Ravensfire (talk | contribs) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]], on Wikipedia, it is usually inappropriate to use a primary source to "prove a secondary source incorrect." This is clear by [[WP:Primary source]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] is simply applying Wikipedia's rationale on that. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 08:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
[[User:Camelbinky|Camelbinky]], on Wikipedia, it is usually inappropriate to use a primary source to "prove a secondary source incorrect." This is clear by [[WP:Primary source]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] is simply applying Wikipedia's rationale on that. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 08:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
But it is patent nonsense to not accept a birth and death certificate as the best source for birth and deaths! It discredits Wikipedia. My other changes are to remove conjecture in club books based on pure ignorance: such as thinking Rabbi might be a mistake, or the Scots abbreviation of Robert, when it is clearly taken from the Old Testament, as Romani names were. It is also insulting to Romani people. |
But it is patent nonsense to not accept a birth and death certificate as the best source for birth and deaths! It discredits Wikipedia. My other changes are to remove conjecture in club books based on pure ignorance: such as thinking Rabbi might be a mistake, or the Scots abbreviation of Robert, when it is clearly taken from the Old Testament, as Romani names were. It is also insulting to Romani people. {{Unsigned|SteveK1889}} |
||
== Huffington Post and Vox and WP:BLP == |
== Huffington Post and Vox and WP:BLP == |
Revision as of 00:46, 24 December 2014
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Known issues section of Nexus 5
The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?
Breitbart again
The edit at issue:
- Commenting on the reception, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said “It is absurd to have movie critics critiquing the politics of documentaries professionally; they seem unable to separate their artistic sensibilities from their political ones.”[1]
- ^ Shapiro, Ben (July 15, 2014). "7 Movies Critics Like Better Than D'Souza's 'America'". Breitbart. Retrieved 16 July 2014.
IHO, Breitbart is a reliable source for opinions by its commentators clearly presented as opinion. The material has been repeatedly excised with comments: The "consensus" on BRD doesn't override WP policies involving questionable sources, they can't make claims about 3rd parties, reverted to revision 636802416 by Gamaliel: Per WP:BRD and WP:BLP concerns; please discuss on talk and reach consensus before edit warring to include contentious material, Dubious source commenting directly on living individuals, should be used with caution and only after consensus for inclusion, Undid revision 636723525 by Srich32977 (talk) Breitbart is QS and multiple past noticeboard discussions have concluded that it is not a reliable source, and Contentious claims about third parties is against wp:qs and wp:aboutself. Such quotes can only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties" and "They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.
Again IMHO, the comment about "movie critics" is not directed at specific individuals, and is clearly an opinion about some critics who are not named or singled out here. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review. seems to have a result, as did Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#RFC_-_Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_film_review. which had a clear result - that is the cavil that it is not RS for opinions fails in a nanosecond. Leaving only the claim that WP:BLP is invoked for the reference to "movie critics". As the primary issue is asserted in the edit comments to be the one of WP:RS, this board is the place for discussion. Collect (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see that Breitbart has a reputation of any sort for high-quality movie reviews, or for movie reviews at all. Maybe we should source movie opinion to third-party independent reviewers with actual reputations for offering critical opinions about movies? There are plenty of bloggers and questionable sources that write about movies they've seen; that doesn't make them RS for movie opinions.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure it is a reliable source for its own opinion, but the issue isweight - who cares what its opinions on film critics is? TFD (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't about BLPGROUP. Third-parties are defined more broadly in WP:RS. Questionable sources shouldn't be used for opinions on third parties.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, but in this case, I don't think what they are talking about meets WP:BLPGROUP. --Obsidi (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- It could theoretically be considered a reliable source for article content for some of its opinions, not all of them. If this is a questionable source, it can't be considered a reliable source for article content regarding its opinion about third-parties. That goes beyond WP:WEIGHT, it's from the WP:RS guideline.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, that there are potential WP:Weight problems, but that is a different issue. The question before us is if it is a reliable source for its own opinion in this matter, and the answer to that question I think is yes. --Obsidi (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable Source, Breitbart.com meets all the requirements set forth in WP:IRS, just as does the Huffington Post. It is partisan, just as Salon and Huffington Post are, but that does not make any of them unreliable. See WP:BIASED regarding Breitbart.com and others I listed. This board is not about weight issues that is for WP:NPOV/N.
- I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see evidence that its reputation has improved. Consensus could change, but that involves more actual agreement on the source. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that at least in my opinion Breitbart is as reliable as Salon and Huffington Post, and probably more reliable then Rolling stone after this most recent UVA Rape Story (I mean talk about a poor reputation for checking the facts). In the past it has been considered a WP:Questionable sources but wp:Consensus can change. --Obsidi (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Of course Breitbart is reliable for its own attributed, quoted opinions. The section in question is explicitly covering political commentary reaction to a political documentary (that means subjective opinions), and contains political punditry from sources like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, and others. Singling out the most prominent conservative news/opinion site for exclusion, one which employs professional reporters, editors, and critics (unlike many of the section's other, leftist sites), is not only absurd on the merits but would constitute a gross WP:NPOV violation. VictorD7 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Breitbart isn't excluded from that page, it has at least another quote that is specifically about their opinion of the movie; the other opinion sources you mentioned are about their opinions of the movie, not each other or the general state of movie reviewing. There's no indication that Breitbart is a usable source for article material from its editorials, or to describe whether people are too liberal to review films.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review. WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- It establishes a precedent if the same issues are at play, especially in the same article. And no, most respondents approved Breitbart as RS because its own attributed opinions were being quoted. There was nothing singular or magical about film reviews somehow being ok when other opinions weren't. VictorD7 (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- One use is not an established precedent, as has been explained many times. Looking at that RfC, more than a few supporters indicated Breitbart was a generally questionable source and shouldn't be used for more than a movie review. WP:RS says that opinions about groups, even very loosely defined, should be given more care, not less. Now, you're repeating yourself, so I can only repeat the policies. There's not much point in doing that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- It does follow because the sourcing argument being used against it is the same rejected in the first RFC. Not only is this a similar situation (actually one that should be less, not more, restrictive, as I said above), but it's the same freaking article. RS status depends on context, but established precedents aren't irrelevant. VictorD7 (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- It does not follow that Breitbart should be used as a source for general "political commentary" just because there was an RfC that thought a single review of a movie could be used, in a limited context. Please understand: Found usable for one context, never means found usable for all contexts. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Breitbart has already been found reliable for the film review on the basis that it's reliable for its own attributed opinions, so there's no legitimate, rational basis for asserting that it's somehow not reliable for its own attributed opinions on other topics, particularly ones where expertise is less of a factor. The controlling factor on inclusion would be WP:NPOV and due weight on a case by case basis, not sourcing policy. The section in question here is explicitly dedicated to political commentary, which Shapiro's article about the reception to this particular movie undeniably falls under, and there's no policy basis for prohibiting commentary about the reception to the movie in film articles (indeed there are numerous examples of such quoted opinion on receptions, particularly where there's some controversy at play). As long as the opinion is properly attributed it's allowable and important for us to cover. VictorD7 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Breitbart.com is not a reliable source and qualifies as a questionable source as outlined by multiple facets of WP:QS.
- "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts" Even the WP article for Breitbart.com outlines multiple instances where the site did little to no fact checking and/or published stories that were blatantly false or had no evidence to support them. On Politifact Breitbart.com appears with a 100% "Pants on Fire" rating and has hosted numerous other blogs/articles that received "mostly false" to "pants on fire" ratings. Other news outlets have criticized Breitbart's lack of fact checking including the Washington Post, New York Magazine, and The Daily Beast.
- "Questionable sources are those that have...an apparent conflict of interest." Conflict of interest is defined in WP:QS to include "Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors" Breitbart.com writes multiple articles promoting Fox News polls and their parent company which also advertises on the site. They have also written and published articles attacking their competitors like the New York Daily News when Shapiro called them "hacks". The WP:QS "conflict of interest" goes on to say "news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors." This article exposes an apparent conflict of interest in an article published by Breitbart.com. The sources for conflict of interest also go on to say "They may involve the relationships of staff members with readers, news sources, advocacy groups, advertisers, or competitors; with one another, or with the newspaper or its parent company." and "a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood." Breitbart.com has multiple apparent conflict of interest as defined by the references in WP:QS.
- "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional" This is backed up with multiple sources referring to Breitbart's articles, authors, and positions as extremist.
- "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that...rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip" This can be observed by reading numerous incidents on the WP breitbart.com article in the "Controversies" section. These instances include the "Friends of Hamas" controversy, the "Paul Krugmen" hoax, and the Loretta Lynch gossip story.
- "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views...that rely heavily on...personal opinion." Breitbart.com relies heavily on its personal opinion blogs/articles from numerous contributors and editors. They rely so heavily on it that even the lead for the WP article refers to Breitbart.com as an "opinion website". It's not rare to see opinion pieces plastered all over their front page while only a few links are actually credited to "Breitbart News".
- Breitbart.com is a questionable on multiple accounts. The funny thing is that it only needs to meet one of the identifiers to be considered a questionable source and here it clearly qualifies for multiple identifiers. Scoobydunk (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it's questionable on multiple counts. This isn't a "dismissed" concern just because you disagree with the assessment. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- And banging the opinions cited as opinions drum ignores the fact that WP:RS does not treat all opinions the same. Being found reliable for some opinions not about people, does not translate to being found usable in articles for any opinion, and especially not about third parties. This is true of all sources, not just Breitbart. Every time you assert that Breitbart is a usable source for any opinion, you're misrepresenting actual policy. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- A wall of text rehashing prior discussions on the RS/N noticeboard which repeatedly found Breitbart to be RS for opinions cited as opinions seems a waste here and the added implicit claim that Breitbart is so extremist as to be anathema is absurd. It is cited by WaPo, NYT, LAT etc. which would belie the claim that it is somehow to the extreme right of the KKK or the like. Sorry -- this has already been discussed - and dismissed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is a simple, simple point. Being found as a usable source for one item, doesn't whitelist it for all items. The RfC you point to is for a movie review, not an opinion about people. Looking through the archives here at the RS/N, I can't find any other discussions where Breitbart wasn't challenged as a questionable source. Your "et al" doesn't exist.
- At least four discussions on the article talk page and at noticeboards disagree with your demurral. 0 for 4 is not a strong case for your position. Including at an article talk page closing of an RfC Consensus is yes/acceptable/reliable in response to the question. Samsara 06:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC), Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Is_Breitbart.com_a_reliable_source_for_its_own_author.27s_film_review? et al. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Those discussions don't override policy and you're trying to dismiss the arguments made with your own strawman argument. WP:QS clearly outlines when questionable sources can be used as reliable sources for their own comments. This was never in contention because it's clearly outlined in the policy. However, WP:QS and other policies do limit where questionable sources can be used as reliable sources. That's the part you and others have repeatedly ignored in the RFC and in the discussion. This issue has been raised by myself and others and ignored by you. WP:QS says they should ONLY be used on material about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. The WP article "America: Imagine a World Without Her" is not material about breitbart.com or Shapiro, nor is it an article about one of the two. So WP policy is clear that it can not be used. Now, on the WP Ben Shapiro article, if you want to say "On may 20, 2013 Shapiro criticized leftist film critics panning a movie" then you could use Breitbart.com as a reliable source because it would act as a primary source for material about itself. That's what those clauses in WP:QS apply to and they clearly include the aspect of the RFC that you and others are clinging to, but also include where and how it can be used and where and how it can't be used. You know, the part that you keep ignoring.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- The criteria for assessing a source's reliability include a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Breitbart websites do not have such a reputation. In fact, quite the opposite: they have a reputation for publishing misleading or false information, often about living people, in service of their political agenda. (Examples include the deceptively edited videotape which led to the resignation of Shirley Sherrod; a news article falsely claiming that Paul Krugman had filed for bankruptcy; and publishing recklessly false criminal allegations which cost a private citizen his job; see [1] and [2], among others).
