Ian.thomson (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
:Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally [[humorism]] is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
:Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally [[humorism]] is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. [[User:Richard Keatinge|Richard Keatinge]] ([[User talk:Richard Keatinge|talk]]) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
::{{u|Andrew Lancaster}} and {{u|Richard Keatinge}} on the face of it, this '''is''' a straight up and very obvious RSN case. The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source. Consensus is clear that they are fine. We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
::{{u|Andrew Lancaster}} and {{u|Richard Keatinge}} on the face of it, this '''is''' a straight up and very obvious RSN case. The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source. Consensus is clear that they are fine. We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
||
::{{ec}}The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is pseudoscience. [[Ptolemy]] is not classified as a pseudoscientist, but a modern advocate of Ptolomaic cosmology would be an astrologer (and so the only way for them to not be a pseudoscientist would be openly admitting they're practicing magic, not science). [[User:Ian.thomson|Ian.thomson]] ([[User talk:Ian.thomson|talk]]) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated? == |
== Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated? == |
Revision as of 16:33, 9 March 2015
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch, for the nth time
Despite the fact that RSN continually finds Arutz Sheva and Palestinian Media Watch unreliable for bare statements of controversial fact, at Shaar HaNegev school bus attack we have users re-inserting the claim that "Hamas released a video of the attack, which confirmed the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." So here I am again, asking RSN, "are these sources, which are known for their agendas over their journalism, reliable to state anything like this as fact?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- The farthest I think would be allowable with those sources is a statement akin to "Hamas released a video of the attack, which claims to show the use of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile against the civilian target." That sort of wording would be allowable with such sources, I think, since it places it on the source and doesn't state it as fact. SilverserenC 01:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think your comment more addresses whether or not Hamas is a reliable source, but we also need to consider the likelihood that Arutz Sheva and PMW are not accurately reporting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- (@Silver seren:)–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them propaganda organs. There's no Israeli government news organ that I know of, or even standards of censorship in Israeli news publications thee days, just a bunch of sensationalist news organisations that regularly engage in yellow journalism and tabloid reporting. I would say that, all except possibly Ha'aretz, are poor quality publications though you can rely on them for many Israel-related non-political local topics like archaeology and new public works projects (I actually don't know of any news source anywhere where you can get neutral political news about Israel). Artuz Sheva/Israel National News though, I would not trust for anything, especially things relating to Palestinians, Arabs, liberals, Tel Aviv, etc. as they are known to hate all these things, and the settlements, where they are the official news source, and understandably feel threatened at times, and write as such (though even if it's understandable, it's no reason to use them). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- No one ever (as far as I know) have accused PMW of faking a video and the video is similar to many others released by Hamas. The logo is there. The terrible Hebrew scary quote is there. I am not sure about the 'Kornet' statement - What does israelnationalnews bases their analysis on? Though it does look like the picture on 9M133 Kornet page.
- [Here is a similar video which became |viral in Israel. The Hebrew is awful :) Ashtul (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Arutz Sheva, which began and persisted as an illegal settler propaganda organ outlawed in Israel, and, when 'legalized', was returned to that status by the Israeli Supreme Court with overturned the Knesset, thrives on reporting extremist claims, such that the Obama administration is penetrated by Muslims,(see also here); that when major Israeli newspapers, relying on direct videos of the abduction, were attributing the Kidnapping and Murder of Abu Khdeir to settler revenge, they persisted in holding out (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/182494#.VPXOhps5Dcu implicitly) for the (Arab) pedophile killing rumour. This place customarily gives a hard time for any site like the Jewish liberal-left Mondoweiss, that has excellent reportage, yet is relatively at ease with Arutz Sheva. Consistency in principle would suggest that nothing from Arutz Sheva can be cited as a fact.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call them propaganda organs. There's no Israeli government news organ that I know of, or even standards of censorship in Israeli news publications thee days, just a bunch of sensationalist news organisations that regularly engage in yellow journalism and tabloid reporting. I would say that, all except possibly Ha'aretz, are poor quality publications though you can rely on them for many Israel-related non-political local topics like archaeology and new public works projects (I actually don't know of any news source anywhere where you can get neutral political news about Israel). Artuz Sheva/Israel National News though, I would not trust for anything, especially things relating to Palestinians, Arabs, liberals, Tel Aviv, etc. as they are known to hate all these things, and the settlements, where they are the official news source, and understandably feel threatened at times, and write as such (though even if it's understandable, it's no reason to use them). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10 Adar 5775 16:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Palestinian Media Watch is widely regarded as a reliable source. major news sources including the Chicago Sun-Times[1][1] the Associated Press, [2][3] The Telegraph[4][5] and the Washington Post [6] cite it regularly for it's reliable translation or the Palestinian Arabic-language press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Arutz Sheva is a national news source with a large readership/listenership. It is neither more political not less reliable than Fox New or The Guardian (i.e. not always). It does sensationalize in a Daily Mail, New York Daily News sort of way. The remedy to this is not to brand it as unreliable, but to write "According to Arutz Sheva..." or "According to The Guardian..." taking all news sources with a grain of salt since they all have biases. And striving to source facts to multiple sources. However, we have to recognize that the biases of newspapers show most vividly in the matter of which stories they choose to cover. Sometimes a biased source like Al Jazeera or Russia Times is the only source for a fact. In that case you write "According to..." But you do not, as Rosecaleese is attempting to do here, attempt to disqualify a news source in a country with a feisty, free press simply because you do not like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- If their reports were reliable, much more newspapers and other reliable sources would refer to them. What I mostly see are that some refers to statements others give there etc. and a few other mentions and this is nothing in such a well-covered conflict. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The Unreliability of Metacritic
This isn't so much a question but an unusual problem I came across that is relevant to this board so I thought I'd share it. Lately, there has been a flurry of blocking of socks of Jemima West and they were primarily working on an articles called Alisha Heng, Alisha Heng (I), Alisha Evelyn Heng and Alisha Estelle Heng, all of which were deleted because they were created by socks. I was curious to know who this person was so I found a cached version of the last article on Google and the article had plenty of references for acting credits for this 17 year old model/actress. When I checked up on them, Heng was mentioned by the reviewers and sometimes singled out for praise. But when I checked IMDb, it was if she didn't exist. How did this teenager end up in all of these movie reviews from regular film reviewers who review dozens if not hundreds of films for these sites and newspapers?
