bruce Kirby (yachts)
On this page the author cites http://www.brucekirbymarine.com as the source. In fact the URL is http://www.brucekirbymarine.org. Long story as to why this happened, but it would be good to get it changed, and I could see how to do that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.119.19.14 (talk)
- .org looks correct. I'll do the simple bit. fgtc 14:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hey, since the source currently referenced on the page currently violates WP:SELFPUB, it'd be better to use this, a third-party source that meets Wikipedia standards. The subject's personal website is worth including but should be put in an external links section rather than referenced for information in the article.--Namk48 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Project On Government Oversight
Is or isn't POGO reliable? This was last questioned last year without result.
Hcobb (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Corona del Mar High School and visuality.org
A reference is being used in the controversies section of the Corona del Mar High School article from this website. As not a lot of eyes are on the high school article and this section is being disputed, I would like to get some feedback about this being a reliable source or not. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It isn't a neutral, third-party source, and it surely doesn't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" from other reliable sources. There are some newspapers that might be usable as references that are linked on the visuality.com page. First Light (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Volumes of the Anthropological Survey of India
The Anthropological Survey of India has published a series of volumes on the communities of India. Here's the full citation:
- Singh, Kumar Suresh (2004), Bhanu, B.V.; Bhatnagar, B.R.; Bose, D.K.; Kulkarni, V.S.; Sreenath, J. (eds.), People of India: Maharashtra, People of India, vol. 2, Anthropological Survey of India, ISBN 8179911012, retrieved 5 October 2011
This source is currently being used in the expansion of the Kunbi article but I'm sure it is used in several other articles all over Wikipedia about other communities of India. The work identifies about 4635 communities all over India. Details of the project that led to the publication of the volumes, the sources referred to, methodologies applied, number of person-days/hours spent on the project and per community, etc can be found in the foreword. Problems in language and presentation have been noted on the talk page of the Kunbi article. Is the source reliable for articles on the Indian caste system like the Kunbi? Relevant discussions are at Talk:Kunbi. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Anthropological Survey of India is a major research organization, long-established, government-supported, academic. Its publications should be treated as reliable. There may be opposing points of view on controversial issues, and in that case we should cite reliable sources for the opposing views too. Andrew Dalby 18:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The AnSI might be all of those things; however, these volumes are not secondary sources. In one of the few books in which they are even mentioned in the bibliography (but not cited), Susan Bayly's Caste Society and Politics in India, a couple of these volumes are listed under "Government Publications," but not under "Secondary Works," both of which subdivisions the bibliography has. The only review I have seen of these volumes, Laura Jenkins's Another "People of India" Project: Colonial and National Anthropology is less than complimentary. No peer-reviewed publication of this data in internationally recognized journals has accompanied or followed the publication of these volumes. Neither have they been vetted by being cited in secondary works. I had initially thought, they might pass as tertiary sources, but upon examination found them to be little more than airbrushed field reports which have the imprimatur of an organization for what its worth. Government Publications have their place on Wikipedia, e.g. for citing a few locations, dates, population numbers, but they can't be used en mass, and not for interpretations (especially when they also serve as nationalistic platitudes) such as "Formal education has had a positive impact on the younger generation of the Dhonoje women." All the pitfalls that accompany the use of primary sources on Wikipedia accompany the use of these. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- There is much about the books which is suspect but one point that stands out, for me, is that they regularly include footnotes acknowledging that information has been taken from the works of writers such as Edgar Thurston but they seem not to explain what has been taken from those works, nor what page(s) of the works are referenced etc. Effectively, they have merged 100 year old sources with other stuff, without providing any delineation or even "proper" academic attribution. I can only see certain sections of these books but they are usually self-contained sections, and in some cases have the appearance of being pretty much an unattributed copy of the old stuff. This would not be the first time that Indian government agencies have extensively copied content from other sources without attribution (even Wikipedia has been used in this way, IIRC). I would have to dig deep to find examples because this is something that I have picked up "along the way" while dealing with numerous caste/community related articles, but examples do exist. I really would not trust them without additional verification, just as I would not trust the official reports of the Census Commissioners from the British Raj. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- The AnSI might be all of those things; however, these volumes are not secondary sources. In one of the few books in which they are even mentioned in the bibliography (but not cited), Susan Bayly's Caste Society and Politics in India, a couple of these volumes are listed under "Government Publications," but not under "Secondary Works," both of which subdivisions the bibliography has. The only review I have seen of these volumes, Laura Jenkins's Another "People of India" Project: Colonial and National Anthropology is less than complimentary. No peer-reviewed publication of this data in internationally recognized journals has accompanied or followed the publication of these volumes. Neither have they been vetted by being cited in secondary works. I had initially thought, they might pass as tertiary sources, but upon examination found them to be little more than airbrushed field reports which have the imprimatur of an organization for what its worth. Government Publications have their place on Wikipedia, e.g. for citing a few locations, dates, population numbers, but they can't be used en mass, and not for interpretations (especially when they also serve as nationalistic platitudes) such as "Formal education has had a positive impact on the younger generation of the Dhonoje women." All the pitfalls that accompany the use of primary sources on Wikipedia accompany the use of these. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Moved back because parties involved in dispute commented on an archived thread.