It's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability. MastCell Talk 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Reliability depends on context, and this context is about a subjective, attributed opinion in a section dedicated to such opinions and currently including them from far left blogs like the Daily Kos, Salon.com, Media Matters, etc., not for supporting facts in Wikipedia's voice. That said, I dispute your characterization of Breitbart. Breitbart did not edit the Sherrod tape (and indeed posted the video they received for the crowd reaction, not the comments seized on by other media outlets; it's not their fault a panicky administration jumped the gun and fired her for the wrong reason). By contrast, NBC actually did selectively edit a 911 tape to make George Zimmerman look racist and infamously rigged vehicles to explode in a fraudulent consumer reports investigation, CBS used a forged memo to try and sway a presidential election, CNN's chief news executive admitted after the fall of Baghdad in 2003 that for years the network had buried stories of atrocities and given Hussien's regime relatively favorable coverage in exchange for greater access and falsely accussed the US military of atrocities in the Tailwind scandal, The NY Times published numerous totally made up stories by reporter Jayson Blair in a major journalistic fraud scandal, a rabidly biased BBC drove one source to commit suicide after twisting his comments about Iraq for their own agenda, and there was massive irresponsible and inaccurate media coverage by numerous outlets (esp. the NY Times, NBC, and CNN) on issues ranging from the Duke lacrosse rape scandal to the recent Ferguson and Rolling Stone "gang rape" stories. I could go on and on, with more examples from these outlets and others. In at least most of these cases the fraud was discovered by outsiders, often conservative media. The outlets in question typically responded initially by digging in and doubling down on their fraudulent stories, only reluctantly issuing retractions and/or firing people as pressure grew. Don't even get me started on the serial dishonesty of blogs like Media Matters, the Daily Kos, etc. that are currently quoted in the section for their subjective opinions, and lack the type of professional editor/reporter/critic teams that Breitbart employs. The bottom line is that linking to 1-3 examples of alleged malfeasance by Breitbart, particularly when you're linking to leftist sources and the malfeasance is arguable at best, doesn't prove anything more about Breitbart's reliability than the above scandals do about those sources. Though, as I said above, it's irrelevant to this issue anyway since we're merely discussing attributed, quoted, subjective political opinions. If anything, editors who seek to exclude the internet's most prominent conservative site from a section explicitly dedicated to covering political pundits' opinions on such flimsy grounds forfeits a great deal of credibility when it comes to assessing sources, applying policy, and editing in a neutral fashion. VictorD7 (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perfection is hard to achieve, and is not required for a general reputation for reliability. Yes, arguing from small sets of examples is problematic. But overall, all I can say is that "it's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except your assertions are not only disputed, but you totally ignored the fact that we're discussing attributed quotes by political pundits, including political group blogs that have no editor staff (unlike Breitbart), so "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" don't enter into it. As for your baseless personal shot, beware the boomerang. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you think NBC News, or CBS, or the New York Times don't meet our criteria for reliability, then you should definitely raise that concern elsewhere on this board. However, it's not relevant to a discussion of Breitbart's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or lack thereof. MastCell Talk 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I made no such claim. I pointed out that the argument used to attack Breitbart's reputation was pitifully inadequate, but that's a tangential issue. More importantly, its reputation for fact checking and accuracy is irrelevant to its reliability as a source for Shapiro's quoted words, unless you think the source is so untrustworthy that it can't be trusted to accurately relay its own editor's comments. VictorD7 (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- If you think NBC News, or CBS, or the New York Times don't meet our criteria for reliability, then you should definitely raise that concern elsewhere on this board. However, it's not relevant to a discussion of Breitbart's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or lack thereof. MastCell Talk 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Except your assertions are not only disputed, but you totally ignored the fact that we're discussing attributed quotes by political pundits, including political group blogs that have no editor staff (unlike Breitbart), so "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" don't enter into it. As for your baseless personal shot, beware the boomerang. VictorD7 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Perfection is hard to achieve, and is not required for a general reputation for reliability. Yes, arguing from small sets of examples is problematic. But overall, all I can say is that "it's puzzling to hear editors defend the use of a source with this sort of abominable history of dishonesty. We shouldn't be citing this source, because it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it has a history of recklessly harming people with false or misleading material. We should absolutely avoid its use in any situation with WP:BLP implications. And frankly, editors who defend the use of a source like this forfeit a lot of credibility when it comes to assessing source quality and reliability." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've told him how red herring arguments aren't relevant numerous times, I'm glad someone else understands that basic concept of reasoning and critical thinking.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Everything you're spewing are red herring arguments, as is the notion of "reputation for fact checking" when we're talking about covering attributed, subjective political pundit opinions, not news sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, we're talking about the reliability of a source and WP:QS specifically identifies sources that rely heavily on opinion pieces as questionable sources. So it makes ZERO sense to try and argue that because it's an opinion that suddenly it's reliable because WP policy explicitly says that sources that rely heavily on opinions are questionable and that they have very limited use in WP, limited to use on material about themselves. Again, that's why you can't make a false dichotomy on global climate change between "support/against" and then start citing Ken Hamm's opinions all over the place. Those opinions are mainly derived from questionable/self published sources and are limited to content about Ken Hamm himself. Also, if the source, Breitbart.com, is questionable then it quotes from it certainly can't be used to make contentious claims about others. That's directly in WP policy and it's not a red herring argument as it directly applies to the quote and source in question. You might want to look up what a red herring argument is.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Breitbart.com is no more a questionable source than CBS News, the Rolling Stone, or MSNBC.
- I am sure there are editors here would would love to see this bias source be deemed non-reliable. Lets not do that. Breitbart.com is just as reliable as other bias sources, such as Huffington Post. So let us leave it at that. If it's a weight issue this is not the noticeboard to discuss such matters, but WP:NPOV/N--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but what WP qualifies as a questionable source has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions about other sources. The qualifications are explicitly outlined in WP:QS. So your red herring arguments based on false equivalencies are irrelevant and are logically fallacious.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Since you personally added partisan bloggers' quotes from the Huffington Post currently in the same section it's difficult to take your claims seriously. You also apparently support the numerous leftist quotes from other blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion that currently reside in the section, and haven't tried to remove a single one. Of course your flawed interpretation of QS has already been rejected by RFC, explicitly finding Breitbart RS for its own attributed opinions (material about itself) there to boot. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Partisain bloggers has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Opinions from reliable sources are allowed to be partisan and biased, but that only applies to sources that are considered reliable by WP guidelines. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source by nearly every single identifier described in WP:QS and I've specifically outlined them above. Also, I didn't interpret WP:QS, I've quoted it directly and an article about a film does not qualify as "material about itself". That's not interpretation, that's a basic understanding of the english language. Furthermore, the RFC ignored my arguments which is not rejection. Again, you misinterpret and misrepresent what actually occurred in the RFC and is happening here again. You and others blatantly ignoring WP policy to pursue red herring arguments or put forward arguments already refuted.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Your own argument asserts Breitbart is "QS" because it "relies heavily on personal opinion", so the sources you support being partisan blogs that rely entirely on personal opinion most definitely is relevant to reliability, by your own logic. Given that, and the rest of the debunked nonsense you've repeated here, the most charitable interpretation is that your own understanding of the English language is lacking. VictorD7 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Partisain bloggers has nothing to do with the reliability of a source. Opinions from reliable sources are allowed to be partisan and biased, but that only applies to sources that are considered reliable by WP guidelines. Breitbart.com is not a reliable source, it's a questionable source by nearly every single identifier described in WP:QS and I've specifically outlined them above. Also, I didn't interpret WP:QS, I've quoted it directly and an article about a film does not qualify as "material about itself". That's not interpretation, that's a basic understanding of the english language. Furthermore, the RFC ignored my arguments which is not rejection. Again, you misinterpret and misrepresent what actually occurred in the RFC and is happening here again. You and others blatantly ignoring WP policy to pursue red herring arguments or put forward arguments already refuted.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Nope, we're talking about the reliability of a source and WP:QS specifically identifies sources that rely heavily on opinion pieces as questionable sources. So it makes ZERO sense to try and argue that because it's an opinion that suddenly it's reliable because WP policy explicitly says that sources that rely heavily on opinions are questionable and that they have very limited use in WP, limited to use on material about themselves. Again, that's why you can't make a false dichotomy on global climate change between "support/against" and then start citing Ken Hamm's opinions all over the place. Those opinions are mainly derived from questionable/self published sources and are limited to content about Ken Hamm himself. Also, if the source, Breitbart.com, is questionable then it quotes from it certainly can't be used to make contentious claims about others. That's directly in WP policy and it's not a red herring argument as it directly applies to the quote and source in question. You might want to look up what a red herring argument is.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Everything you're spewing are red herring arguments, as is the notion of "reputation for fact checking" when we're talking about covering attributed, subjective political pundit opinions, not news sources. VictorD7 (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've told him how red herring arguments aren't relevant numerous times, I'm glad someone else understands that basic concept of reasoning and critical thinking.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Was the open RfC regarding Breitbart's reliability in this context announced here? It's on the article's talk page. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that Breitbart is a textbook questionable source (as mentioned above, it has always been considered that in the past, and I'm not really seeing anything that would change that), especially due to its reputation for poor fact-checking. Simply having a political POV doesn't necessarily make a site questionable in all contexts, but having such an extensive history of fact-checking errors in combination with a style of writing that frequently blurs the line between opinion and fact certainly does. It can still sometimes be cited to illustrate the opinions of its commentators, like any other questionable source, but only when a more reputable site supports the relevance of those opinions. --Aquillion (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with Breitbart is that its accuracy is not only dubious, but sources are often actively misrepresented. Consider the recent case with the Gun control articles, where a newspaper story claiming that general crime figures are being under-reported in the UK was spun by Breitbart into an article about how UK gun law wasn't working as gun homicide was clearly increasing. This is not simply synthesis, but actively untrue; there was no suggestion from the story that was the case, and it would actually be impossible as firearms crime is reported separately - something the writer would have known. Black Kite (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- How does that affect opinions from notable persons cited as opinion? Breitbart falsifies editorial columns to make people have different opinions that they write that they have? I generally feel that where an opinion is properly cited as opinion that fretting about anything else is worthless. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are really two parts to citing an opinion. First, of course, you need a source to prove that the person actually said that; Breitbart is a valid source to prove that one of its authors said something, since that doesn't really require that it be a WP:RS. However, you usually also need a source to show that their opinion is relevant per WP:UNDUE, which is usually more complicated; Breitbart can't be used for that because it's not a reliable source, so in most cases any quote from Breitbart has to be accompanied by another, more reliable ref to show that the specific opinion or author being quoted is relevant. WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to give weight to opinions based on their coverage in reliable sources, essentially (this prevents people from just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article); to quote Breitbart in an article, you therefore usually need a second source to show that whatever quote you're inserting meets that standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, multiple facets of WP policy relies on sources being considered reliable and Breitbart.com is clearly not one. However, I don't feel you need to look at the specific various policies that limit their usage to reliable sources because WP:QS and WP:Questionable both limit the usage of questionable sources to material about themselves. That whole concept is what prevents people from "just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article" and it remains consistent throughout multiple WP policies.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm glad you acknowledge that Breitbart is RS for its own authors' opinions. That's the question here. WP:UNDUE is determined on a case by case basis, can't be properly addressed on this noticeboard sans context, and in this case involves a reception and explicitly titled "Political commentary" section quoting numerous subjective political opinions, including from blogs like the Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Salon.com ("questionable?"). The whole point is to cover the reaction to the film by salient political pundits from across the political spectrum. That said, regarding DUE, as the chief conservative website, the opinions expressed by Breitbart authors must be covered in such a section to avoid a gross WP:NPOV violation. I suppose one could say that Breitbart's noteworthiness in this context is established by other sources frequently citing it and/or documenting its extremely high traffic ratings. More specifically, Ben Shapiro himself is notable by Wikipedia standards, meaning he rates his own article (unlike most of the other pundits quoted in the section, and he's a UCLA/Harvard Law trained political scientist and media analyst who is a multiple times best selling author, has been interviewed as a professional pundit on virtually every major media tv network, and has had his work cited by countless media outlets. All this firmly establishes him as a political pundit worth quoting if we have a section dedicated to such punditry, and since he wrote an entire article about the reception to this film we would be derelict in omitting it, especially since his view is so widely shared by the population. VictorD7 (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are really two parts to citing an opinion. First, of course, you need a source to prove that the person actually said that; Breitbart is a valid source to prove that one of its authors said something, since that doesn't really require that it be a WP:RS. However, you usually also need a source to show that their opinion is relevant per WP:UNDUE, which is usually more complicated; Breitbart can't be used for that because it's not a reliable source, so in most cases any quote from Breitbart has to be accompanied by another, more reliable ref to show that the specific opinion or author being quoted is relevant. WP:UNDUE states that we're supposed to give weight to opinions based on their coverage in reliable sources, essentially (this prevents people from just quoting whoever they want to insert their own opinions in a Wikipedia article); to quote Breitbart in an article, you therefore usually need a second source to show that whatever quote you're inserting meets that standard. --Aquillion (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- How does that affect opinions from notable persons cited as opinion? Breitbart falsifies editorial columns to make people have different opinions that they write that they have? I generally feel that where an opinion is properly cited as opinion that fretting about anything else is worthless. Collect (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Theevergreen.co.uk, a birth certificate, etc. as birth date sources at the Rab Howell article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Rab Howell#Birth year. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. On the article's talk page, I asked SteveK1889 (talk · contribs) what is a WP:Reliable source regarding this or this he added to the article in place of a WP:Reliable source that is there for the birth date material. One source is the theevergreen.co.uk source, and you can see other sources that SteveK1889 is proposing in the article edit history and/or on the talk page. Also keep in mind that I don't know what the current source used for Howell's birth date states; for all I know, it supports what SteveK1889 states. Flyer22 (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- The 1867 birth year is supported by the GRO Index entry. Keith D (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know that the birth certificate is his and not that of someone else with the same name born at a different date? You need a secondary source to make that call. TFD (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the place is specified also--does it match? DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Does it match the source that gives the wrong birthdate? Even if it does, it could be it was for a cousin or an older brother who died in infancy. Or perhaps the name the subject used differed from the one on his birth certificate. TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- A primary source can always be used to prove a secondary source incorrect. We don't use secondary sources to prove primary ones wrong. We're getting into terrible precedent when we have to go as far as cover all extraneous, unlikely, and frankly stupid possibilities just to prove a birth certificate "truthy". Some comments on this thread sound like they are straight out of a birther movement pamphlet.Camelbinky (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Does it match the source that gives the wrong birthdate? Even if it does, it could be it was for a cousin or an older brother who died in infancy. Or perhaps the name the subject used differed from the one on his birth certificate. TFD (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the place is specified also--does it match? DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that common sense! For Rab Howell there is no doubt about the birth and death certificates: I have researched his family tree: no cousins, no older brothers with the same name, the father and mother's name on the birth cert are of people he lived with at the census etc. His death cert is witnessed by his son. The secondary sources got it wrong. It is simple. I have been tearing my hair out trying to get a simple matter corrected on WP - but keep getting stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs)
Keith D, what do you mean by "the GRO Index entry"? And do you agree with all of SteveK1889's changes to the article? Is that why you didn't revert him or comment about his changes on the article talk page?