Later today, I discovered that although she didn't have a fleshed-out IMDb profile, she did have one on Metacritic and I guess it is possible for a user to add themselves to the casts of films. Then, I'm guessing, when these film reviewers went to get details about the movies they were reviewing, they just took it directly from Metacritic without checking to see if it was accurate. So, when she created her bio article on Wikipedia, she had all of these movie reviews (from the U.S. and UK) which substantiated her career when, it appears, she has never been in a film.
It just makes me wonder how often this has been done. It actually shows how, because it is consulted regularly, IMDb can have more accurate information than other film sites. If I added myself to the cast of a major film on IMDb, someone would connected to the film or a fan would notice and correct it. But I guess, as long as you credit yourself to a supporting part of a film, on other sites like Metacritic, no one checks to see if the information is accurate. Liz Read! Talk! 22:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Metacritic should only be used as a reliable source for the aggregate film review score that it produces. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please respond to this?
Wow, this section was just archived because nobody responded. Can someone please respond?
Source: http://www.technologytell.com/gaming/132814/hatoful-boyfriend-gets-azami-ending/
The technology news website Technology Tell has a lot of articles on Hatoful Boyfriend in their gaming section, all of which seem to have been written by their official gaming editor. I want to make sure this site counts as a reliable source for use in the article. SilverserenC 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Anyone? SilverserenC 02:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with the website but will make a few observations: First, they describe themselves as a "blog" which is not a strong indicator of reliability. On the other hand, this page lists editorial staff, which is a good sign. I will let others comment on how professional that staff is, and whether they have a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- According to their About page, they are "published by the Consumer Technology Publishing Group (CTPG), a division of NAPCO Media. CTPG also publishes leading consumer technology industry trade magazines Dealerscope and Technology Integrator." SilverserenC 00:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with the website but will make a few observations: First, they describe themselves as a "blog" which is not a strong indicator of reliability. On the other hand, this page lists editorial staff, which is a good sign. I will let others comment on how professional that staff is, and whether they have a good reputation for fact checking and correcting errors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Is an article by Moign Khawaja on foreignpolicyjournal.com an RS?
The statement "Comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto and the wartime uprising there are not uncommon" was added to Gaza Strip based on this source. (see [7] - added by --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC))
It's 'About page reads the following "Foreign Policy Journal is an online publication dedicated to providing critical news, analysis, and commentary on U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Its purpose is to challenge the narratives and narrow framework for discussion presented by the U.S. mainstream media that serve to manufacture consent for government policy. FPJ offers information and perspectives all too lacking in the public debate on key foreign policy issues." and is owned by Jeremy Hammond, a hacker that was sentenced to 10 years (it may actually makes it more reliable :).
The author himself, Moign Khawaja, write this about himself on his blog.
foreignpolicyjournal.com seems to be a blog which might be RS if the author had credibility but a glance at his portfolio doesn't show any major publications. I will appreciate any input. Ashtul (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Still can't refrain from following me around, huh? It was one of the conditions for suspending your topic ban set by HJMitchell.
- What you leave out is that the article is not by Moign Khawaja but by Mark LeVine professor of history at the University of California, and a regional specialist with a command of all of those languages. Moign Khawaja merely introduces the topic.
- There is nothing controversial about the analogy. The earliest analogy was made by a Captain in the IDF, who said this;:
In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.'(Amir Oren, 'At the gates of Yassergrad,' 25 January, 2002 )Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- That is the earliest example I know. A senior staff officer planning war strategies with regard to the Gaza Strip, imagined the study of Nazi strategy against the Jews of Warsaw's ghetto might provide some hints as to how to fix the Palestinians, That was picked up by Norman Finkelstein, and after that, fed into the news world, and into books. The only positive thing about it was that it made a lot of Arabs look up the history of what the Jews suffered in Warsaw under Nazism. But the responsibility lies with that staff officer.
- LeVine doesn't agree with the analogy by the way, but he remarks on its frequency of its use after the 2008 military destruction of Gaza. Nishidani (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is a legitimate RSN request.
- The officer mantions dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw. Not that the siege on Gaza is similar to Warsaw. Ashtul (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(1:LeVine)A 1943 photograph of Jews in a ghetto in Warsaw, Poland. Israeli forces and Jewish settlers withdrew in 2005, turning the 41 kilometer long strip literally into the world’s largest prison. Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.' Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
(2=Officer)In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.
- You also get the officer wrong. He is not reported as 'dealing with terrorist the same way the Germans did in Warsaw.'
- He is raising the idea of dealing with Palestinians along the lines of the way Nazis dealt with Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
- Please read texts precisely, and do not misconstrue them.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- (1 LeVine) The question whether the source is RS is viable. Not sure why you write such an essay.
- (2 Officer) He speaks about dealing with Palestinian terrorists years before the blockade. Putting his words into the context as you did is WP:OR at best or completely wrong.
- Now, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. Ashtul (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The source is irrelevant. Mark LeVine is an eminent historian specializing in the Middle East. It doesn't matter what venue he chooses to publish his views in.
- The officer does not speak of Palestinian terrorists. The WP:OR was to construe it that way, as you did. Now, I'd be happy to listen to what third parties say, since your misrepresentations of the sources have been clarified.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- "one of the Israeli officers in the territories said..." - is it RS at all?
- Moreover, in 2nd, more full your quote one may read: "The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example..." So?