The claim that the AnSI volume is a primary source is misleading since the general editor, K S Singh, clearly states in the foreword that pretty much all of the prominent and well-known works in this area have been used in the volume (Enthoven, Karve, Dandekar, the various constitutional lists of the OBC, SCs/STs of the government of India, etc). Zuggernaut (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The lack of high quality reliable sources that use this as a reference, if true, doesn't speak very well for this being a reliable source. Especially since it's been around for 7 years. First Light (talk) 05:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a series of about 40 volumes and has a citation index in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. Here's a quick, un-formatted, un-tabulated Google scholar link. [90] Zuggernaut (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of which a half dozen "national" series, published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi were published in 1993 (those are the ones that are usually cited, especially a volume on genetics and another on "Schedule castes."), the rest, the "Regional Series," published by Podunk Press, (left out in your details above by making AnSI the sole publisher) are the ones we are talking about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Could "Podunk Press" be meant as a slur? Popular Prakashan has been around, to my knowledge, for 30 years (i.e. since the time when I was selecting Indian academic books for a university library) with scholarly titles alongside mass-market ones. A web source says "80 years" and that could well be true. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- And what sort of slur might that be? Making disparaging remarks about a publisher? I'm familiar with them. They publish some decent books but also some trash. The problem here is whether their regional series, volumes of which read like the District and Provinces Gazetteers of old, qualify as secondary sources for Wikipedia. I am suggesting that they don't, but especially that they can't be used to make large-scale edits for which other references are hard to come by. (There is a similar problem, by the way, with the Archeological Survey of India publications. They have produced some good volumes, but because they have monopolized archeology in India, largely keeping out foreign archeologists, as Pakistan, for example, has not done, they have also produced unreliable stuff. Few non-Indian archeologists, for example, believe that Lothal had a dockyard. Yet, Wikipedia's FA based entirely on one ASI volume continues to propagate this interpretation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- PS In fairness to you and to the publisher, they do seem to publish some good books. My image of them from the last time I paid attention to them is not the same, but I could be mistaken. It doesn't change my overall point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- [Before I saw the PS:] Yes, I thought you would probably know their name. I quite agree that publications of a government-funded agency should be taken with a pinch of salt and would be an unwise choice as a single source for large-scale edits, especially on issues that could possibly have the least connection with nationalism or national progress. E.g. much of anthropology, and, sadly, even archaeology. Andrew Dalby 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying promptly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The source is currently used mainly in one section of the article - "Kunbi communities from Vidarbha region of Maharashtra". It is used mostly for non-controversial topics of the 9 Kunbi communities such as:
- Location of the community/caste (for example the Kunbi Lonari migrated to their present location from the Lonar crater lake lake in Maharashtra
- Language spoken (Marathi), script used for written communication (Devanagri)
- Dietary habits, generally given as vegetarian and non-vegetarian
- Festivals celebrated by the nine communities (Dussera, Diwali, Holi and Ganeshchaturthi and the like)
- Traditional occupation before the community took up agriculture (for example, the Lonari used to be engaged in salt making from the Lonar salt lake before becoming agriculturists)
- Whether the traditional caste council still exists or whether the community now uses the modern democratic institutions for solving disputes
- Sample surnames of the community
- Potentially controversial areas where the source is used may be:
- Status of the caste in the varna system
- Recent progress made by the community (not controversial to me but some might view the government funding as a conflict of interest)
- If the consensus here is to replace the sourcing for even the non-controversial content then it will be a time consuming task but not an impossible one but we are in no hurry so I don't see this as big deal. We should also be able to find adequate sources for the varna status claims. However it will nearly be impossible to find anything on the current situation of the Kunbi communities which will be a loss for the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- What Fowler&fowler says today on the talk page ("In practice this means that the material relying on AnSI volumes will need to be pruned, and other sources will need to be accommodated") seems perfectly sensible to me. "Prune" is what I'm about to do to my apple trees -- I'm not going to remove them but cut them back firmly and (I hope) judiciously.