Camelbinky, on Wikipedia, it is usually inappropriate to use a primary source to "prove a secondary source incorrect." This is clear by WP:Primary source. TFD is simply applying Wikipedia's rationale on that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
But it is patent nonsense to not accept a birth and death certificate as the best source for birth and deaths! It discredits Wikipedia. My other changes are to remove conjecture in club books based on pure ignorance: such as thinking Rabbi might be a mistake, or the Scots abbreviation of Robert, when it is clearly taken from the Old Testament, as Romani names were. It is also insulting to Romani people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveK1889 (talk • contribs)
Huffington Post and Vox and WP:BLP
The Shooting of Michael Brown has numerous sources to Huffington Post and Vox articles. Vox is being used for articles like "When is it legal for a cop to kill you?" The article is written by a Dara Lind, under a pseudonym. Also, a journalist Saki Knafo wrote a piece for the Huffington Post titled Ferguson Police Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers which has not only conducted its own original research, but concludes with incorrect information being touted to make the situation appear even worse. The report, demonstrably false, has been the source of an error present in the article for over three months and seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Huffington Post and Vox seem incompatible with WP:BLP as to WP:IRS especially when it comes to original reporting. I think the removal of these sources from the page is warranted given the severity and impact of these already questionable sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- ...which has not only conducted its own original research
- Conflating Wikipedia's specific internal guidelines regarding sourcing with the standard real-world practice of journalism/criticism makes for a really bad start. --Calton | Talk 16:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Calton is correct about the misuse of the term "original research". That said, I'm really uncomfortable using the Huffington Post—which is ultimately a partisan blog, albeit a high-profile one—as a source in general, but particularly for contentious material with WP:BLP implications. I would strongly favor removing it here and instead prioritizing higher-quality sources.
Vox, on the other hand, seems fine to me. The piece in question looks like sober explanatory journalism. The original poster's sole objection seems to be that the piece is written by a pseudonymous author. First of all, that's not necessarily a problem, and secondly it appears to be false. I don't see any indication that Dara Lind is a pseudonym; what's the evidence for this claim? In any case, I don't see a huge problem with Vox, although I'm open to being convinced. MastCell Talk 16:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to conflate the two with "original research" as in a Wikipedia term, but that it is "original reporting" and not merely taking a source and running with it. Also the [[3]] post I referred to came out to be blatantly false and the editor continues to reinsert it. With Vox, the fact that it seems to be an offshoot likened to Huffington Post is a concern for BLP. For Dara Lind Dara Lind - Jetpack Comandante" Things that surprise people who mostly know me from the Internet: I am not "mousy"; I am "secretly Midwestern." I don't know how to pronounce my name, either." Does not seem to be an accountable individual. Most of the sources are pile ons and not really advancing anything that hasn't been covered by the New York Times and others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? You think Dara Lind is not "an accountable individual"... why? Because she's less mousy than people expect her to be? Because she's Midwestern? And does this mean you no longer think her name is a pseudonym? I'm confused by your objections to the Vox source, even more so now. MastCell Talk 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I change my opinion on the Vox article in the article. They correct their errors. Perhaps the one I saw was fluke? HuffPo has 4 I raised issues on, but Vox is fairing better under my tests than I thought it would as a whole. Truly - sample size. I concede to you @MastCell:, unless I find a major issue I'll give Vox the benefit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, what? You think Dara Lind is not "an accountable individual"... why? Because she's less mousy than people expect her to be? Because she's Midwestern? And does this mean you no longer think her name is a pseudonym? I'm confused by your objections to the Vox source, even more so now. MastCell Talk 02:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to conflate the two with "original research" as in a Wikipedia term, but that it is "original reporting" and not merely taking a source and running with it. Also the [[3]] post I referred to came out to be blatantly false and the editor continues to reinsert it. With Vox, the fact that it seems to be an offshoot likened to Huffington Post is a concern for BLP. For Dara Lind Dara Lind - Jetpack Comandante" Things that surprise people who mostly know me from the Internet: I am not "mousy"; I am "secretly Midwestern." I don't know how to pronounce my name, either." Does not seem to be an accountable individual. Most of the sources are pile ons and not really advancing anything that hasn't been covered by the New York Times and others. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- Calton is correct about the misuse of the term "original research". That said, I'm really uncomfortable using the Huffington Post—which is ultimately a partisan blog, albeit a high-profile one—as a source in general, but particularly for contentious material with WP:BLP implications. I would strongly favor removing it here and instead prioritizing higher-quality sources.
This editor is removing content en masse [4], just because it is sourced to Vox or HuffPo. This while there are ongoing discussions about specific edits based on these sources. Neither HuffPo, nor VOX are unreliable per se, and editors' consensus is to address each sentence sourced solely to these two media outlets to validate them - Cwobeel (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think we consider HuffP or its derivative as RS for controversial BLP, except as the personal opinions of the authors of the article ere. There may conceivably be exceptions, but they would have to be considered one by one and defending--the presumption is against them. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- @DGG: Vox is part of Vox Media and not associated with the HuffPo. And The Huffington Post is the first commercially run digital media enterprise to win a Pulitzer Prize (David Wood, in the category of national reporting). Is it a partisan source? Probably. But Fox News is also a highly partisan source and we consider it reliable. So, material sourced to articles in the HuffPo, like any other source, have to be evaluated on its merits. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- what you said shows, is that David Wood's work may be reliable. I do not consider Fox reliable on many subjects either--certainly not for anything involving a judgment in American politics. (I am unfamiliar with Vox.) DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think we consider HuffP or its derivative as RS for controversial BLP, except as the personal opinions of the authors of the article ere. There may conceivably be exceptions, but they would have to be considered one by one and defending--the presumption is against them. DGG ( talk ) 08:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- The difference between organizations like FoxNews is that the operate under the aegis of a highly professional news operation, while HuffPo is 2nd tier at best. Rolling Stone should be a major wake up call.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 02:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll take Vox. They are doing better than I thought in checking the details out and they do correct unlike most HuffPo which seem to have lax editorial control and free with their "opinions". Also, David Wood's work may be reliable for HuffPo - but that is an exception and not a rule of thumb. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the reliability of Huffington Post, I'll say this: it's a big site, it has a lot of opinion, and it has some news reporting. On the front page now, I see this article about Colorado marijuana legalisation which seems to feature original reporting based on court records and seems pretty legitimate. Huffington Post does do some original, legitimate reporting. It also republishes AP stories, rewrites stories from other reasonably legitimate news outlets, and it publishes gigabytes of complete crap. For a long time, HuffPo published quite a considerable amount of "vaccines cause autism" opinions, as well as articles from various fringe theory-pushing alternative medicine advocates (see this blog post at the Science-Based Medicine blog for a potted history). As I've pointed out in The Reliability Delusion, trying to draw a simple conclusion about whether a site like Huffington Post is either "reliable" or "not reliable" is hard to do, and fairly pointless as it is a big site which contains both actual, reasonable news reporting, and lots of crap too. The best thing to do is to try to decide whether the particular sections of the site count as reliable or not. Even a source like The Guardian—which I think most people are reasonably happy to think of as reliable—publish crazy unreliable rubbish too. You need to apply some human judgment to tell the difference.
As for Vox, I'm not too familiar with the site, but what I've seen has been reasonably impressive and unconcerning. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
ResourcesForLife.com
May this page be used as a reference for contributors to WOT Services? I think it fails notability to serve as such. See discussion at bottom part of Talk:WOT Services#Unbalanced-tag by user 116.90.224.115.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WeatherFug (talk • contribs) 16:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- A bit of background. I came to the WOT Services talk page by way of WP:3O. There is an ongoing discussion between WeatherFug and an IP as to whether there should be mention in the article of claims of fraud, etc. against WOT, with WeatherFug arguing that no reliable sources had been produced. I found a citation to the article in question in one of the reverted edits and offered my opinion that, in the absence of better sources, it would be in order to use this one. There is an article on the site's owner here that includes a profile of the organization from the inside of his book. Am I wrong to think it would be allowable? Scolaire (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this source is usable for the material. That article outlines a personal dispute the owners of the website had with WOT, when the article website could be considered "self-published/with little reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". However, the article, WOT Services, looks like it has clear NPOV problems. The only (pseudo) negative material is the fact that they won a lawsuit against them. Everything else is borderline promotional. The reviews section is comprised entirely of a single sentence that reads
The rating tool has received several reviews in the press.
without mentioning anything the reviews said. This is probably unintentionally funny, as the article is covering a webservice fueled by customer reviews. This is probably an article that should be considered over at the NPOV board, but there's definitely something off. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dear Elaqueate, I am puzzled. How does the absence of negative material in an article indicate there must be a NPOV problem? What exactly is the problem? And what exactly does the expression "borderline promotional" mean? I must admit the reviews section could use some improvement. If you feel like taking a shot at it, please do not hesitate. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The absence of any negative material in many articles wouldn't indicate there "must be" an NPOV problem in all articles, but in this specific case, where the linked reviews aren't 100% positive, it does mean part of the sources' assessments have been left out, and left out in other sections. Examples of the borderline-promotional corporate tone can be found in the completely unsourced "services" section, which contains sentences like
The program software at WOT headquarters is not public.
It may be suffering from not having much non-promotional coverage since 2011. On closer inspection, I see that the Reuters source in that article is a press release, not an independent-qualified story. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)- User Scolaire took the liberty to also take the discussion here but he apparently forgot to inform you. Please, also be advised to read the report about my major cleanup of the article in December 2011 and take the effort to wade through history from there. My aim is not (and never has been) to just revert criticism, but to keep the article free from insufficiently sourced POV. I have said this several times before and I'll say it again: If you or anyone else can contribute to improve the article with relevant information in a NPOV manner and backed up with references that meet Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS and WP:N, please be my guest! Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, I pinged Elequeate when I posted at the NPOV noticeboard, to make sure he was aware of it. Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry I missed that. Regards WeatherFug (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, I pinged Elequeate when I posted at the NPOV noticeboard, to make sure he was aware of it. Scolaire (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I wasn't commenting on your specific edits; I'm only speaking to the article's condition as I found it. I took out the lawsuit that mentioned a BLP, as it was only sourced to self-published sources and a primary court document that didn't directly support all of the details and assessments made in the article. Most of the article is still completely unsourced. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your attention and work. I hope you'll keep the page in your watch-list. Do you consider the ArcticStartup article a self-published source? Though it seems largely written on basis of the company press release, it contains an original interview with the CEO, plus a copy of the verdict from the Florida court. Regards, WeatherFug (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- User Scolaire took the liberty to also take the discussion here but he apparently forgot to inform you. Please, also be advised to read the report about my major cleanup of the article in December 2011 and take the effort to wade through history from there. My aim is not (and never has been) to just revert criticism, but to keep the article free from insufficiently sourced POV. I have said this several times before and I'll say it again: If you or anyone else can contribute to improve the article with relevant information in a NPOV manner and backed up with references that meet Wikipedia guidelines for WP:RS and WP:N, please be my guest! Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The absence of any negative material in many articles wouldn't indicate there "must be" an NPOV problem in all articles, but in this specific case, where the linked reviews aren't 100% positive, it does mean part of the sources' assessments have been left out, and left out in other sections. Examples of the borderline-promotional corporate tone can be found in the completely unsourced "services" section, which contains sentences like
- Dear Elaqueate, I am puzzled. How does the absence of negative material in an article indicate there must be a NPOV problem? What exactly is the problem? And what exactly does the expression "borderline promotional" mean? I must admit the reviews section could use some improvement. If you feel like taking a shot at it, please do not hesitate. Thank you, WeatherFug (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sharabha
1.Source. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AKWvPRIkvVEC&pg=PA174&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
2.Article. Sharabha
3.Content.