- I'd remind you that we're already talking about such "comparisons" and your willing to equate Israel with Nazis. Now you do the same thing (as well as using & reverting Ewawer here) based on such pro-Hamas propaganda "source" netto as Khawaja and on Mark LeVine whose opinion isn't so NPOV. What else are you willing to bring to Wiki?
- I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera[8]
- But as I've already mentioned, his Al Jazeera's article cannot be considered as an academic secondary RS because itself has no appropriate sources and tells us only about LeVine's own opinion.
- And you by youself have referenced here Philip Seib's book[9] where he not only wrote about LeVine's contradiction to such comparison, but describes its Hamas, Al Jazeera, Assad's, etc. origins :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, both Khawaja's & LeVine's articles aren't RS
because both they made false use of the source(/s?) mentioned in their articles.
See appropriate :( Nishidani's edit, 16:03, 2 March 2015, based on them ((what is interesting else here that Nishidani uses here the same ITIC, what he so criticized before :):
The assault, according to Mark LeVine was unprovoked, and several Hamas members were killed. The following day, the siege of the Gaza Strip intensified.[7]
- as well as their text : Khawaja[7]:
The Israeli government’s argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a five-month old ceasefire has been challenged by observers and think tanks alike...
Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report” on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day[7]
- LeVine[8]:
The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.
The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report," confirmed that the June 19 truce was only "sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by ... "rogue terrorist organisations".
Instead, "the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement" occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.
Now let's see what ITIC really wrote in its report[10]:
ii) The escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement, November 4 to the time of this writing, December 17 2: On November 4 the IDF carried out a military action close to the border security fence on the Gazan side to prevent an abduction planned by Hamas, which had dug a tunnel under the fence to that purpose. Seven Hamas terrorist operatives were killed during the action. In retaliation, Hamas and the other terrorist organizations attacked Israel with a massive barrage of rockets. Since then, 191 rockets and 138 mortar shells have been fired...
--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- You haven't noticed that I no longer use Khawaja. I use Mark Levine's original article in Al Jazeera. My minimalist use of LeVine is perfectly consonant with the source text, which is, in my view, mostly unreliable but in the view of editors with a different POV wonderful because it sees terrorists everywhere, and disagrees with everyone else about the statistical breakdown of civilians/'terrorists' in the recent Gaza war.Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not correct: I have noticed :
- (see "I'm glad to see that you've erased Khawaja's one from the article after my tags and have exchanged it by LeVine's original in Al Jazeera[2]...", 5 March 2015 above),
- as well as you've used it in other articles
- ("See also my remark to your next usage of Khawaja in Gaza War (2008–09): "November 4 incident: 'rs'; does this quote really correspond to ITIC's report?", as well as such tag here", 5 March 2015)
- (::) --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not correct: I have noticed :
- ^ a b Huntley, Steve (7 September 2014). "Decimated Hamas makes ludicrous claims". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 3 March 2015. Cite error: The named reference "Huntley" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ Deitch, Ian (3 November 2010). "Israel takes aim at Palestinian 'incitement'". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
- ^ Deitch, Ian (15 August 2007). "PETA Critiques Hamas TV for Animal Abuse". Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
- ^ "Russia vows to support Palestinian UN membership bid". The Telegraph. 21 September 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
- ^ Simmons, Jake (27 April 2014). "Palestinians reward terrorists from British aid". The Telegraph. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
- ^ Pincus, Walter (30 August 2007). "Plan for Terror Screening of Aid Groups Cut Drastically". Washington Post. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
- ^ a b c d Moign Khawaja, Mark LeVine. (January 19, 2009). "Who will save Israel from itself?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2015-03-07.
Meanwhile, center-right Israeli think tank, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, published a report titled "Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report" on 31 December confirming that the violation of 19 June truce occurred after Israel killed half a dozen Hamas members on 4 November without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under even more intensive siege the next day
- ^ a b Mark LeVine, Who will save Israel from itself?,' Al Jazeera 27 December 2009.
- ^ Seib, Philip (2012). Al Jazeera English: Global News in a Changing World. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 153. ISBN 1137015748.
- ^ "The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement" (PDF). Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC). December 2008. Retrieved 2015-03-07.
Rappler
Is Rappler a reliable source? It is presently used to "verify" a partner of the deceased Zulkifli Abdhir. Here is the website being used, and it is being used to verify the name "Zainab Dongon".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would say no. The facebook origin, the focus on "news and action site" , the reliance on social voting for stories all lead to the reputation of a publisher with a focus on clickbait rather than fact checking and accuracy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're ignoring that Rappler.com is made and run by award winning journalist Maria Ressa and is very often cited as a legitimate source of news from the Philippines. It's voting emotion system is no more than a streamlined comment section which is widely used on other websites despite their established credibility. True, the source in question may not be the exact one referring to Zainab Dongon which is http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/83258-marwan-ties-family-global-terrorism which is also linked on the page. In conclusion calling Rappler.com an unreliable source of information is entirely ridiculous when compared to other "reliable" sources that have been used on this site, such as Fox News for instance. Breckham101 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- So what if the what if the editor is notable, so is the editor of The Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, but that doesn't change it in the eyes of most here as it being a reliable source (which I may disagree with). Also how is it "often cited" what other news sources that are generally considered reliable relying on Rappler like they do say Associated Press or United Press International? Please provide examples.