- Noting that my words above are quoted on that talk page, I want to add -- but we all know this -- that a "reliable source", by Wikipedia's definition, is not a reliable source of truth or certainty, and never a source of the whole truth. "Reliable" newspapers, and the publications of "reliable" institutions and publishers, contain many errors, many arguable claims, many half-truths. Andrew Dalby 16:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- [Before I saw the PS:] Yes, I thought you would probably know their name. I quite agree that publications of a government-funded agency should be taken with a pinch of salt and would be an unwise choice as a single source for large-scale edits, especially on issues that could possibly have the least connection with nationalism or national progress. E.g. much of anthropology, and, sadly, even archaeology. Andrew Dalby 13:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- PS In fairness to you and to the publisher, they do seem to publish some good books. My image of them from the last time I paid attention to them is not the same, but I could be mistaken. It doesn't change my overall point. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- And what sort of slur might that be? Making disparaging remarks about a publisher? I'm familiar with them. They publish some decent books but also some trash. The problem here is whether their regional series, volumes of which read like the District and Provinces Gazetteers of old, qualify as secondary sources for Wikipedia. I am suggesting that they don't, but especially that they can't be used to make large-scale edits for which other references are hard to come by. (There is a similar problem, by the way, with the Archeological Survey of India publications. They have produced some good volumes, but because they have monopolized archeology in India, largely keeping out foreign archeologists, as Pakistan, for example, has not done, they have also produced unreliable stuff. Few non-Indian archeologists, for example, believe that Lothal had a dockyard. Yet, Wikipedia's FA based entirely on one ASI volume continues to propagate this interpretation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Could "Podunk Press" be meant as a slur? Popular Prakashan has been around, to my knowledge, for 30 years (i.e. since the time when I was selecting Indian academic books for a university library) with scholarly titles alongside mass-market ones. A web source says "80 years" and that could well be true. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Of which a half dozen "national" series, published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi were published in 1993 (those are the ones that are usually cited, especially a volume on genetics and another on "Schedule castes."), the rest, the "Regional Series," published by Podunk Press, (left out in your details above by making AnSI the sole publisher) are the ones we are talking about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is a series of about 40 volumes and has a citation index in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. Here's a quick, un-formatted, un-tabulated Google scholar link. [90] Zuggernaut (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wise words, Andrew Dalby. An example of what can easily be taken out is: "Tea is commonly consumed to overcome fatigue" cited to these volumes? What does one make of this? Holding their noses, they down the cuppa and go plow up another acre? But, equally, it might be the answer a peasant farmer accepting benefits from a government is likely to give to that government's interviewer. Why would they admit that they like the taste and while away the (government funded) afternoon in idle chatter (like elsewhere in the civilized world). Do these volumes have details about alcoholic beverages (much in demand these days in all of rural India)? Good luck with the pruning. Both. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments on alcohol consumption are replete in the volume. In fact they reflect the reality on the ground and the changing attitudes in India as you can see from these two random samples:
- About the Teli, it says on page 1954 They are non-drinkers but a few modern youths have started drinking alcohol in recent days.
- About a completely unrelated Sahu community, it says on page 1813 In the former days, the community used to punish those who consumed alcohol but nowadays that strictness is not present. Their men smoke bidi, and cigarettes and also chew betel.