The Linga Purana and Sharabha Upanishad also mention this mutilation and murder of Narasimha. After the mutilation, Vishnu assumed his normal form and retired to his abode, after duly praising Shiva. It was from here on that Shiva came to be known as "Sharabeshamurti" or "Simhagnamurti"
22:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- This book is the online (google) book: Elements of Hindu iconography of Gopinatha Rao, one of the most cited books on Hindu iconography. [5]. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
references/sharabha
1.Source. http://web.archive.org/web/20120210092350/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sarabha.html 2.Article. Sharabha 3.Content. The Linga Purana and Sharabha Upanishad also mention this mutilation and murder of Narasimha. After the mutilation, Vishnu assumed his normal form and retired to his abode, after duly praising Shiva. It was from here on that Shiva came to be known as "Sharabeshamurti" or "Simhagnamurti" 22:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)
- @Ankisur2: The problem is that celextel.org was the website of an internet store. Did they have an editorial staff vetting the information they put up, or was it just an unchecked dump from somewhere else? You have a good point that the source may not be reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- In that case,how should the article and reference be modified?
08:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed the reference from the article. As explained Ankisur2's "The secondary references (Rao and Granoff) support the version in Sharabha Upanishad. Sarabha Upanishad translation (primary source) is given if any one wants to read the Upanishad further."Redtigerxyz Talk 18:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Multiracial Filipino American claim
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jay-Z#Clarification. Thanks. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Template:Z48
- Source is http://web.wm.edu/so/fasa/filipino-american_history_month.htm for claiming Jay-Z to be a Filipino American. VandVictory (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The claim on the student association website has sources, but does not link to specific articles, which I am unable to find online. Therefore, I do not believe that the student association website is a reliable source, nor does it back its claim to the original reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed it is just a mention without any references. VandVictory (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here is the part that was used:
- Indeed it is just a mention without any references. VandVictory (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- The claim on the student association website has sources, but does not link to specific articles, which I am unable to find online. Therefore, I do not believe that the student association website is a reliable source, nor does it back its claim to the original reliable sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Fact for Oct. 4:
What do Chris Judd (ex-husband of Jennifer Lopez), rapper Jay-Z, singer Enrique Iglesias, actor Lou Diamond Phillips, and MTV Real World star Lori (from the second New York City season) have in common? They are all half-Filipino.
Sources: Spin Magazine, A. Magazine, Filipinas Magazine, MTV.com
- Note that there are no live links to these alleged sources, and I have not been able to find a secondary source for the claim. Thus why I removed it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Questions about Credibility and it's implications on Reliability
First of all, I would like to know if Credibility has any impact on what constitutes a reliable source.
Specifically for journalistic/news sources I have some questions:
- Does credibility have to be gained over a period time? If so, over what period of time?
- Can credibility only be lost? If so, how do we quantify the loss of credibility?
- Does credibility only pertain to individual writers? If so, does that mean the source overall can maintain reliability?
- Can credibility pertain to a source overall? If so, does publishing non-credible articles/writers detract from the credibility/reliability of the source, and to what extent?
With stories like this and this happening lately, it looks like credibility isn't doing so well. So do these stories impact the reliability of the source significantly enough to be unusable? (Though I guess rolling stone is probably already unusable.)
- What happens to Wikipedia articles that used these writers/sources for some of their content in the past? Or in other words, does changing reliability affect the reliability of past citation?
- Do we/should we have an open dialog of credibility and integrity of writers/sources and should they be proactive or reactive?
- And finally, do we err on the side of skepticism or trust?
Yeah, I know, this is loaded with questions.... TyTyMang (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I imagine that credibility is indirectly addressed in the opening sentence of the Overview in WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Sources that might generally have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are going to screw-up from time to time, so it's unlikely that you will now find Rolling Stone to be considered an unreliable for every citation. As always, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. - Location (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yup - even the best sources get things wrong occasionally. Which is why we need to take care if using a single source (no matter how 'reliable') for contentious assertions, and why we need to avoid rushing headlong into breaking news. That won't guarantee perfection, or anything even approximating to it, but it may help to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- In general I would avoid using investigative journalism, and just report the parts of it that are picked up in mainstream media. Whether or not rs requires that, weight does. And the fact is that a lot of the first reporting of stories is inaccurate, but they tend to get corrected over time. That process is what makes mainstream news sources reliable. TFD (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:V makes clear that if a source meets the reliability requirements, that is - has a mechanism for finding and correcting factual errors - that "truth" is not a proper criterion to insist on. Even "mainstream news sources" frequently make a hash out of facts, alas. More importantly, once a story has been shown to have significant issues (vide the Rolling Stone UVa rape allegations), I would consider it reasonable to expunge such sourced claims as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a journal of allegations and rumours, especially ones shown to be false in kind and nature. Collect (talk) 12:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the core requirement is not "a mechanism for finding and correcting factual errors ", but rather "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The first can exist without being properly employed. The second is earned over time. "Truth" is indeed a problematic criterion, but, on the other hand, there is no reason to include obviously mistaken reports, even if they are published in usually reliable sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to think that finding and correcting factual errors is not "fact checking"? A tad outré, that. Collect (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- To be finicky, no, its not, although it's close enough. The important semantic distinction is the one between "having a method" and having earned the reputation to reasoably apply it. I have a method for getting up at 7 am every day... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- You seem to think that finding and correcting factual errors is not "fact checking"? A tad outré, that. Collect (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Our job is to summarize what sources say. Obviously we want that content to be factually correct, but sometimes things will simply get through that are incorrect. The best way to minimize that is to follow what folks aid above, but also avoid WP:RECENTISM by waiting a bit after a report comes out. If it is a case of publisher that has a reputation for fact checking, most errors should be corrected within a few days at least. Not fullproof, but it should take care of issues like you described in most cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry it's taken me a while to process these replies.
So here's my next part: When we make articles on WP it requires reliable sources, or more specifically, reliable articles. I understand we aren't exactly looking for facts or truth.
The question: What happens when facts are available that completely oppose an article that is being use as a source? Does the article lose reliability? OR Does it require another article of a sufficient "quantity" of reliability to discredit the reliability of that article used? (Is there a way to quantify reliability?)
To put it simply, I understand that articles are are not required to stand up to facts on Wikipedia. But are the sources Wikipedia uses required to stand up to facts?
It seems like this should be a no brainer, but from the things I've seen lately I really believe this needs to be addressed. If Wikipedia doesn't rely on facts to some degree then it just becomes a propaganda echo machine for the mainstream/"reliable" media. Has this been addressed before? TyTyMang (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:TRUTH. Wikipedias principle is to include all significant viewpoints, not to chose any one as "fact", or to reject any one as "conflicting with fact". That does not mean that we have to include every obviously erroneous statement, and it does not mean we give every opinion equal weight. But when reasonable people differ, we include all positions with their due weight. Whom would you trust to define "fact"? The US government? The government of North Korea? The Pope? I tend to put much of my trust in the scientific community, but scientists are usually very reluctant to claim absolute facts, and they still get it wrong occasionally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- "Not to reject any viewpoint as conflicting with fact." What? Then how do we determine reliability? Does that mean all viewpoints that are published in the "mainstream" or somehow already considered "reliable" media are all inclusive viewpoints? Even when they make such big allegations as the UVA rape article did? Is there any actual objectiveness when it comes to the reliability of sources or is it all just on personal feelings?
- I don't think we really need anyone to define fact as it's already a word with a definition. "A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case." Now if you're talking about who can verify facts, then yeah, I guess there is a certain amount of trust required. However a lot of times facts can verify themselves. Though it is possible for some people to ignore them or disclaim them due to their own personal beliefs.
- In any case, should Wikipedia take the stance of belief on one side of a contested subject/article or should Wikipedia take the side of skeptical on the subject/article until the contest is resolved? If there is evidence that a "reliable" article is not factual aka false aka untrue, should that content be left on the page until that evidence is verified or debunked? Or should that content be taken down until the article content is proven fact? And because of Circular Reporting/Citogenesis potentially causing others to copy the article should it matter how many different "reliable" sources post the same non-factual story? These issues can have some pretty big implications on what Wikipedia is. TyTyMang (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think it important to distinguish between reliable sources and reliable facts. Even a reliable source built on specific facts includes interpretations of those facts which a careful reader will recognize as an interpretation of those facts. Just because it appears in a reliable source does not mean an interpretation of certain facts should be given as much weight as the facts themselves. That's one of the issues that I've seen come up in some contentious issues. Even though the fact and opinions should be relatively easily determined using the critical reading skills one learns in high school, some editors hold that an interpretation of the facts given by a reporter and or experts interviewed should be treated as "facts."
- Opinions in reliable sources certainly deserve coverage, but interpretations given in reliable sources must be treated differently and not confused with a fact, other than the fact that "this source interprets the evidence this way." A lot of contention can, or at least should be solved, by attributing the source of the interpretation of facts. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't mean that source (much less all of it's contributors) should be accorded the final say in interpreting any particular set of facts.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A few things to remember... 1) Sources can become outdated... new information may cause a re-evaluation of things that previously were accepted as "fact". 2) Experts often disagree with each other... and different experts can even disagree over what the facts actually are. (in which case, we stay neutral and present both sides as being opinions) 3) our articles are never "finished"... we re-write sentences, paragraphs and even entire articles all the time. If an article states something as fact... and it turns out that there is a reason to question it... we can discuss the situation and change the article as necessary. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks everyone for the insight. It's been very helpful. I just have a couple more questions then.
- I do understand we have guidelines for determining RS and then we have this Noticeboard here. But in the end it all seems to end up being subjective. Some people will argue for the reliability of a source and some will argue against it. And even sometimes people will admit a sources is questionably or plain unreliable but will consider a specific article from that source as reliable for a specific instance. But it all seems to come down to a consensus of opinion. Is this correct?
- When things like this happen, how do we settle disputes like this? And to what extent can we cite evidence for or against the claims of that disputed source? Sure some "facts" may be up for interpretation of course, but when facts point to an article/source being unreliable should that not also be up for consensus here? I'm pretty sure that WP:NOR is not violated by preventing material used on WP articles as it specifically mentions that the policy doesn't apply to talk pages.
Veloce Today
Hey, I'm involved with an editor at the AfD for Scuderia Non Originale, where the editor is completely new and is pretty much completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies as a whole. I've been trying to help explain policies to the editor, but it's a little slow going and they're somewhat resistant to some of what I've been pointing out, mostly that forums cannot be used to show notability. They are arguing that several sources should show notability, although there are some flaws with both. One is a San Jose Mercury News source that has nothing other than a date and a name of an author- there's nothing to show what the story was, how in-depth the source went into the club, nothing. The other is the site Veloce Today, which at first glance looks to sort of be a blog source. It does appear to have an editorial staff, but I can't really verify that the site is really usable per RS. Of course there is the issue that even if it is, the article isn't about the club itself and could be considered a trivial source at best. I'm going to try to move the conversation to the article's talk page, but I could use some help with discerning whether or not this is usable and by helping the editor. He said he wanted help, but anything that I say that doesn't fall into what he wants to hear is seen as me being unhelpful and I'm being told that I'm doing things wrong, to put it bluntly. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 12:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This article uses as sources:
- About.com
- Feministvoices.com
- Paei.wikidot.com
- Encyclopedia.com
- Some unknown faculty person somewhere
- Allpsych.com
- Intellitheory.com
It is a list of women psychologists, all of whom have their own articles. It was created by a student as a draft,[6] moved by Wiki Ed staff to mainspace,[7], the title was corrected,[8] and finally it was moved more correctly to a list,[9] although there is no clear definition for inclusion in the list. There is a Category:Women psychologists.
Could people please opine on the reliability of the sources? If the sourcing is weak, could this article be moved back to the student's userspace? See also the commentary at the Education Noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Although #5 ("unknown faculty person somewhere") is a dead link, the url appears to refer to Megan E. Bradley, a Professor of Psychology at Frostburg State University. I imagine she would be a reliable source.[10] - Location (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you imagine she would be a reliable source (see WP:SPS from our policy page Verifiability)? And the page isn't even maintained; most of the links are dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- As a professor of psychology, I would consider her to be an expert on who might be women psychologists. The publisher in the url indicates the university she works. - Location (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Location could you please put your response in the context of our Verifiability policy page at WP:SPS? Specifically:
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.