- And just because Fox News is a reliable source, doesn't automatically make Rappler a reliable source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's not my job to prove that this is a reliable source, it's your job to prove otherwise. You were the one initially making the claim that Rappler.com is an unreliable source based solely off of attention grabbing article names (which tons of other "reliable sources" do much worse than Rappler. i.e. Fox News, again.) and the emotion setting, which I have argued is nothing more than an experimental alternative to the comment section on news articles on sites such as The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and many others. This is, in my opinion, a preferable alternative to the vile idiocy left in news comment sections. Furthermore, Tucker Carlson is a political pundit, who IS NOT notable for actual journalism. Your arguments are invalid. Breckham101 (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're ignoring that Rappler.com is made and run by award winning journalist Maria Ressa and is very often cited as a legitimate source of news from the Philippines. It's voting emotion system is no more than a streamlined comment section which is widely used on other websites despite their established credibility. True, the source in question may not be the exact one referring to Zainab Dongon which is http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/83258-marwan-ties-family-global-terrorism which is also linked on the page. In conclusion calling Rappler.com an unreliable source of information is entirely ridiculous when compared to other "reliable" sources that have been used on this site, such as Fox News for instance. Breckham101 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, in fact it is the other way around. Presently there is a consensus that it is not a reliable source, only a single user says it is. Furthermore, I marked it as not a reliable source not based on "attention grabbing article names", as I have been accused of (please stop), but because it doesn't meet WP:IRS. Therefore, the above statement by Breckham101 holds no weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Based on WP:IRS, I do think that Rappler, being prima facie a news organization (albeit having only an online presence), can be considered as a reliable source for their news articles. The only reason we Wikipedians can consider a news organization to be unreliable is because the organization is known to consistently fabricate or misrepresent facts, or is widely considered to be part of yellow journalism. I have not seen any discussion here on Wikipedia or elsewhere that says Rappler is unreliable. —seav (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Now it's two against two. As with all ongoing discussions there is not a consensus until such a consensus has actually been reached. Please stop acting as though the opinions of two users can undermine one of the forefront new publications in the Philippines for all of Wikipedia. Breckham101 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I've used Rappler as a reliable source for things such as WP:DYK. I've gone lazy on creating WP:GAs for a while now (far longer than right after Rappler started), so I don't know if it can be accepted as such on that level, but considering GAs can become DYKs lately, that means de facto it can be accepted. No one has raised questions on using that website as a source on the articles that I've written. The fact that people had accepted it as a reliable source for DYK means it's good to go for most articles which aren't being rated. –HTD 17:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience
- Article: Humorism
- Content and source:
Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.[1]
References
- ^ Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298.
Jayaguru-Shishya removed this from the article:
- first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
- then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"
I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"
He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources. The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source. WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. [...] Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.
- Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias"[1]. This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- question - Jayaguru-Shishya this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps). You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better. In the absence of any actual "no" here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (ISBN 0-8160-3351-X) is an unreliable source that fails WP:MEDRS. It is neither a widely recognised medical textbook nor a scientific review article and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community. The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", "[needs to] contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." [2] Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. -A1candidate 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the above editor should read User talk:SandyGeorgia#MEDRS and pseudoscience. The apparent opinion of what may well be more knowledgeable editors about that source is that the above claim is a bit of a logical fallacy. As indicated there, what is being discussed here is whether the subject is a "pseudoscience". That, however, seems to have no bearing on whether it is or is not medically accurate. And as someone familiar with that review, as I said in my last comment above, there is nothing indicating that the subjects selected for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not legitimately included. I rather strongly urge the above editor to perhaps realize that there is in no way a clear and obvious equivalence of the terms "medicine" and "pseudoscience," despite his or her seemingly absolute conviction regarding that point. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Webster's New World Medical Dictionary describes humorism as "definitively demolished" since the 1800s. Dismissing the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as flawed is one thing, but asking for a MEDRS to cite for the statement "humorism is now regarded as pseudoscience" seriously makes as much sense as demanding MEDRSs for similar statements about astrology, alchemy, or the Nine Herbs Charm. Humorism was totally disproven before the 20th century and its absence is a rather distinguishing feature of modern medicine. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that we do not need a MEDRS to dismiss humorism, but that a MEDRS would be needed to say that humorism is not a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Not to mention WP:PARITY supports use of this source in this context. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Unreliable The source in question starts by explaining the various difficulties of using the term pseudoscience and, amusingly, invalidates itself, "The word 'pseudoscience' is not itself a scientific term. Insofar as it connotes a rigor it does not in reality possess, one might even call it a pseudoscientific term." Looking at the entries for A, these include atomism, Agassiz, Age of the Earth, antimatter, aphrodisiac and Avebury. As these all seem to be reasonably respectable topics, the source should not be used indiscriminately to tag any such subject as pseudoscience. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while. And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Humorism seems quite a wide topic in that such ideas dominated medicine for thousands of years. Even now, the idea that trouble may be caused by such imbalances is still prevalent; we just have a more detailed understanding of the components of which we might have an excess or deficiency - cholesterol, iron, serotonin, vitamins, &c. And our current understanding still seems quite limited in some ways. For example, a recent blood test indicates that my lipid level is higher than the doctor might like. But can she tell me whether I actually have incipient atherosclerosis or not? There doesn't seem to be a good test for this and so uncertain risk factors are used instead. These risk factors seem quite like the broad stereotypes of the humoural sort but instead of being choleric say, you might have a high BMI and type-A personality. Plus ça change... Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- OR claim that's akin to saying alchemy isn't necessarily a pseudoscience because gold, silver, and lead are on the periodic table. Your doctor would hopefully be using the risk factors based on previous documented connection, not because of magical stereotypes. Humorism is specifically the belief in blood, phlegm, and black and yellow biles, not other bodily fluids.