The are ample references to the gender bias problems in India in the form of higher drop-out rates for girls, about early, even teenage marriage for girls (in some cases as early as 12 years, page 1663). On page 748, it says In olden times girls were married before puberty, even now the common age of marriage for girls is 10-12 years.
There are equally critical comments about lack of economic progress, untcouchability (unconstitutional and illegal in India but recorded in this volume They accept water or cooked food from most of the neighbouring communities such as Kunbi, Patel, Mochi, Vasara, Padvi, Warli, Nai. They do not accept water and cooked food from Bhoi and Bhil but accept siddha from them..., page 162)
I do not see an iota of nationalism or platitudes about national progress in these volumes. The volume certainly has its share of slips and problems with presentation at times but I take back my words and I think using the source for the varna-jati classification should be non-controversial too. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- For me, I see no objection to "Tea is commonly consumed to overcome fatigue". This is true also among older members of the ethnic group I grew up in, but it isn't true worldwide.
- The source is "reliable" (in the Wikipedia sense) and can be used. Given the potential for conflict of interest, we should naturally not rely on one source unduly but look for other sources too. As we always would. That's it from me -- good luck to all. Andrew Dalby 10:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for giving your valuable time to the matter, I appreciate it. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Would like review of a site
Can I get opinions on this site:
- trustedworldnews.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
It has recently been added to a few articles; however, when looking at stories on the site, I'm seeing several non-professional elements (broken grammar, blatant spelling issues, capitalization, etc) which suggest this site has little to no editorial oversight. Also, the phrasing suggests a more casual writing style than is usually found in news sites. My gut reaction is that this is actually a scraper-type site that is being added to Wikipedia to attempt to gain page clicks (and thus far only added by a single user). But, I would like to see other opinions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- Cannot find any information about them and would therefore not consider rs. TFD (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Purpose sources
Are these reliable sources for an article on Purpose.
- Rosenblueth, Arturo; Wiener, Norbert; Bigelow, Julian (Jan.,1943). "Behavior, Purpose and Teleology". Philosophy of Science 10 (1): 19. JSTOR http://www.jstor.org/pss/184878.
- Laszlo, Ervin (9/1973 doi = DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1973.tb00235.x). "The Purpose of Mankind". Journal of Religion & Science 8 (3-4): 310-324.
- Warren, Howard C.. . "A Study of Purpose:". The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods (Journal of Philosophy, Inc.) 13 (1): 5-26.
- Conway, Patrick (1974) (in English). Development of volitional competence. MSS Information Corp. pp. 60. ISBN 0842204245.
- George, Frank Honywill; Johnson, Les (1943). Purposive behavior and teleological explanations. Gordon and Breach. pp. xII.
- Alexander, Victoria N.. "The Poetics of Purpose". Biosemiotics (Springer Science + Business Media B.V.) 2: 77-100. doi:10.1007/s12304-008-9031-3.
- Short, T. L. (1981). Peirce’s concept of final causation. Transaction of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 17, 369–82.
Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would say, per WP:RSOPINION, these sources "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion". Racconish Tk 08:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Firas Chamsi-Pasha
- Concern: In the article Cloth of gold published by The Economist, does statement (a) "arrived in Huddersfield" disqualify the reliability of statement (b) "for whom he was an agent"?
- Discussion: Southpole1 argument to deem (b) unreliable is based on the fact Hield Brothers is not in Huddersfield but in Bradford. In a typical SYN manner, he tries to demonstrate (a) is untrue, hence (b) is unreliable. Here is the latest version of his reasoning : "The Economist article states that Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield in 1981, to do what ? Were he an agent he would not need to go to Huddersfield as agents work from other locations. Were he working for Hield Brothers he would have gone to Bradford and it would have said so." I, on the other hand, argue the article is written from "Bradford and Huddersfield", it does not say Hield Brothers is in Huddersfield, (b) describes the connection of Chamsi-Pasha with Hield Brothers before or at latest in 1981, there is no other source contradicting (b), The Economist is a generally reliable source, hence (b) should be considered reliable. A third opinion provided twice concurred with mine.
- Article statement supported: "The company [Moxon] was acquired in 1993 by Syrian former textile agent Firas Chamsi-Pasha." After revert by Southpole1, the current version of the article says "Syrian businessman Firas Chamsi-Pasha", with the reference to The Economist unchanged.