The sample at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography provides an example of the kind of info needed to assert reliability for a self-published "expert". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. It's possible that she is not an expert in feminist psychology; however, I think identifying female psychologists would be "in the relevant field" of any professor of psychology. There is also the question as to whether this is (or was) a SPS given that the url states that the website was published by her employer. Whether or not the list should exist is another matter which I will leave up to others. - Location (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Location, to respond to queries at the reliable source noticeboard, it is helpful to become familiar with all aspects of WP:V and WP:RS, including WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. You did not answer the reliability question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure I did. You just don't like the answer. - Location (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, a person may be a reliable source for themselves, but they can't establish their own notability, particularly in a field as large as this. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure I did. You just don't like the answer. - Location (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Location, to respond to queries at the reliable source noticeboard, it is helpful to become familiar with all aspects of WP:V and WP:RS, including WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. You did not answer the reliability question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sure. It's possible that she is not an expert in feminist psychology; however, I think identifying female psychologists would be "in the relevant field" of any professor of psychology. There is also the question as to whether this is (or was) a SPS given that the url states that the website was published by her employer. Whether or not the list should exist is another matter which I will leave up to others. - Location (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Location could you please put your response in the context of our Verifiability policy page at WP:SPS? Specifically:
- As a professor of psychology, I would consider her to be an expert on who might be women psychologists. The publisher in the url indicates the university she works. - Location (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Why do you imagine she would be a reliable source (see WP:SPS from our policy page Verifiability)? And the page isn't even maintained; most of the links are dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- The credits in #7 appears to refer Jonathan Plucker who is an Endowed Professor of Neag School of Education at University of Connecticut.[11] Also a reliable source. - Location (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Again, see above. Being a professor does not make one a reliable source. Please put your response in the context of our Verifiability policy at WP:SPS. Plucker appears to "supervise" the site, where graduate students submit the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that I don't think lists of X who do/have Y are notable in general. I seem to recall some guideline or policy saying not to do that, but it's escaped me. Either way, what's under dispute in their expertise here exactly? The source should to be reliable enough to determine the person is: 1. a psychologist. 2. a woman. I would think that any professor in the field would be reliable for determining something as simple as that given that they know the person in some fashion. One could get into whether the person in question is really a woman or not, gender identity, etc. but I'd have no idea how that would be tackled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Kingofaces43, the problem is that the "List" goes well beyond a List and just asserting these are "women psychologists" ... it contains considerable text cited to the sources above (which coulda/shoulda been added to the individual bios, with perhaps better sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Kingofaces43, the List guidelines are at WP:SAL, and notability discussion is at WP:LSC. See List of psychologists; if the content was only a list, I would understand the use of marginal sources. But the content extends beyond a list, with considerable content cited to those marginal sources, and duplicating what should be already in the individual bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is all why I don't like such lists and pretty much agree with you, but alas this isn't the place for that. This conversation may interest you if you haven't seen it already [12]. I would consider faculty, etc in the field. to be reliable sources for this information and general job description pages. Basically, for a person to be listed there, they should be notable enough for their own article anyways. This means there should either be a job description page somewhere, or a biography-ish type source to cite. I'd definitely consider everything else sub-par, but the reliability line seems blurry since it's a relatively simple assertion even though it could easily be incorrect too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I will weigh in on the MED discussion. On the general listy thing, I would not have a problem with using any of these marginal sources to simply say, "this is a notable woman psychologist". I do have a problem with putting out extended bio information based on iffy sources, when that content should be placed in the individual articles, and better sourced. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. If it's going to be a list, just list the names and nothing more. If the student wants to write bios (regardless of degree) those go on the subject pages. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- With respect, I just see a "don't like it" argument here and no real reason to demand the list be shorn of anything that raises it above duplicating the category. We have no guideline/policy that says pertinent biographical information must only go in the (possibly very long) article, nor that lists must be mere names. Suggest you examine some of our featured lists. The main thing I agree on is that a weak source might be sufficient for inclusion in this non-contentious grouping but not for extended biographical aspects. I should note that in my experience writing people lists in the past, that it is infinitely harder to get good biographies of scientists, doctors, business people vs sports stars and entertainers. Seems to me if you can hit a ball or sing a tune then the world will write about you, but if you actually do something useful like research a disease or build a bridge, then nobody cares. You will find plenty lists of famous cricketers and baseball stars with no problems sourcing, and I couldn't give a **** about them :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
- Colin, I made it clear I'm not super fond of those lists (which is based on policy and guidelines for me, but this isn't the place), but the take home message for this board was that better sources are needed for writing more general biographical content. If you're just listing people by profession only, the bar is a lot lower for reliability. That's why the distinction is made between a distinct list vs. more general biographic content as this article was too much of a hybrid between the two. The sources above appear generally reliable for a basic list article at a glance, but not so much for all of them if it's going to be more biographic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- With respect, I just see a "don't like it" argument here and no real reason to demand the list be shorn of anything that raises it above duplicating the category. We have no guideline/policy that says pertinent biographical information must only go in the (possibly very long) article, nor that lists must be mere names. Suggest you examine some of our featured lists. The main thing I agree on is that a weak source might be sufficient for inclusion in this non-contentious grouping but not for extended biographical aspects. I should note that in my experience writing people lists in the past, that it is infinitely harder to get good biographies of scientists, doctors, business people vs sports stars and entertainers. Seems to me if you can hit a ball or sing a tune then the world will write about you, but if you actually do something useful like research a disease or build a bridge, then nobody cares. You will find plenty lists of famous cricketers and baseball stars with no problems sourcing, and I couldn't give a **** about them :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 20:42, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. If it's going to be a list, just list the names and nothing more. If the student wants to write bios (regardless of degree) those go on the subject pages. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I will weigh in on the MED discussion. On the general listy thing, I would not have a problem with using any of these marginal sources to simply say, "this is a notable woman psychologist". I do have a problem with putting out extended bio information based on iffy sources, when that content should be placed in the individual articles, and better sourced. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is all why I don't like such lists and pretty much agree with you, but alas this isn't the place for that. This conversation may interest you if you haven't seen it already [12]. I would consider faculty, etc in the field. to be reliable sources for this information and general job description pages. Basically, for a person to be listed there, they should be notable enough for their own article anyways. This means there should either be a job description page somewhere, or a biography-ish type source to cite. I'd definitely consider everything else sub-par, but the reliability line seems blurry since it's a relatively simple assertion even though it could easily be incorrect too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Kingofaces43, the List guidelines are at WP:SAL, and notability discussion is at WP:LSC. See List of psychologists; if the content was only a list, I would understand the use of marginal sources. But the content extends beyond a list, with considerable content cited to those marginal sources, and duplicating what should be already in the individual bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Kingofaces43, the problem is that the "List" goes well beyond a List and just asserting these are "women psychologists" ... it contains considerable text cited to the sources above (which coulda/shoulda been added to the individual bios, with perhaps better sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that I don't think lists of X who do/have Y are notable in general. I seem to recall some guideline or policy saying not to do that, but it's escaped me. Either way, what's under dispute in their expertise here exactly? The source should to be reliable enough to determine the person is: 1. a psychologist. 2. a woman. I would think that any professor in the field would be reliable for determining something as simple as that given that they know the person in some fashion. One could get into whether the person in question is really a woman or not, gender identity, etc. but I'd have no idea how that would be tackled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Again, see above. Being a professor does not make one a reliable source. Please put your response in the context of our Verifiability policy at WP:SPS. Plucker appears to "supervise" the site, where graduate students submit the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Colin's helpful feedback, I converted the page to a List format more like multiple examples of Featured Lists. Although no one besides Colin commented here on the issue of substance (the reliability of the sources), while converting, I eliminated the dubious sourcing. The List should now be in good shape for expansion, with the (unanswered) question about dubious sourcing now removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't a better question why we have this article? The people mentioned seem to be pioneers and that may deserve its own article. But there could be thousands of people included, most without their own articles and it would serve no value. TFD (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Youtube video, interview of Doctor Farsalinos
Can this video be used to source statements about Electronic cigarette hardware? The uses include:
- Use it to source the claim that says that wicking materials and airflow greatly affects the quality of the vape, add that certain wicking setups add to the quality as well.
- Introducing high powered specialized mods. Subsequently talking about what kind of atomizer may or may not be used with them.
- Talking about different materials like pyrex and stainless steel that are better than materials previously used.
- Source a claim that talks about puff counter and puff duration on certain mod (I don't remember if the claim is still there, if not I would add it.)
Journal articles of Doctor Farsalinos are already in the Electronic cigarette article, # 30 and 47 in the list of references. He is frequently cited by reliable sourced like news stories link to search. The video is a interview of him by a E-cigarette reviewer Phil Busardo and could be sourced to his website. link The question is, is the video a reliable source on hardware for the views of Doctor Farsalinos, an expert? AlbinoFerret 00:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to add that RS discussing technical aspect of ecigs are extremely scarce. It must be made clear that the intention behind using this source is NOT to make medical or scientific claims but rather describing advanced devices that other conventional source of info ignores. TheNorlo (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Team Fortress Wiki
[13] It is reliable because users cannot change the content and only Valve, the official tf2 people, can change it, right? DanDan0101 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't registered there to try, but from what I read on the Wiki, any registered user can add and change content. So no, I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources for identifying malware
I have been in a debate with another editor over the User and Critical Reception of the PCKeeper article. Despite positive reviews of this software from reliable sources, this editor has included sources such as a youtube video by Ba Tech (a channel with a whopping 9 followers) and content farms such as http://www.2-spyware.com/remove-pckeeper.html, http://www.safebro.com/pckeeper-virus-remove, http://removirus.com/2014/06/how-to-remove-pckeeper-uninstall-instructions/, http://www.repair-errors.com/pckeeper-removal-the-easy-way-to-remove-pckeeper-from-your-pc/, http://www.pc-virusremove.com/remove-pckeeper-how-to-uninstall-remove-pckeeper/, and http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-pckeeper#comment-1970577. These sites seem to offer generic instructions for removing software (most of them seem to apply to any software) and often read as if they were creating using fill-in-the-blanks template for each piece of software. I have no affinity for PCKeeper (I've been trying to remove promotional language from this article for a while), but calling this software malware when sites like ZDNet say otherwise. Are any of these considered reliable for statements that the software is malware (statements which the manufacturer could conceivably consider libel)? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
A Reliable Source with a possibly unreliable assertion
Hello! I'm relatively new, so I apologize if I make a procedural mistake, and I'll try to explain the issue fully.
We have a source that would definitely be considered reliable generally, but which makes an assertion that seems quite a bit unreliable in context. The source in question is is a Columbia Journalism Review article, written by Chris Ip. Both the author and the publication are generally considered reliable, and that general reliability is not disputed here. The question is whether the third element of WP:RS, the work itself, could have enough affect on the reliability of the assertion presented to question the reliability of the source being used to convey that specific assertion within the WP article.
The issue comes with this statement within the article:
"Yet many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate—about alleged collusion in video games between journalists and developers or among reporters—have been debunked."
I've recreated the inline link as it is presented in the article/source here. The specific issue is that the article treats the subject matter, specifically that there was "collusion... among reporters" as a fact, and cites the inline link, apparently to support this fact. The inline link leads to an article/blog post by Kyle Orland. Mr. Orland is the subject accused of creating and managing the so-called "GameJournoPro" list, the list that has been accused of being the channel by which collusion among reporters was alleged to have taken place.
Without getting into the discussion on whether there was collusion, or whether the list was actually proof or not, the issue is whether a response from the accused list creator could be seen as definitive evidence debunking the collusion charge. There are several other sources that offer their opinion, and they are prescribed with due weight within the WP article as to the charges alleged here, but the source in disputed here is the only one that labels the debunking as a fact rather than an opinion.
So, without any other source within the CJR article linking to where the debunking fact was generated, it appears to only be using the alleged list creator as its source for debunking the collusion charge. If this was simply offered as the opinion of the author, there would be no issue. But by presenting this as a fact, and using the inline link to support this supposition, the reliability of the statement is tied to the underlying link. The underlying link would likely be considered unreliable per WP:RS absent other support due to WP:COI and WP:BIAS.
So, the question presented here is: When an otherwise reliable source makes an assertion of fact, and uses an unreliable source as the apparent sole support for this assertion, is the specific assertion considered unreliable per WP:RS while the rest of the article may or may not be otherwise reliable per WP:RS or does the strength of the author/publisher's general reliability out weigh the possible unreliability of the underlying support for the assertion presented within the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ries42 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC) (Apologies for forgetting to sign) Ries42 (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding Wikipedia policy here - we don't second-guess sources, and rule them out for specific statements because we don't like sources they may have used. We expect them to use their own standards of judgement, and their own methods of verification regarding the reliability of the sources they themselves use, and if they are prepared to use them for specific statements, we trust their judgement. It should be noted that there is no requirement whatsoever that a source we use even cites a source at all, and most journalistic sources don't. And incidentally, the suggestion that the "sole support" for the CJR statement comes from the articles linked is nothing but guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- If that is the case, than the following statements in WP:RS don't make sense.
- "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
- * the piece of work itself (the article, book);
- * the creator of the work (the writer, journalist),
- * and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press).
- Any of the three can affect reliability.
- And WP:RSContext stating: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Would make no sense if we could not challenge a source. (Emphasis added)
- Finally, the News Organizations section in [[WP:RS] specifically states "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article should be assessed on a case-by-case basis." (Emphasis added)
- If we cannot challenge sources, even ones that are normally reliable, than how is anything ever done on a 'case-by-case' basis.