- Geocentrism and Astrology dominated astronomy for thousands of years as well, but we still describe them as pseudoscience (if not outright superstition). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while. And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
To me this does not look like a normal RSN question? It is easy to find sources saying all kinds of things, but then we need to discuss due weight, which is more of an editing discussion. What are the editing concerns that lead to the discussion? I have noticed in the past around Wikipedia that the term "pseudoscience", whether it is a clear term or not, is more common on Wikipedia than in outside publications, and this seems to be linked to interest in Wikipedia's own policies, whereby articles involving "pseudoscience" come under the martial law of "discretionary sanctions" (which seems to derive from historical debates about climate change articles, but has had some mission creep by my reading). Is that playing a role here? I note remark above that there might be a difference between science which has been historically found wrong, and "pseudoscience" and that seems correct. Pseudoscience is not normally a term used to apply to Aristotle for example and I don't think we should have articles about classical science, philosophy and medicine coming under discretionary sanctions just because there are still proponents today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally humorism is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Andrew Lancaster and Richard Keatinge on the face of it, this is a straight up and very obvious RSN case. The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source. Consensus is clear that they are fine. We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is pseudoscience. Ptolemy is not classified as a pseudoscientist, but a modern advocate of Ptolomaic cosmology would be an astrologer (and so the only way for them to not be a pseudoscientist would be openly admitting they're practicing magic, not science). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is Radar Online an unreliable source and where is that notated?
I had a Fashion Police edit reverted and the reverter said that Radar Online is not a reliable source. How or where is/was that determined? Is there a list of sites not to use? Wickorama (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- A 2009 discussion of Radar Online here suggests that it can be used, with considerable caution, for pop culture content. A few more recent threads such as here and here assume that it's not a quality source but don't go into details. But with respect to the current Fashion Police edit, you have the added concern about reporting something that's expressly reported as unattributed gossip ("insiders told Radar Online that . . . ") and relates to a living person. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
"Locals said..." on Ma'an news - RS or not
On Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir the following statement appears "On Thursday evening, Palestinians of Shu'fat reported that four settlers from Pisgat Zeev had attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old local child, Muhammad Ali al-Kiswani, and had fled on being thwarted". The source is Ma'an News which seems to be identified on WP as RS.
The issue with this particular article is that it states "Locals said" which to me seems like a disclaimer of - we didn't verify this story. Basically the equivalent of Wikipedia to WP:Attribution but to 'locals' to whom one may believe or not. In other words - not RS.
It contains paragraphs such as "Witnesses told Ma'an" and according to witnesses". But clearly Ma'an wasn't comfortable enough with the quality of information to put they name behind it and say it actually happened. So if Ma'an didn't WP:VERIFY it, the fact they report it as an WP:RS is meaningless and it should be deleted. Ashtul (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ma'an is a RS for what the locals said. The fact that needs to be verified here is, did the locals say that or not? Whether the event actually happened is another question. Ma'an rightly does not claim that it did, and neither does Wikipedia. We say that Ma'an, a RS, reported what the locals said. This is the normal way to deal with possibly biased sources. You report what they say and reserve judgment on whether what they say is true. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Margin1522, I respect this opinion but according to this, any source will be reliable to say "locals said...", not just RS such as Ma'an. Ashtul (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- How to put it, a reliable source for rumors? But basically, yes. It's not our business to pass along every rumor. I think what the guideline says here is appropriate: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true)." (WP:NEWSORG). In this case, it should be treated a rumor because it was a non-event – nobody was kidnapped, nothing happened, all we have is what the locals said. Whether it should be mentioned is a matter of judgment. How much weight to assign to the fact that rumors were flying, and what that says about the situation at that place and time. Ma'an thought it was important enough to write a story about, so that should carry more weight than a partisan site known for passing along dubious stories and outright falsehoods. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Umm, Ashtul was advised as a condition of his return here that he keep a respectful distance from myself, and yet he persists in going through my edits, one by one, and taking things he questions to various forums, in violation of that condition. Ma'an News, in this case, reports what local Palestinian people say happened. A rumour is something that circulates widely as hearsay: the reports of people who are described as being witnesses in an area to what occurs in that area cannot be dismissed simply as 'rumours'. Almost all reportage from eyewitnesses in news sources, not only for this area, is conflicted. Israeli police reports change by the hour, but we put the first in, and rarely take care to follow up. What Ashtul is challenging is the reliability of (a) the source (b) Palestinians. We simply cannot know, of course, but this is true of a huge amount of reliable mainstream reportage. The answer is not to weed out 'stuff', esp. from one side of the conflict, but simply supply the reader with an attributed and linked source to what is reported, as I have done in a corrective edit now here in response to his worries, and then wait till academic scholarship, as it will, revisits this in book form with meticulous research.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- How to put it, a reliable source for rumors? But basically, yes. It's not our business to pass along every rumor. I think what the guideline says here is appropriate: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true)." (WP:NEWSORG). In this case, it should be treated a rumor because it was a non-event – nobody was kidnapped, nothing happened, all we have is what the locals said. Whether it should be mentioned is a matter of judgment. How much weight to assign to the fact that rumors were flying, and what that says about the situation at that place and time. Ma'an thought it was important enough to write a story about, so that should carry more weight than a partisan site known for passing along dubious stories and outright falsehoods. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Close? This discussion has rambled ooutside of the purview of this venue. I'm not a regular at RSN, so I'm not going to close it. It seems to me, though, that the discussion ought to be closed here and discussion on wider ranging issues ought to take place as Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. I've created a talk page section at Talk:Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir#Suggestion: Move out of "Breaking News" mode. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nishidani, it is indeed a coincidence. Your new source states "according to local media", basically pointing back to Ma'an and raising the same question. I think this should be addressed in the policy as this may come back in many other articles, in I/P conflict or elsewhere.
- Wtmitchell, what would be the right venue to bring this up? I believe this might fall under "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." under WP:NEWSORG. Please advise. Ashtul (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, discussion specific to the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir article and relating to improvement of that article ought to take place on the talk page of that article. Such discussion might involve the impact on such articles by details of WP policies such as your "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value ..." quote from WP:IRS. Discussion of the policies themselves, including proposals for changes in the policies and discussion thereof, ought to take place on the talk pages for the relevant policy pages. Also, WP:VPP is an appropriate venue to to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've already tried to discuss this subject when Nishidani brought some event as a fact even without such "Locals said" (see en:Talk:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015#NPOV).