- Article where used: Moxon Huddersfield.
- Full citation of the source: Firas Chamsi-Pasha arrived in Huddersfield from Syria in 1981 when Hield Brothers, an old family-run weaving business for whom he was an agent, ran into trouble. (...) In 1993, he bought another Yorkshire company, Moxon.
- Link to the source: The Economist.
- Relevant talk page discussion: Talk:Moxon Huddersfield#Third opinion (2).
Thanks for comments, Racconish Tk 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Fashion Future
Hi Admin,
About the article in Davina Reichman please:
Is this a reliable source: [Golden, Sasha, "Davina Reichman – Australian fashion entrepreneur & producer takes NYC", 22 October 2011] to reference the above article?
The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
Reichman influenced and inspired fashion designers. Nicola Finetti and Michael Lo Sordo utilised the show as a platform to launch their respective new collections at Austrian Fashion Week. Lo Sordo printed Horder's artworks for his entire collection in 2010 and Finetti printed Peppin's artworks on garments for his 2011 and 2012 collection.
The diff: [91]
Thank you.
Domenico.y (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y
- It seems Fashion Future is a self published source, not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards.Racconish Tk 09:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
NyTeknik and Energy Catalyzer
NyTeknik has been involved directly with measuring and testing a fringe theory device the Energy Catalyzer. For example: [92] "Ny Teknik recently participated in two new tests of the Italian ‘energy catalyzer’, providing more accurate measurements to reduce possible error sources. ... In the new tests, Ny Teknik aimed to reduce measurement uncertainty in three ways: ..." Does this make them a primary source? Both sides of the debate agree that "They were at the demonstrations, they were involved directly with the events". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think we have been over a similar case earlier. Then it was the question if a book review was independent of the book. // Liftarn (talk)
- Nyteknik is a respected magazine in Schweden. They have reported on the E-cat extensively, investigative reporting. Trying to dismiss Nyteknik articles as non reliable is absolutely wrong. --POVbrigand (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- The source is not a primary FRINGE source. The source is a report about an event. The event is about a device that is supposed to work with a method that is not accepted by mainstream science. A report by journalist about a meeting of the flat earth society is not primary fringe. Such an article could be perfectly used for info like "there were 50 people there", "the meeting lasted for 2 days", You can try to read into FRINGE what you need to support your view that Nyteknik should be banned, but it is absolutely wrong to combine the two policies the way you are proposing. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is no such thing called primary fringe. It is the article itself that is a fringe article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- The policies were not written with your line of thinking in mind. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- There is no such thing called primary fringe. It is the article itself that is a fringe article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- The source is not a primary FRINGE source. The source is a report about an event. The event is about a device that is supposed to work with a method that is not accepted by mainstream science. A report by journalist about a meeting of the flat earth society is not primary fringe. Such an article could be perfectly used for info like "there were 50 people there", "the meeting lasted for 2 days", You can try to read into FRINGE what you need to support your view that Nyteknik should be banned, but it is absolutely wrong to combine the two policies the way you are proposing. --POVbrigand (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
If there is some part of Nyteknik's reporting that you think is not suitable, then we can discuss. Trying get a complete ban on Nyteknik's reporting through this Noticeboard is completely unjust and not in line with the spirit of the underlying principle. --POVbrigand (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The Ny Teknik reporter was indeed present at the demonstration. That does not make them a participant. Making suggestions still don't qualify as it would be the equivalent of a reporter asking questions. // Liftarn (talk)
- Look at the text I have highlighted in bold. It is a quote from Ny Teknik, they say they have participated in their own words. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with what POVbrigand wrote: the source is not a primary FRINGE source. The professionality of Ny Teknik is out of doubt.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- This is not about whether the website is reputable or not; The issue is whether it is primary or not. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that people are missing the point here. Ny Teknik aren't reporting the results of 'experiments', they are actually participating directly - they are taking the measurements, and reporting the results in a document they have themselves produced [93] - and note that this pdf document isn't 'published' in Ny Teknik - it is linked from it. Of course, they aren't 'experiments' anyway, in any meaningful sense - Ny Teknik themselves write that "There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand". NY Teknik are clearly unqualified to conduct experiment, as they themselves state. It is always problematic when so much of an article is sourced from a single publication, and having them so intimately involved with 'demonstrations' of the subject they are reporting on that they are themselves the primary source for results (which they are, by definition - there is no other source for this material) makes the reliance being put on them even more questionable. I'm sure that in general, Ny Teknik meets WP:RS for its core subject matter (mainstream developments in technology), but they are reporting on a topic outside their field, and getting intimately involved with the production of 'data', rather than just reporting it. It is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia to make use of such material in the way that it has been used. The 'experimental data' they produced is a primary source, and one that wouldn't even be considered reliable if it wasn't - it is nothing more than 'data' derived by unqualified individuals at a demonstration where they had no control of the conditions. Ny Teknik themselves state that what is needed is " a test performed by independent experts" - if they don't consider their results sufficient, neither should we. Maybe they are RS for general 'who', 'what', 'where', 'when' reporting on the E-Cat demonstrations, but they are not RS for any 'results - they say as much themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Andy, I'd have to say I agree with you here. In terms of reporting that some test occurred, who the participants at the test were, and where that test happened at, they would be a very objective and reliable source of information. For instance, they claim to have met the "anonymous customer" on the October 28th test and assert it is a legitimate person, even though they are at the moment refusing to identify who it might be. That still doesn't suggest they have any real knowledge of physics, plumbing, electrical circuits, or anything having to do with the technical side of things. They may quote Rossi here in terms of what he said including reporting on whatever instruments Rossi might have installed on this equipment, but I would put all of that under the same level as anything on WP:SELFPUB, thus the need to be even more careful with the details and qualifying anything said in such a manner. This is a general interest news outlet, not a scientific journal or specialty magazine devoted to this particular topic. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Andy, I have no problem if some of Ny Teknik's collection is not suitable. Some of their stuff isn't even interesting for our article. From an encyclopedic point of view, all the detailed measurement data is not needed. It's quite boring to read and for those who want to know the details, they can go to Nyteknik and get all excited about it. But the mere fact that they may have partially unsuitable material doesn't allow anyone to dismiss all their reporting in total. --POVbrigand (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think that people are missing the point here. Ny Teknik aren't reporting the results of 'experiments', they are actually participating directly - they are taking the measurements, and reporting the results in a document they have themselves produced [93] - and note that this pdf document isn't 'published' in Ny Teknik - it is linked from it. Of course, they aren't 'experiments' anyway, in any meaningful sense - Ny Teknik themselves write that "There’s still no clear indication of when a test performed by independent experts can be done, although this is still what both readers of Ny Teknik and most experts Ny Teknik has spoken to demand". NY Teknik are clearly unqualified to conduct experiment, as they themselves state. It is always problematic when so much of an article is sourced from a single publication, and having them so intimately involved with 'demonstrations' of the subject they are reporting on that they are themselves the primary source for results (which they are, by definition - there is no other source for this material) makes the reliance being put on them even more questionable. I'm sure that in general, Ny Teknik meets WP:RS for its core subject matter (mainstream developments in technology), but they are reporting on a topic outside their field, and getting intimately involved with the production of 'data', rather than just reporting it. It is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia to make use of such material in the way that it has been used. The 'experimental data' they produced is a primary source, and one that wouldn't even be considered reliable if it wasn't - it is nothing more than 'data' derived by unqualified individuals at a demonstration where they had no control of the conditions. Ny Teknik themselves state that what is needed is " a test performed by independent experts" - if they don't consider their results sufficient, neither should we. Maybe they are RS for general 'who', 'what', 'where', 'when' reporting on the E-Cat demonstrations, but they are not RS for any 'results - they say as much themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Can a primary source who participated in an event as discussed above be an independent source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you are still convinced that journalists suddenly lose their independence when they gather their own measurement data, please have a look at how automotive journalists testdrive cars and report about all kinds of self measured test data. I am not argueing that Nyteknik is particularly more qualified in looking at a amp-meter than you or me and I do not think we should use all of their data in our article, but a journalist taking his own measurements does not automatically lead to losing independence the way you are proposing. You are only pushing your position for a complete ban on all of Nyteknik's reporting. --POVbrigand (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- "automotive journalists testdrive cars". True enough. And as such, they are reliable