- Additionally, I stated "apparent sole-source" because it may or may not be the sole source, but it at least does appear to be for that specific statement. Ries42 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that if it's important to you to write: "The Columbia Journalism Review described the allegations as debunked...", rather than "The allegations were debunked...", then that's fine. I haven't looked at the context, though—if other reliable sources also describe the allegations as debunked, then a blanket statement of fact (without specific in-text attribution) would be more appropriate. I am a little wary of the effort to second-guess reliable sources based on little besides the opinions of pseudonymous Wikipedians, as AndyTheGrump describes above, and I wouldn't push this too far. On some level, it smacks of constructing a tortured six-degrees argument to disqualify a clearly reliable source which says something that you personally find unpalatable. Also, it's obvious that you're an experienced Wikipedian using an alternate account. I don't particularly care about your prior accounts, but please drop the pretense about being "relatively new". It's tiresome. MastCell Talk 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate the compliment, but nope, this is my first time editing on wikipedia and I have no alts or previous accounts. Feel free to check my IP or do w/e you do to check that if you feel the need. I have just been reading a lot about it lately. I think my main issue is that CJR describes the debunking as a "fact" so labeling it like you say makes it seem more like an opinion, but perhaps that's better than nothing.
- As for the doubting of an otherwise reliable source, I was under the impression that was encouraged, not discouraged. This is the only source that I've seen which describes it as "debunked" as a fact. There are several other sources that give opinions challenging the legitimacy of the collusion charge, and I would even say the majority of sources do challenge it so. My issue is that this is the only source that claims its a clear fact and it appears to do so on shaky grounds. Maybe another point in the unreliability of this specific source shows that it is out of line with other reliable sources which don't claim its an undisputed fact that the charges have been debunked, but rather just state it is the opinion of those individual authors who believe the charges are unsubstantiated. I would even agree that without the inline link, the source would present a stronger case that it is reliable, but by citing the inline link, it opens up the door to question the initial source's reliability to support the claim. Ries42 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that if it's important to you to write: "The Columbia Journalism Review described the allegations as debunked...", rather than "The allegations were debunked...", then that's fine. I haven't looked at the context, though—if other reliable sources also describe the allegations as debunked, then a blanket statement of fact (without specific in-text attribution) would be more appropriate. I am a little wary of the effort to second-guess reliable sources based on little besides the opinions of pseudonymous Wikipedians, as AndyTheGrump describes above, and I wouldn't push this too far. On some level, it smacks of constructing a tortured six-degrees argument to disqualify a clearly reliable source which says something that you personally find unpalatable. Also, it's obvious that you're an experienced Wikipedian using an alternate account. I don't particularly care about your prior accounts, but please drop the pretense about being "relatively new". It's tiresome. MastCell Talk 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- Additionally, I stated "apparent sole-source" because it may or may not be the sole source, but it at least does appear to be for that specific statement. Ries42 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Ries42: Why does WP:RS not make sense? The piece of work is the article in CJR, the creator is the author of the piece, Chris Ip, and the publisher is CJR. As for challenging sources, certainly they can be - by e.g. demonstrating that other reliable sources contradict them. A 'challenge' which is based on a clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy regarding sources, which yours appears to be, isn't however valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- The issue I have is that doesn't seem to be spelled out as such in WP:RS. If WP:RS stated that an otherwise reliable source can be challenged by producing only other reliable sources that contradict it, that would be one thing. But WP:RS is extensive in listing ways a source may be unreliable.
- I don't understand why challenging a source can only be limited to providing other reliable sources and not pointing out discrepancies within the source itself and the sources apparent characterizations. Of course such discussion is only appropriate in the talk page, and posting such challenges in the article text would be a clear violation of WP:NOR. But disqualification of a source based on reliability shouldn't be limited to only contradictions between sources (although in a way we have that, as this appears the only source labeling the 'debunking' as a fact, which is a contradiction). Ries42 (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't "point[ed] out discrepancies within the source itself". Instead, you have inappropriately tried to apply Wikipedia standards regarding sourcing in a context where they don't apply. As MastCell writes above, there may be grounds to attribute the 'debunked' assertion, rather than giving it in Wikipedia's voice, but I can see nothing in the source itself that suggests that it isn't a valid source for a statement that the author of the piece considers that many allegations made by gamergaters have been debunked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Ries42: Why does WP:RS not make sense? The piece of work is the article in CJR, the creator is the author of the piece, Chris Ip, and the publisher is CJR. As for challenging sources, certainly they can be - by e.g. demonstrating that other reliable sources contradict them. A 'challenge' which is based on a clear misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy regarding sources, which yours appears to be, isn't however valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Unreliable sources ?
Hello, I wanted to know if the following sources are unreliable (regarding music-related articles) because they don't appear here and I have never used them so far.
1. Dubious sources recently added to two specific articles to support the new wave genre (a discussion was previously started on my own talk page) :
- Brutal Resonance (included in this article) (NB : only one song is specifically described as "new wave" and I really don't think it's enough to support this genre, as one song is not necessarily representative of what a band/act usually plays)
- ChuckURadio (included in the same article. I don't think it is reliable at all)
- A book called The Complete, Cross-referenced Guide to the Baby Buster Generation's Collective Unconscious, written by Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. (included in this article) I didn't find anything at all regarding the two authors so I don't think this reference should be included to support "new wave".
2. Websites I've already seen several times but I think they are all unreliable :
- Classicbands.com
- Classic Rock Review
- Communizine
- Encyclopedia.com
- Freaky Trigger
- Frontier Psychiatr
- Hardnews
- Like Totally 80s
- Made Man
- Popblerd
- Popdust
- Ranker.com
- Rhapsody biographies
- Rockpool.com
- Starpulse biographies
- The Truth About Music (can be found here, see "Holiday")
- Turnstyle (can be found here)
3. Specific reviews :
- Adrian Denning
- John McFerrin (can be found here)
- Mark Prindle
- Reocities reviews
- Reviews from Sputnikmusic written by Contributors. Emeritus and Staff reviews are considered reliable, User reviews are unreliable, but what about this last group ?
- Wilson & Alroy's Reviews
4. MusicMight "categories"
- Are MusicMight categories reliable ? I didn't find anything which proves the categories used by this website are reliable. (For the record, AllMusic sidebars are not considered reliable ; only the prose itself is considered reliable.)
It would help me a lot if someone could give me an answer ASAP for all these sources (and maybe other editors by the same way). Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Have you investigated the credentials of these websites? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and most of them seem to be unreliable. However it would be better someone like you can confirm I didn't make any error. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think we can answer the question (and certainly not quickly)... There is no such thing as a 100% un-reliable source (nor is there such a thing as a 100% reliable source). We can't simply take a list of sources and declare them reliable/unreliable in a vacuum .... We have to examine the specifics of how each is being used... knowing the context is vital. We need to examine the specific statements that each of these sources is supporting. A given source might be unreliable in one context, and yet completely reliable in another context. That said, I would agree that, on the surface, these sources seem iffy... there will be more situations where we would consider them unreliable than there will be situations where we would consider them reliable. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't expect a full answer you know, I only expect answers such as "this website doesn't seem very reliable". I always take care about the statement supported by one specific source, but also about the overall reliability of a specific source. I recently got a problem with highly dubious sources added by another editor in two articles : Brutal Resonance and ChuckURadio (both were included here to support the "new wave" genre) as well as a dubious book written by unknow persons included here, again to support the "new wave" genre. None of these sources seem reliable and I would like to be sure they are actually unreliable before removing them again. This is one of the reason I always avoid sources I usually don't use. Morepver I didn't find anything at all about all the websites mentionned above which prove they are reliable (as I said they don't appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, even among the "sources to avoid" identified by other editors). I saw them in several articles and I would like to know if they should be kept or not to support a music genre. I hope it would help you a little bit more. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I added the ChuckURadio source to the one article. It is the website of a radio station, so it would pass basic reliability issues in terms of editorial oversight, non-self-published content, etc. However, that is the only real source I can find that strongly supports Den Harrow of new wave, so I would say that WP:UNDUE applies here. Also, there is this journal article that suggests that Den Harrow wasn't new wave, and that source, as an article published in a journal, appears more authoritative than the word of a DJ for some small radio station. For the book in the Baltimora article, I don't see any reason to question it. It is a work published by a third party, Boulevard Books, and the book is social science, discussing the "big-'80s", which I would say is relevant to the discussion of musical genres as musical genres would qualify as a valid subject of cultural study. The author might not be notable, but notability is not inherent to a discussion of reliability. As for the other sources, I'm not involved in any discussions involving them, but most seem unreliable. With Music Might, as long as Garry-Sharpe Young was the sole contributor, which is true for the link given above, I would consider the genre tags valid. The reason that they are considered invalid for AllMusic is because they are usually unrelated to the content contributed by an actual writer - the tags often conflict with the written review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I imagined most of these sources were unreliable, so I'm not going to use any of them. Regarding the book I previously talked about, notability matters. Authors of a field are supposed to be recognized as experts in their own field (eg. Christgau, Unterberger, most music critics who writes for AllMusic/Spin/Rolling Stone, etc fall under this category. That's not the case for Glenn Gaslin and Rick Porter. Can you prove they are music experts ? Can you prove they wrote other "serious" stuff ? I imagine you can't. Compared to the other source, established by authors who wrote several music-related works upon Italian music, this source is far too poor to be included in the article. (NB: stop edit warring while this discussion is ongoing, thanks.)Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I added the ChuckURadio source to the one article. It is the website of a radio station, so it would pass basic reliability issues in terms of editorial oversight, non-self-published content, etc. However, that is the only real source I can find that strongly supports Den Harrow of new wave, so I would say that WP:UNDUE applies here. Also, there is this journal article that suggests that Den Harrow wasn't new wave, and that source, as an article published in a journal, appears more authoritative than the word of a DJ for some small radio station. For the book in the Baltimora article, I don't see any reason to question it. It is a work published by a third party, Boulevard Books, and the book is social science, discussing the "big-'80s", which I would say is relevant to the discussion of musical genres as musical genres would qualify as a valid subject of cultural study. The author might not be notable, but notability is not inherent to a discussion of reliability. As for the other sources, I'm not involved in any discussions involving them, but most seem unreliable. With Music Might, as long as Garry-Sharpe Young was the sole contributor, which is true for the link given above, I would consider the genre tags valid. The reason that they are considered invalid for AllMusic is because they are usually unrelated to the content contributed by an actual writer - the tags often conflict with the written review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't expect a full answer you know, I only expect answers such as "this website doesn't seem very reliable". I always take care about the statement supported by one specific source, but also about the overall reliability of a specific source. I recently got a problem with highly dubious sources added by another editor in two articles : Brutal Resonance and ChuckURadio (both were included here to support the "new wave" genre) as well as a dubious book written by unknow persons included here, again to support the "new wave" genre. None of these sources seem reliable and I would like to be sure they are actually unreliable before removing them again. This is one of the reason I always avoid sources I usually don't use. Morepver I didn't find anything at all about all the websites mentionned above which prove they are reliable (as I said they don't appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, even among the "sources to avoid" identified by other editors). I saw them in several articles and I would like to know if they should be kept or not to support a music genre. I hope it would help you a little bit more. Synthwave.94 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Synthwave.94: It appears you're citing this thread to justify edit warring at Baltimora, when I don't see any consensus for the general statements you're setting forth. Specifically that an editor must demonstrate to your satisfaction that the authors of a book -- a book that was not self-published, and thus for which we can assume editorial oversight -- are "music experts" and/or "wrote other 'serious' stuff". --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Are these reliable sources?