- I do not think there is a place in Wiki for all of these rumors even "sanctified" by dubious credibility of Ma'an (as well as by any other source). --Igorp_lj (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm fine with closing it. Ashtul (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Composed of, in political union, within political framework?
- Sources.
- 1. "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296. Ellis Katz, “Overview of the American Federation” in “Distribution of Powers and Responsibilities in Federal Countries”, Majeed, Watts and Brown, eds., 2006, McGill-Queen’s Press, [3]
- 2. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined “in political union with the United States of America”. p. 2 State Department 7 FAM 1120 Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions. (2013) [4]
- 3. Non-state Northern Marianas, like Washington, DC, is “within the political framework of the United States.” (item 27). State Department report to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011. [5].
- Content. The “Current composition” date in the U.S. info box is the admission of Hawaii. I would like a confirmation of my three sources as reliable arguments that the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI, Northern Marianas) was admitted as a territory of the United States, — and because it is within the U.S. "political framework” as is DC, as sourced,
The “Current composition” Info box date of the U.S. should be dated from November 3, 1986, the entry of the Northern Marianas (CNMI).
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- The overwhelming majority of sources say something like, "The Supreme Court concluded, in a series of decisions known as the Insular Cases, that [Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samos] are dependent lands and are neither "foreign" countries nor "part of the United States."" (Ediberto Romn, Citizenship and Its Exclusions, NYU Press, 2010, p. 97).[6] Searching for sources that appear to contradict the mainstream view is cherry-picking. Using terminology such as "within the political framework of" to imply without actually stating that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S. is misleading. TFD (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Referring to the Insular Cases a century ago for modern territorial status is misleading. Romn's treatment of the "Insular Cases" of 1901-1922 does not contradict Katz "the U.S. is composed of [territories]" in 2011. Territories remain "unincorporated" for the limited purpose of federal taxes and tariffs. Congress has expanded self-governance and protections, GAO rept. [7] Jon M. Van Dyke in the Hawaii Law Review (1992) includes the five major territories by name as "a part of the United States" [8].
- - The District of Columbia is a part of the United States though it too is not a state, but "within the political framework of the United States" as sourced, so are the territories politically. Congress has politically, --- not economically---, incorporated territory, see Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review (2009). Puerto Rico is the paradigm of an modern "incorporated" territory as modern jurisprudence understands the term. p. 1175 [9].
- - Insular Cases in 1901 and 1922 do not speak to the sourced political union of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 1986, the point of the request here as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- The Ninth Circuit Court determined in Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands v Atalig 1984 that the Insular Cases applied to CNMI. As a result, the guarantee of jury trials in the United States does not apply there. OTOH, the CNMI has a Covenant with the U.S. under which U.S. federal law does not apply there unless (1) it specifically mentions CMNI and (2) the CMNI approves. You can read more about the relationship between the United States and its territories in Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations[10]
- DC is a strawman argument. Indeed it is possible for territories to be part of the U.S. without being states. But in that case, as in D.C., the constitution applies in full.
- TFD (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Leibowitz in his “Defining status” (1989) [11] notes that the CNMI is in “Political Union” with the United States (p. 520), and it “made more explicit the mutuality of consent principle. The Covenant...was approved in a U.N. observed vote in the Northern Marianas” (p.67). The Mann act is applied in DC and Puerto Rico in the same manner, unlike in states. (p.364) Reliable sources to date reinforce those posted in this Noticeboard request.
- TFD has followed me contradicting the subject sources without a scholarly source to support non sequiturs. He asserts in error that the constitution applies in full in DC without a source -- it has a delegate Member of Congress, Congress reviews DC legislation before it takes effect. The State department source says DC and CNMI are alike "within the framework of the United States", -- DC is not a straw man to dismiss, another non sequitur, the reliable source supports DC and Northern Marianas constitutional equivalence in an international context.
- Domestic economic "unincorporation" for federal taxes and tariffs is a non sequitur to territorial "political union" as sourced. No territories in U.S. history have had either uniform privileges nor full constitutional privileges of statehood until admission to statehood, that is a non sequitur to territorial status in "political union" as sourced. "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." TFD comments are to date disruptive of the purpose here.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Just wanted to mention one journalist's account of how Mail Online articles are put together [12]. Not sure if any ramifications for WP --Cedderstk 14:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources, particularly news media are frequently wrong. However errors are corrected. If one wants to explain what happened today in articles, then these are the only possible sources. TFD (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Vicious Candy
Is Vicious Candy considered a reliable source, either generally or for birth date/place of a living person? Since the full birthdate and birthplace of Ashley Hinshaw appears in no journalistic cite but only on IMDb, which this appears to copy, I'm not sure and would like other editors' opinions: http://www.viciouscandy.com/happy-birthday-ashley-hinshaw/ . (I had first posted this at WP:IRS, where an editor suggested I post here instead.) --Tenebrae (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't look reliable to me. There are a number of other sites with the same birthday, for example [13] www.famousbirthdays.com. Which doesn't look any more reliable, but at least it's a better name than Vicious Candy. What I would do with either of these or IMDb is put a {{better source}} tag in the footnote, so that someone could replace it if a better source is found. Apparently she's engaged to be married. Journalistic coverage of the wedding might mention her birthdate. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- This website seems utterly unreliable to me. It is mostly photos of scantily clad female models, with a few photos of expensive sports cars thrown in. I see no evidence of professional editorial control, or a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and correcting errors. It is just another online clickbait site, as I see it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Cullen's appraisal of this site. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The Dead Rock Stars Club