sources for their opinions on such cars (obviously), and also RS for 'data' (if the publication they write for has a reputation for producing reliable reports on such matters). We wouldn't consider them reliable sources for data on the E-Cat, as they aren't 'LENR journalists' - and neither are the Ny Taknik journalists - they have no expertise in the field, where any RS on performance can only come in the form of peer-reviewed science in a recognised journal. Yes, they are RS for statements that demonstrations have taken place, and that people attended. They cannot however be RS for any authoritative statements about the E-Cat's performance - They acknowledge this themselves. In fact, at the moment, nobody can be, because it hasn't been 'tested', just 'demonstrated' by the person attempting to sell it without telling anyone how it works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd further be concerned if the automotive journalist saw fit to watch someone else test-drive a Cessna-170, only to report that after using his stopwatch he was unable to comment on whether it was able to achieve Mach 27 in less than 5.20003 seconds. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- "automotive journalists testdrive cars". True enough. And as such, they are reliable sources for their opinions on such cars (obviously), and also RS for 'data' (if the publication they write for has a reputation for producing reliable reports on such matters). We wouldn't consider them reliable sources for data on the E-Cat, as they aren't 'LENR journalists' - and neither are the Ny Taknik journalists - they have no expertise in the field, where any RS on performance can only come in the form of peer-reviewed science in a recognised journal. Yes, they are RS for statements that demonstrations have taken place, and that people attended. They cannot however be RS for any authoritative statements about the E-Cat's performance - They acknowledge this themselves. In fact, at the moment, nobody can be, because it hasn't been 'tested', just 'demonstrated' by the person attempting to sell it without telling anyone how it works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'd treat the whole magazine with considerable caution. It's a trade magazine, that is, as far as I can tell, distributed for free and financed exclusively by advertising. Trade magazines in general are not the most reliable sources - they widely rely on press releases and friendly industry contacts, not on investigative journalism and critical analysis. That does not mean they cannot be reliable sources for e.g. product launch dates or company appointments, but not for highly contentious red flag issues like Free Energy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) The point is that they don't lose their independence just because they take some measurements and publish them. I already agreed to Andy arguments ages ago [94] and I even made a proposal back then Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_6#Demonstrations_wrap_up. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- By our standards, I think they do lose there independence because they participated in the experiment. If, as Andy asserts, they note a need for "a test performed by independent experts", then we should be particularly cautious about reporting the results. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) The point is that they don't lose their independence just because they take some measurements and publish them. I already agreed to Andy arguments ages ago [94] and I even made a proposal back then Talk:Energy_Catalyzer/Archive_6#Demonstrations_wrap_up. --POVbrigand (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
TVbytheNumbers
This has been brought up before, but the last time was 2009. Since then, it's extremely widely used. Every TV editor on here uses TVbytheNumbers. It's the only place that posts final numbers for television ratings (everywhere else uses fast affiliate ratings—and doesn't post the finals later in the day). From my experience, they've never been wrong. Can it be included as a reliable source now? Jayy008 (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- From all appearances, TVbytheNumbers seems to be reliable, as it uses the Nielsen Ratings system. Lhb1239 (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Just thought I'd put some of these here. It's, what I would consider, reliable sources using TvByTheNumbers.com, or at least commenting about the website. Forbes describing it as "the leading online site devoted to analayzing TV stats", one from the NY Post siting statistics from the website. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Since TVbytheNumbers partnered with Zap2it, whose parent company is Tribune Media Services, I would think that more than satisfies the prerequisite "editorial oversight" a source should preferably have to be considered "reliable". Chickenmonkey 01:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
TV Fanatic for its reviews
Is this site reliable enough to add the content of its reviews to the Reception areas of South Park episode articles? Nightscream (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know...I think I might have issue with us using the "professional critical opinion" of a computer programmer when it comes to television critiquing. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Tangent Magazine
Raised from here