Hey, are sources such as The Huffington Post, Alalam reliable for being used in this article? ? Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Please read the notes at the top of this page. We don't make general judgements about reliability of sources (unless they are obviously unreliable, which isn't the case here). Instead, we need to know which source (i.e. specific article, not just publication) is being cited for which particular statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- For history etc. they are likely usable, but I am unsure about using specific estimates of number of pilgrims - the "twenty million" figure would need a better source for sure than the HuffPo blog. This s one case where an Iran-based agency (Alalam) should be usable, though I would not use it for a great deal otherwise. Collect (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Given Iran's state of affairs and lack of government transparency, if one uses the Iranian source you would have to specifically mention in the article "according to Alalam" for instance. Otherwise no it is not usable.Camelbinky (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt the actual article would be problematic, and it appears to be a factual article and not an editorial one in the case at hand. Collect (talk) 15:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Camelbinky: Could I know more about what you called "lack of government transparency"? Do other reliable sources such as BBC, FOX News, CNN, Times and etc "transparent"? Thank you. Mhhossein (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Collect and Camelbinky: How about this one is it reliable for the population and/or this one? Btw, how can the statements by the author of HuffPo blog article, Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi be used? Mhhossein (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fox News is not a reliable source. And NO source is ever ever ever 100% always reliable. Every statement by any source must be evaluated for whether it is likely that the source would be reliable about that particular piece of information and if it concurs or disputes other reliable information.Camelbinky (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fox News is most certainly WP:RS and making assertions contrary to repeated discussions on this board is not all that helpful. And "reliable" does not mean "correct" in any event - even the NYT makes a fair share of blunders. A Persian source about Persian religious observances is not exactly a place one is likely to find problems, while any source covering "celebrity gossip" is likely to err. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Lets not do the "Fox news is/isn't reliable" dance again... We have discussed the issue of reliability of media outlets multiple times... and the consensus has always been that major media outlets (no matter what their political leanings... yes, even Fox News, MSNBC, and the Huff Po) are generally reliable for basic news reporting (which does not mean that any given specific report is reliable). However, they are often not reliable when it comes to details (that really isn't their job). And, of course, we need to note the difference between news reporting and news analysis and commentary. Analysis and commentary is only as reliable as the specific annalist and commentator... and needs to be attributed. This is similar to the way the reliability of an Op-ed piece appearing in print journalism depends not on the newspaper, but on the author of the op-ed piece. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Fox News is most certainly WP:RS and making assertions contrary to repeated discussions on this board is not all that helpful. And "reliable" does not mean "correct" in any event - even the NYT makes a fair share of blunders. A Persian source about Persian religious observances is not exactly a place one is likely to find problems, while any source covering "celebrity gossip" is likely to err. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliable source? (Cathy Young in RealClearPolitics)
There has been a dispute on New Russia Party about a month ago about this source [14]. The statements made by the writer of the source didn't seem very NPOV to me but they were placed in the article. Can someone please check if this is a reliable source or not? --Leftcry (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- As far as reliability goes... the fact that a source has a POV is not an issue... Sources are allowed to have points of view on the issues they discuss... they don't have to be neutral. We (Wikipedia editors), on the other hand, do have to be neutral. One of the ways we maintain our neutrality when discussing what non-neutral sources say is to include in-text attribution... when we take information from a non-neural source, we phrase our statements to make it clear that what we are mentioning is the opinion of the source. (Whether we should or should not mention that opinion in the first place is another matter... we try to avoid giving Undue weight to fringe opinions). Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- Columns are not reliable sources, except for the opinions of their authors. Unlike news stories, the writers do not have to be trained journalists, do not necessarily have any expertise about the subjects about which they write, are not required to use the same procedures to verify facts, and their writing is not subject to fact-checking.
- Blueboar of course is right that sources do not have to be neutral, and many sources we use are not. The adage (from Sen. Moynihan) is "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." So reliable but non-neutral sources use actual facts to argue an opinion, and do not ignore facts they find inconvenient.
- TFD (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- It's a reliable source for presenting Cathy Young's opinion of the issue, not for making any factual claims about it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Tango.info?
While researching an unrelated topic, I noticed that since-blocked user User:Tobias Conradi appears to be the owner of tango.info[15]. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi.
A link search shows that a few articles use tango.info as a source.
Is Tango.info OK for use as a source? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can't see how the editing history of a Wikipedia contributor is relevant in assessing the reliability of a source he or she might own. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- As for Tango.info, I can't see any obvious reason to assume it is anything more than a self-published fan site, and accordingly can't see why it should be considered a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Food from haeven
See WP:NOTFORUM - this has nothing to do with the purposes of this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I will be 80 years old next month, born in Den Haag and lived through this terrible war. It scarred me for life, my parent and the family emigrated to Canad in 1950. After seeing all the Canadian Soldiers in the City when Holland was liberated I wanted to become CANADIAN. After arriving in Halifax and on the way there I unconsciously started a new life, I don't know how, but erased all those bad war memories, including the Dutch language. There are obviously things you can't forget, bad thing and good things. A good thing I can recall is while I was just 10 years old my Dad whom owned a horse and wagon was hired (I believe) to pick up the dropped food and transport it to a distribution center which I think was operated by the Germans. I was fortunate to be able to go with him to help with managing the horse. I remember only bits and pieces of the operation. We entered a large field which was all fenced off with scary armed soldiers around it, there were German Soldiers at the entrance gate with rifles and bayonets, we were searched, I believe my dad had paperwork from somewhere to prove that he had been hired and allowed to enter. After entering the field we parked the horse and wagon under some trees along the side, my job was to hold the horse at his head when it was announced that a plane was coming. It was an unbelievable sight when a plane flew over, so low that I thought I could touch it if I had been standing on the wagon. Then a big opening appeared at the bottom of the plane and food fell to the ground. It was truly food from heaven. A lot of parcels fell apart upon hitting the ground, and food was scattered everywhere. My dad led the horse and wagon to where the bulk of the food was, the parcels were loaded with help from several other people, whom I assume were also hired. You just cant imagine what it felt like seeing all that food, we were allowed to eat some of the damaged food. The field had to be cleared to allow for another plane to drop more food. We pulled over to the side again under the trees, ate some canned meat and a chocolate bar. We were being watched closely by the soldiers , but while under the trees my dad managed to hide some chocolate bars under the horse's harness to take home for my mother and sisters. Some time later another plane flew over and dropped more food, the wagon was fully loaded and we left the field, were searched on the way out and the load was secured somehow (I can't remember how) to prevent us or anyone from taking any of it. We took it all to the distribution center. By the time the wagon was unloaded and we got back to the stable and took off the harness the chocolate bars had all melted. I'm very thankful for everything that was done by all the volunteers and am appalled that these nasty wars still rage on. I hope and pray that one day there will be peace on earth and good will to men. Gerry Hol |
Are these sources usable to support a biography, in a stub?
I was told in the Tea Room that there is no absolute policy against submitting content relating to oneself. It is just that the content needs to be objective, which is nearly impossible. So I have tried to gather materials for a short stub article on Nathan Coppedge, a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet, who lives in New Haven, CT.
However, all I have found to include are a few sentences expressing how he / I have been noted for perpetual motion designs , and also noted as a philosopher.
Those statements are supported (if that) by the following sources:
A somewhat major information-gathering site offers praise, presumably in a peer-reviewed fashion. Although it comes off rough, it is clear that some thought went into the response [1]. An op-ed page google-ranked 7 has a sub-page in which the same hobby inventor is lauded as a philosopher: [2]. However, that comment takes place as a comment, not in the primary opinion page. Also, a major reference page has a sub-page google-ranked 3 that cites the hobby inventor's work as a reliable source: [3]
I have had trouble gathering three sources which are up to even this level of quality. But perhaps you will surprise me and say that one or more of these might be usable in a stub.
Are any of these usable, even in a stub, or are they considered junk for not being more critical, and/ or not pertaining directly to the topic? None of the sources seem to have reason to be biased in the direction of hobby inventors, in my opinion. Jamal Martin, who says that I am '[C]learly a philosopher of this present age.' is not an acquaintance of mine. It seems to me that more reliable sources, for example, on the subject of Joseph Newman, or Fern Coppedge (a painter), were not soon in coming in those cases.NCoppedge (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- The kgbanswers link is useless - it merely mentions your name without further explanation, though I can see no reason to think that it would be considered even remotely a reliable source anyway. The Dalia Martin page says nothing about you, while the inventors.about.com page merely links your website. If these are the best sources you can find, there is no possibility whatsoever of an article on you meeting our notability guidelines - we require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. And it makes no difference if the article is a stub - the notability requirements are the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- You don't have sufficient sources and it's not a good idea to have an article about yourself anyway. It will rank first in any search for your name and will not be under your control. Anyone can add anything to it, and you will have to watch it to make sure nothing false enters, or hire someone to do that for you. If anything negative is ever written about you in even local free papers, it will likely be added. TFD (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures
Several articles have recently been created based on the following source:
- Other Systems of Units (a sample chapter from Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures)
- Author: François Cardarelli
- List of articles at editor's talk (permalink)
The sample chapter shows tables of units such as at section "3.3.1.1.1 UK Linear Measure" which includes "Other units of length which have been used in the UK are:", then lists 18 entries such as "1 wrap (UK) = 240 feet". I asked the editor (link above) whether there is any additional information in the book, so far without response. I suspect that the book is not sufficiently reliable to be used for novel information. For example, Wrap (unit) states the wrap definition from the book, but no other source for that information has been located. Further, a comment here states that the OED includes a definition of wrap as 3564 yards. Is the book a reliable source for the definitions of these units? Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Springer is a respectable publisher and the author seems to be a qualified and practising scientist. As a Frenchman, the author is perhaps a bit clumsy at dealing with traditional English measures, that's all. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Looking more closely, I see that the work has a translation credit, "M.J.Shields FIInfSc, MITI" and it's in its fourth printing. It contains extensive information about units from many cultures and periods of history such as "Arabic Units of Weight (System of the Prophet)" or "Old Balearic Units of Capacity (Dry)". As it is a huge compendium across such a wide field, there are bound to be occasional issues, but so far as I can see, it's of reasonable quality. The wrap, for example, seems to relate to yarn manufacture. We don't have an article on the corresponding measuring device - the wrap reel so I'm going to start one now. For detailed cases such as that, we need more specific sources but this one provides a reasonable overview or start. Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
The Free Library - Thefreelibrary.com
When citing a journal article that I found through an academic database (i.e. behind a paywall), I came across this site, thefreelibrary.com (also TheFreeDictionary.com#TheFreeLibrary.com), which hosts it for free. The publication is The Mississippi Quarterly, and thefreelibrary seems to host a lot of its content. The site says it hosts copyrighted content and that the copyright terms are at the bottom of each article. In this case, "No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder." The assumption, I suppose, is that thefreelibrary has express written permission? Does anyone have experience with this site to know whether it's legit? A Gsearch for '*thefreelibrary.com* site:wikipedia.org' indicates we use it an awful lot. But the information on the site about itself is a little lacking, as far as I see, and I only see one instance of it brought up here in the past (without a definitive conclusion, it seems). (Note that if this is more appropriate for Wikipedia:Non-free content review feel free to move it there or to let me know and I will). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Ramzy Baroud
Source in question: Ramzy Baroud, 'The Rise and Fall of Palestine’s Socialists,' Counterpunch November 27, 2014.
Is Ramzy Baroud writing for Counterpunch a reliable source for facts concerning the obscure Marxist splinter group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine?
I tried to raise a discussion on this, providing detailed sources that showed that the text at 2014 Jerusalem synagogue attack was false, by citing Baroud's article. This was dismissed by a mechanical reference to an, to me, inconclusive debate back 6 years ago, at RSN. I don't think a single, dated, unsatisfactory discussion here can be taken as binding for eternity as though it were established policy. My view is that one must examine the quality of the source (Baroud, not Counterpunch), the standing of the author, and the nature of the material requested to be used. It turns out that later sources I turned up confirmed what Baroud had documented, yet regardless of this (a good test of reliability) some editors just refuse to accept him, since the article appeared in a journal they appear to dislike.
Counterpunch 'muckrakes', a perfectly legitimate branch of Investigative journalism which was the particular area of expertise of its founder Alexander Cockburn, and of one of its leading writers Patrick Cockburn, an expert on the Middle East. It specializes in getting over authoritative opinions that are not aired in the mainstream press. Counterpunch exposed the New York Times presentation of the fabricated data leading to the decision to invade Iraq (and was cited by mainstream historians like Chalmers Johnson for doing so. See his The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, Macmillan, 2007 pp.351,352,363,364). The mainstream source got everything wrong, and Counterpunch proved it. It publishes ex-Wall Street financial experts turned academics like Michael Hudson, Reaganite economists like Paul Craig Roberts, retired CIA analysts like Franklin C. Spinney, U.S. Senate national security expert and Congressional Budget specialists like Winslow T. Wheeler, Christian political conservatives like William S. Lind, historians like Robert Fisk, Israeli Knesset figures and pundits like Uri Avnery and Ari Shavit, historians like Gabriel Kolko, Peter Linebaugh and East Asian specialists like Brian Cloughley and Gary Leupp. None of these are known for their ideological brow-beating or slipshod use of facts, for example. To the contrary. They are polished, notable and established experts in their respective fields.
As to Ramzy Baroud, he is an Arabist, has 3 well-received books to his credit, and as a journalist, publishes widely in such mainstream press outlets as The Washington Post, The International Herald Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Times, Arab News, The Miami Herald, The Japan Times, Al-Ahram Weekly, Asia Times, Al Jazeera etc., as well as working on a late doctorate at Exeter University. Baroud's Counterpunch article is scholarly, analytic and cites all the statements by links to the relevant primary sources in Arabic etc., so they can be independently confirmed.
In reply to Cptono's note about editorial control over content. Well, why is it partisan I/P editors never raise queries about quality control the following sources used throughout the article, none of which is known to exercise editorial control on fact checking, none of which to my knowledge has a reputation for reportorial or in depth accuracy by area specialists, and many of which are dubious. The answer is, they are all, save 2 'friendly' to a POV (which Baroud's article is not).
- Arutz Sheva (4) A settler organ, with no known legal status in Israel, and long banned.
- The Hindu
- Al-Araby
- Israel Hayom.(once in Hebrew six times in English), a free distribution paper created by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate on behalf of the Israel PM Binyamin Netanyahu. Notoriously partisan.