I came across this site being used as reference for the death of the original drummer of the band Umphrey's McGee. I then searched Wikipedia and noticed that the same website is being cited in quite a few articles in a similar manner. I searched the RSN archives and found no menton of the site, so I am not sure if has been discussed before. Anyway, the site bills itself as "a list of dead rock musicians and singers, dead people associated with rock and dead people whose music helped influence and create rock (which I feel includes Jazz and Country artists), sorted by the date of their demise. This is a tribute to them." and it seems to be a personal website or database, but I can't find out any more about it. It also seems to be a repository for various links to official artist/band pages as well as other sites including Wikipedia. I'm not too sure how accurate the information is because no sources are being cited to support the information provided in individual entries thus making it hard to verify. For example, the entry for Jimi Hendrix links to Jimihendrix.com which is a dead link while the entry for John Lennon links to Wikipedia. Finding reliable sources which discuss the deaths of very famous musicians like Hendrix and Lennon is probably not a big deal, but this site looks like it's being used on Wikipedia for less famous types like the drummer of Umphrey's McGee. It doesn't seem very reliable to me at all, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Marchjuly. I picked a page from that website at random, and clicked on ten musician's names, to see how the information about the death was referenced. In every case, Wikipedia was the reference. Accordingly, I conclude that this is not a reliable source. They base their accuracy to a large extent on linking to Wikipedia. It would be unacceptably circular for us to cite them as a reliable source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking Cullen328. These musicians no longer techncially fall under WP:BLP since they are dead (not recently dead at least in many cases), right? Should the cite just be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag or should the both the information and the cite be removed? Would the relevant policy be WP:UNSOURCED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CIRCULAR or something else? Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Marchjuly, I recommend removing any references to this website, searching for a better reference, and if one is not available, placing a citation needed tag. I think all the pages you link to are relevant to this matter. Accuracy of dates of death is a BLP issue, unless the person was born over 130 years ago. If somebody digs up an obituary of a person with the same name, and we incorrectly report the BLP as dead, that can cause major problems for an elderly musician's comeback tour, among other things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks again Cullen328. I've cleaned up a few pages and tried to added reliable sources where I could (at least I hope they are reliable), but I noticed that there are literally hundreds of pages citing this website. That's a monumental clean up job for dozens of editors, let alone a single person. Anyway, since this site is being used so often, it seems to me that there should be someplace somewhere on Wikipedia that says something such as "Don't use this website because it's not reliable" like they have for WP:EL/P, WP:YOUTUBE, etc. Any suggestions on how best to bring this to the attention of others besides the two of us and post to make such a suggestion? The Village Pump perhaps? - Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Marchjuly, I recommend removing any references to this website, searching for a better reference, and if one is not available, placing a citation needed tag. I think all the pages you link to are relevant to this matter. Accuracy of dates of death is a BLP issue, unless the person was born over 130 years ago. If somebody digs up an obituary of a person with the same name, and we incorrectly report the BLP as dead, that can cause major problems for an elderly musician's comeback tour, among other things. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for checking Cullen328. These musicians no longer techncially fall under WP:BLP since they are dead (not recently dead at least in many cases), right? Should the cite just be removed and replaced with a {{citation needed}} tag or should the both the information and the cite be removed? Would the relevant policy be WP:UNSOURCED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:CIRCULAR or something else? Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Just came across this thread. Having used DeadRockStars to check information on many occasions (probably hundreds of times), I would say that it is highly reliable as well as being constantly maintained. In fact, I personally can't recall finding any errors there, in terms of death dates - which contrasts with almost all other sites I have used regularly, such as Joel Whitburn's books or Allmusic. The links it provides to WP pages are, I believe, not the sources of the death dates or details - they are simply links to additional biographical information. The sources for the death details are, I believe, not set out in the database itself - which I accept is a flaw. It should always be checked against other sources - but it is a valuable and reliable resource. Perhaps it's fair to identify DRS citations with a warning that a better source should be found, but it would be unfair to call the site as a whole unreliable, or to remove all references to it entirely. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Ghmyrtle. I may well be guilty of utilising this site as a reference for many musicians, and their like, over my time here. In almost ten years of referring to it, I can not recall a single error therein - accepting that it must, by human nature, contain a few of them. Whether it is accuracy that we strive, or religiously sticking with some supposed 'reliable source' (many of which are often lacking in basic detail), is a matter of debate. To put it another way, is the site 'unreliable' if it is consistently accurate ? One final point - whilst removing the DRS source might be easy, if somewhat time consuming, I would be very interested to hear if such editors found copious amounts of other, more 'reliable sources', particularly for the more 'obscure' individuals covered therein.
- Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the input Ghmyrtle and Derek R Bullmore. I understand what you both are saying, but the site has to be getting its information from somewhere, right? Isn't it better to try and find collaborating sources in newspapers or other well-established publications and use those instead. For sure, WP:UGC does say "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Is the argument then that Doc-Rock, who I guess is the owner/operator of the site, such an expert? Is the reliability of the site commented upon by third-party sources or are we just assuming it is reliable for the sake of convenience? FWIW, I've seen a few articles where the website is not only being used to cite the date of death, but also the cause of death as well as other personal and career information, which seems a little strange to me.
- Finally, and this is mainly for Ghmyrtle, I'm not sure what is meant by "warning" editors that "a better source should be found". That's seems to be like saying "this source might be a little questionable, but if it's all you can find then use it, at least until something 'more reliable' is found to replace it". This seems totally contrary to WP:V and WP:RS. If the consensus is that the source is reliable, then it should be able to be used without any conditions attached; On the other hand, if the consensus is that the source is only sometimes reliable, then it shouldn't be used as a place holder until something better can be found. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- My view is that the source is, in fact, reliable - as reliable as any other source in relation to death details (not necessarily career details). No-one "assum[es] it is reliable for the sake of convenience" - that's somewhat dismissive of those of us who use the site and (having checked) are confident of its accuracy. But whether it meets the established Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources may be a different matter, and if editors wish to find sources which meet those criteria better (such as, I guess, Allmusic - which I think is far less reliable, on almost all criteria, but which seems to be regarded here as generally reliable), then they should do so. As I said, it is a failing of the DRS site that it does not set out its sources, but that does not mean that its information is inaccurate. So, it is fair both to accept the DRS information as reliable, but also to flag up that sources that better meet WP criteria might be available. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
How can I verify/cite Voris Marker's dates?