I have doubts on the reliability this Australian online fashion magazine in view of the following mission statement: "Tangent is a playground for people who appreciate fashion as art. It targets people who indulge in their identity and want to discover every secret corner of fashion first. Tangent entertains with the most unconventional editorials, exclusive content, fashion videos and live stream interviews. Tangent magazine fuses the hottest international labels with the edgy Australian fashion, to give our readers a potent mix of style to inspire their wardrobes" [underlined by me]. In practical terms, I find the 2 articles (I) cited in Davina Reichman overenthusiastic in tone. What do other editors think? Racconish Tk 09:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think your doubts are pretty well founded. I poked around the site for an hour trying to figure out if there are any hallmark features of reliability. It does seem to be entertainment as well as a fashion guide along the opinions of its two primary editors, and two staff writers. I don't think it's particularly reliable for much in the objective sense. I think it probably will turn on how the source is used. For any substantive purpose, it probably is unreliable. To simply state an event happened, and that it was covered in this media, it might be alright. But I'm not a fan of including content that says "X was interviewed by Y" if there's really nothing else to say about the interview. Same for "Q reported on Z" – if Q is unreliable, like mashable or techcrunch – it's probably not worth even mentioning. JFHJr (㊟) 15:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. At this point the article is pretty much cleaned of all the promotion and fluff, including pretending DR is a designer. I notice the articles in Tangent refer to upcoming events, such as the launch of a new line, as if they were already accomplished, which is not true. If we accept this source for DS being an "entrepreneur", how can we refuse it for "designer"? I would rather remove all references to this source than draw a line in the sand. Racconish Tk 16:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Derby Memoirs
Personal hobby site used to source numerous DYKs (which include but are not limited to BLPs, against WP:SPS).
Nice pictures, though-- those pants belong in some National Register of Historic Sightings.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this here. Could you list the articles in which it is used, or at least the BLPs? As a self-published source, it should clearly not be used as a source for any BLPs, so it would be good to remove it from them as soon as possible.
- I'm only aware of one article in which it is used, Ronnie Robinson (roller derby), so I'll just discuss that in context, for now. The author of the particular article used is Phil Berrier, who has written extensively on roller derby online, but so far as I know, has not been published. The editor of the website is Loretta Behrens, a former roller derby skater who is occasionally quoted on roller derby in the press, but, again, I don't believe has been published. This is marginal at best, but as it is used to cite entirely uncontroversial facts, I believe that it is suitable for its purpose. Warofdreams talk 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, because I was concerned to hear that these had been used to reference BLPs appearing at DYK, I found the external link search. I don't know how complete its results are, but if it is correct, then your allegations are wrong - the site has only been used as a source in the one article I mention, and otherwise appears on the talk page of DYK, and as an external link not used as a reference at the end of the roller derby article. Where are these other pages? Using this website for BLPs would be a serious issue, which needs resolving ASAP. Warofdreams talk 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take your word for it and strike that portion; at any rate, that it is used on one article still requires resolution here. Or course, that portion could have been avoided if you had posted this query yourself, as requested several times at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, because I was concerned to hear that these had been used to reference BLPs appearing at DYK, I found the external link search. I don't know how complete its results are, but if it is correct, then your allegations are wrong - the site has only been used as a source in the one article I mention, and otherwise appears on the talk page of DYK, and as an external link not used as a reference at the end of the roller derby article. Where are these other pages? Using this website for BLPs would be a serious issue, which needs resolving ASAP. Warofdreams talk 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
It is being used in many pages as a reliable source for numbers of followers for various religions but the study it quotes is from 1990 and the copyright and last update is from 2000. There are newer sources for some of this data (like the ARIS study) so is adherents.com a reliable source for this usage?
In particular is a dispute over it's use in the Talk:Christianity in the United States#Adherents.com is out of date article. Alatari (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
callaconvention
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
conconcon
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
lessigbook
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Tackett, C. (October 19, 2011) "Could #OccupyWallStreet Become a Constitutional Convention?" Discovery / TreeHugger.com
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
froomkin2011
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
hill2011
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Lessig, L. (2011) "Propose Amendments to the Constitution" convention.idea.informer.com
- ^ Ratigan, D. (2011) "It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics" GetMoneyOut.com
- ^ Auerbach, K. (2011) "Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution To Redress the Increasing Distortion of Elections and Political Speech by Corporations and Other Aggregate Forms" cavebear.com/amendment
- ^ Shane, P.M. (October 11, 2011) "Occupy the Constitution" Huffington Post