- The Jewish Press, an orthodox hence sectarian community newspaper.
- Algemeiner Journal notorious partisan
- Jspace community paper
- PFLP website Primary Source
- The Daily Star (Lebanon) (3)
- Fox News Infamous for its carelessness with facts
- La Información Dominican Republic University newspaper
- Sputnik (news agency) mouthpiece of the Russian federation, i.e., political.
- Daily Sabah Turkish paper created this year
- The Hollywood Reporter
- New Jersey Jewish News
Independent outsider reviews of this issue would be appreciated. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with inclusion for the following reasons:
- CounterPunch has historically been less than suitable here at RSN (attribution has been a way to use it for prominent opinions by established writers)
- Regardless of the author's merit's, what CounterPunch deems appropriate to publish and what they have potential editorial control over is problematic. The source has been called "extremist" but I think it is safe to simply say that they tend to have some sort of agenda and are contrary to the point of sensationalism ("edgy" is a nice way to put it). I question the appropriateness of a needlessly long quote and even giving it a potential page hit through the ref section.
- Ramzy Baroud doesn't seem that prolific at a glance. I'm not as familiar with the writer as others but nothing jumps out as so important that it receives weight (attributed in the text or not). A Google search shows what could easily be considered a heavy bias.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Question. We are under an obligation to be neutral and coherent in our application of policy. If these are your criteria, why have you raised no objection to the many sources I have cited above, which have been used to document the article. They all fail the high bar you set for Counterpunch(none of those sources, furthermore, can boast of the quality contributors some of whose names I have listed as published by Counterpunch). Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Both you and Epeefleche have misinterpreted (see below) a RSN discussion. It is perfectly normal to request clarification as to why you object to Counterpunch and a Palestinian author, while quietly accepting sources all over that page that are POV-pushing, mediocre, and fail RS. Neither on the talk page, nor here, will either of you clarify this point. I too certainly think this should be reviewed by independent outside editors, but in the meantime, I am perfectly in my rights to request that vague pronouncements and a failure to actually do anything but rehearse an opinion be clarified. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Stop it. I have raised my objections (as did a few other editors on the talk age). We should wait for others to chime in instead of dragging your IDIDNTHERERTHAT to AE..Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I believe it is long-settled here at RSN that Counterpunch is not an RS. This is especially the case for anything controversial. I see no reason to change that judgment. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It wasn't settled, and your judgement is a mischaracterization.
- 11 editors pitched in. 3 were neutral. One was dismissive. 7, a majority, tended to suggest it was citable for opinions if the author was notable, or the opinion of 'substantial interest'. I.e. whether Counterpunch is citable or not depends on who is writing, and the editorial circumstances (substantial interest of point cited, which is the case here).
- ChrisO posed the question. No longer active. Neutral
- PelleSmith (corrects hostile characterization of Noam Chomsky, a contributor to Counterpunch) neutral
- Itsmejudith (corrects characterization of Robert Fisk (a Counterpunch writer) as left-leaning. Neutral
- Jayjg. Negative (‘strong political agenda and bias’ a 'left wing version of [[FrontPage Magazine’)
- Zeq (banned editor): ‘CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts.’
- Relata refero. No longer active. removes links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right.
- Crotalus horridus No longer active. ‘None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself.’
- Merzbow (No longer active: ’I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right.’)
- User:Blueboar
- User:eleland
- User:Nishidani (Agree with refero, i.e. ' It depends on who writes there.')
So, back in 2008, in a short discussion, Counterpunch was not dismissed out of hand. The majoir commentators put an unless/if condition on citation. Both Epeefleche and Cptono are taking it as a thumbs down, when the verdict was mixed and conditional. Secondly, the question I posed is not whether Counterpunch is reliable, but whether a notable author specializing on the I/P area, who, unlike all the other newspapers cited in the article, examined the primary Arabic sources, and correctly noted what the newspapers on day one failed to note, is citable. If we say he isn't, we are potentially laying down a precedent that a notable author/specialist cannot be used to correct an error on Wikipedia if his views are only cited in a non-mainstream newspaper. That is fatuously absurd.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics ( www.isgp.nl )
I have started to see material from the Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics, www.isgp.nl, inserted into Wikipedia articles. The "About" page states that "[a]ll articles on ISGP were written by Joël van der Reijden" and indicates that the website was formerly known as the Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions but changed it's name "in an effort to make it sound both better and more professional".
Pilgrims Society currently cites http://www.isgp.nl/Pilgrims_Society02.php as primary source material for membership lists. I am looking for further feedback as to the acceptability of this source. Thanks! - Location (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- From the site's About page we find encouragement in the statement that "The reason [this] site grew so much in the 2005-2010 period is due to early support of people working for Alex Jones sites Infowars and Prisonplanet." So yeah, it's obviously reliable for any and all statements of fact. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- In case it is not obvious, Boris is (a) being sarcastic (b) bang on the money. This falls into the "fuck no" bucket. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. About as useful as a chocolate frying pan. Not to be used. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
22 November 1963 ( 22november1963.org.uk )
1. Source. http://22november1963.org.uk/oswald-on-tsbd-front-steps (The "About" page does not reveal the identity of the website owner or its contributors.)
2. Article. Ike Altgens
3. Content. The italicized section of the following sentence:
- While on assignment for the AP on November 22, 1963, Altgens made "perhaps the most well-known of any still photograph"[4] of the in-progress assassination of President John F. Kennedy—a "controversial"[5] snapshot that has led to a decades-long debate among supporters and critics of two official investigations concluding that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is not visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the gunshots were fired.[6]
Further comments on this source are being solicited as Ike Altgens has been nominated for GA status. Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The website includes links to a book: 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination by Jeremy Bojczuk. I think it is safe to assume that Bojczuk is also responsible for the website. I can't find any evidence that he is a qualified historian, and accordingly can't see why he should be regarded as a reliable source concerning such matters. Though if the website is being cited for a statement that "official investigations conclud[ed] that accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald is not visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository", one would have thought that other sources would be available anyway, unless I've misunderstood something. Or is it the assertion that "a decades-long debate" has gone on concerning the photo? That would also clearly need better sourcing, or perhaps rewording - I'm sure it is still being debated, but is the debate of real significance beyond the conspiracy-theorists? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, is this a reliable source that there has been "a decades-long debate"? While conspiracy theorists believe that everything is up in the air, there are no mainstream sources indicating that is the issue that fringe (i.e. conspiracy) sources make it out to be. - Location (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
As the article's primary contributor and its GA nominee, may I weigh in?
I chose 22november1963.org.uk because it is a measured, sober compilation of the various theories, which in turn arrives at measured, sober conclusions where there are conclusions to reach. The instant page, for example, lists the questions raised and the evidence—or lack—presented, properly dispatching that which I would consider fringe (if not outright lunacy). I argue that a lack of "mainstream" coverage does not define "fringe" when the "mainstream" appears to have chosen to leave the issue entirely in the hands of researchers and historians.
The issue is balance within a presentation of fact: while Wikipedia cannot be seen to support any conclusion or theory—be it lone nut, multiple lone nuts, conspiracy to assassinate, conspiracy to cover up, or even the demonstrable shortcomings of the official investigations—neither can it be seen as a participant in a whitewash. Please know that this is neither accusation nor insult. Most if not all of the Web sites like 22november1963.org.uk, mcadams.posc.mu.edu and jfklancer.com, and even repositories like AARC, maryferrell.org and history-matters.com, would not exist were it not for the persistent questions of Oswald's actions and locations when Kennedy was murdered, and the hard work (with varying degrees of legitimacy) by the Weisbergs, Meaghers, Lanes, Bugliosis, Grodens, Marrses, Posners and McAdamses of the world. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 22:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- How does this source not violate WP:USERGENERATED? - Location (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I can't argue with that, beyond the sobriety of the material. I have been looking and continue to look for a better source, but this site outlines the problem in a stinging, ironic indictment. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 23:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the America: Imagine the World Without Her?
I invite you to take part in an RFC on rather Media Matters, Daily Kos and Breitbart be removed as sources for the America: Imagine the World Without Her. The RFC can be found here. My view is the sources are WP:QUESTIONABLE and there is no reason to use them. Thanks for your time. Casprings (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- And the sources are all perfectly acceptable for opinions cited as opinion, and "IDONTLIKETHEM" is a remarkably poor anti-policy-based concept. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Daily Caller and The Daily Beast in 2014 NYPD officer killings
The article on 2014 NYPD officer killings contains some somewhat inflammatory claims sourced to The Daily Caller [16] and, second hand, The Daily Beast [17] and could probably do with more eyes on it. Artw (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Filipino Advocates for Justice
Is this a reliable source? Added here at Demographics of Filipino Americans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that it should not be used in this context. It appears as though that source has been added to deal with the {{One source}} tag, however, the credits at the end of the document state:
- Source of all information except remittances:
- “Filipino Immigrants in the United States.” Migration Policy Institute
- “Revisions to Remittance Trends 2007.” The World Bank
- Given that the Migration Policy Institute appears to be cited immediately prior to this one in the diff you provided, we have some sort of circular referencing going on. - Location (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have moved the content and replaced it with its original information source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Indian Medicinal Plants - An illustrative Dictionary by C. P. Khare
Is Khare, C. P. (2007). Indian Medicinal Plants - An illustrative Dictionary. New York: Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-70638-2. a reliable source? It was used in the Portulaca oleracea article but was deleted with the reason being given that it did not meet wp:medrs. WP:DIFF = edit deleting text and citation. See also Talk:Portulaca oleracea#Pharmacological effects, and the introduction to C. P. Khare's book at http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/702/Contents%20and%20Front%20Matter.pdf where it says, inter alia, The text is based on authentic treatises which are the outcome of scientific screening and critical evaluation by eminent scholars. As I have already indicated, readers, if they so desire, can always refer back to a particular research paper cited in the original source. I did not follow the trend of enumerating research papers which were not actually consulted by me. Researchers should consult the Database on Medicinal Plants used in Ayurveda series (CCRAS) and Reviews on Indian Medicinal Plants series (ICMR) for detailed bibliography. See Googlee Scholar for the 1430 citations to this work. --Bejnar (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- It depends greatly on what article this source is being used, and the material used from the source and its context. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Australian Business Traveller reliable source?
Australian Business Traveller is on the blacklist of references, so any reference citing ausbt.com.au gets automatically reverted by XLinkBot (eg this revision). I assume that this is because someone considers ausbt.com.au a spam/self-promotional site or a personal blog with content that can always be found elsewhere.
My feeling is that, though it's certainly a special-interest publication, it meets the criteria in WP:RS and, at the very least, shouldn't be automatically removed as a reference on site. It acts much more like a reputable news source than a personal blog. It tends to reports things like new routes served by airlines and changes to schedules. As such, it is often a good source for changes in destination lists on airport pages. (Normally, by practice, airport destination lists are uncited with the implicit reference being the airline's current schedule. I think that dated articles with a permanent link and an author from Australian Business Traveller are much better sources than this implicit reference to airline schedules.)
This was brought up here in 2012, when Australian Business Traveller was a new publication. It was brought up by an editor of the publication, which probably raised conflict of interest concerns, though there was essentially no discussion.
Any thoughts? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Seems to have been reported for ref link spamming in January 2011 link to report. Generally, you can search on the User:XLinkBot/RevertList_requests/log page for the regex in the revert edit summary and get a link to the reason it's on the list. Ravensfire (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Priya's Shakti
Are these sources suitable for including the comic book Priya's Shakti on the List of feminist comic books?
- "Comic Book: Priya's Shakti". priyashakti.com. Rattapallax. Retrieved December 22, 2014.
Led by Priya, her followers, both men and women, spread the message of women's equality across the Earth, and not to remain silent in the face of violence against women and injustice.
- Chowdhury, Jennifer (December 15, 2014). "India's Newest Heroine Breaks Rape-Talk Taboo with Comic Book". NBCNews.com. Retrieved December 22, 2014.
Devineni wants the murals to resonate with people that pass by them. 'We want people to tell their friends "I stand with Priya," he explained, 'and support women's equality and the struggles of rape survivors to seek justice.'
Releated discussion at the List of feminist comic books talk page.
--Lightbreather (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- The NBC News piece, surely is. The site http://www.priyashakti.com can also be used within the limits of WP:SELFPUB - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- My problem with it is that it says "women's rights" and not "feminism". Why didn't they say feminism? Why did they just say "women's rights"? There hasn't been anything presented AFAIK where the author or an RS said Priya's Shakti is feminist. Why does this matter? Many women are for equality, but not for "feminism" (example of RS saying that). Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- These are certainly reliable sources for saying that the publisher or creators said the things that they've said. However, "feminist" is a judgment, and even if they had explicitly said that it was feminist, "feminist" is a subjective analysis, and we would normally look to significant third-party sources for subjective views. Basing a list on what people want to promote their work as would seem to be a bad path to go down. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)