So, I've been taking advantage of my new Wikipedia/Newspapers.com account to put together an article on Voris (designer). However, I've come across a few sources for her birth/death dates and her husband's dates that I can't verify in other sources. There is this Ancestry page but Ancestry is not considered a reliable source. I then found this site which confirms much of the information on Ancestry.com, with cited sources. There are some issues - Voris is stated to have been born in Baker, Oregon, although the reliable sources say Montana, or "near Billings, Montana" (to be more precise). In 1961, she's being reported as married to Clifford Marker, but other sources claim Clifford was divorced by 1930 (does this mean Voris was his second wife? It would explain how he managed to marry Beryl "secondly" in 1924 per the Boneshadow page, before he is supposed to have married Voris.) This page, with lots of citations, does give a fuller picture of Clifford, but sadly no info on his wife/wives, although it does note he was divorced by 1930.
Please can you advise me whether any of these sources are admissible - I think the last linked page is probably OK for Clifford's dates as it cites a lot of sources and describes the reasoning, etc; but I'm more concerned about getting Voris's dates right as she is the subject of the article. Can I use this for Voris's dates? Or are they all unreliable/inadmissible sources? Mabalu (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can't speak to what Wikipedia finds reliable, but in terms of vital records, scholars find contemporary records preferable to secondary or tertiary sources. (This is not Wikipedia's usual position.) The marriage license of Clifford H. Marker and Voris Linthacum can be found at familysearch.org (it is Marriage License #7384 issued in the County of Flathead, State of Montana), and states that at the time the license was issued, 25 November 1936, Clifford had been previously married and divorced, and that this was the first marriage for Voris. Voris is said to be 28 and born in Baker City, Oregon. The ceremony took place on 29 November 1936 at Kalispell, Flathead Co., Montana. (For the record, it names Voris' parents as Charles E. Linthacum and Rose née Cunning). I would be inclined to say that the SSDI (the last item you linked) ought to be considered a reliable source for birth and death dates, though further judgement may be needed if it conflicts with other sources. - Nunh-huh 03:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Column on Donors Trust on (but not by) NBC
- Source: Abowd, Paul (February 14, 2013). "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states". NBC News. Retrieved February 16, 2015.
- Material sourced: Donors Trust donated to X.
- Articles: Donors Trust, and a number of individual recipients.
- Reason: Article is written by a third party, not affiliated with NBC. It should be attributed either to him, alone, making it usually unreliable, or to his organization, making it reliable only if attributed in text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ping: Recent significant contributors and admin actions to Donors Trust; HughD, Champaign Supernova, DrFleischman, Capitalismojo, Srich32977, CambridgeBayWeather, Safehaven86, NickCT, Cwobeel
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Generally, NBC News may be sourced on WP without in-text attribution for possible bias. The publisher is clearly and unambiguously NBC News. The article is running under NBC News banner, under the category of "INVESTIGATIONS." The source is NOT flagged by NBC as "guest columnist" or "rambling round the web" or "op-ed" or any such. The source is already attributed to the author by name in the supplied, well-formatted reference. The primary organizational credential of the author is clearly declared in the source. The source is a report on an investigation of primary source documents, the federal filings of the subject of the article and its donors. The source is used in the article only for its identification of donors and recipients from those documents, not for its views or opinions. As the federal filings are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the identification of the donors and recipients. What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, your addition of two editors to the ping both will not go through Echo, as it's an edit of an already-signed section, and is probably inappropriate [[WP:CANVASSI]ING, as neither of those editors edited Donors Trust or Talk:Donors Trust in the past month. However, they may have comment on some of the related articles; if significant contributors, the addition might not fall afoul of WP:CANVASS. It won't WP:NOTIFY, though. Thanks. NickCT, Cwobeel Hugh (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- The source is misidentified; it's an independent investigator posting on the NBC site. NBC has no control or verification of the investigator's work.
- Due to the fact that it is public record, it might be reasonable for inclusion if The Center for Public Integrity has a reputation for accuracy. I haven't seen evidence for or against that. It still would provide no (not just little) indication of significance or relevance. Some of the statements which HughD has sourced to the article aren't actually in the article; for instance, he uses FreedomWorks while the source says FreedomWorks Foundation. But that's a separate issue; except in that it casts question on your additions to articles as being incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- The source is perfectly identified in a well-formatted reference as per WP policy and guidelines, including author and publisher. It is an investigative reporting on the NBC News website. The dependence or independence is not in evidenced in the source, in any case the financial relationship between an author and a publisher is irrelevant. The authors' organizational affiliation is irrelevant. NBC News is a gold star top shelf publisher by any reasonable assessment if there is one. Again, this investigation on the NBC News website is not flagged by NBC News as "independent" or "guest" or any such. The host for this source is http://investigations.nbcnews.com, not http://guestblog.nbc.com, for g*d's sake. NBC News has complete control over what appears on their website. You have no evidence to the contrary. Do you think NBC News was hacked? What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- I will thank you to please help us all focus here on the reliablity of the specific source in the OP above. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- NBC certainly has "control or verification of the investigator's work" — if they weren't convinced of its veracity and fairness, they could have chosen not to publish it. The fact that they published it establishes it under NBC News' aegis. This is no different than the Miami Herald publishing an article from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting or the Juneau Empire publishing an article from the Associated Press — news outlets republishing the work of shared-asset newsgathering organizations is as old as the media itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- News organizations also host blogs, which do not necessarily reflect their point of view or editorial control. The navigation links on NBCNews.com suggests that "Investigations" is parallel to "News", "Politics", "Sports", "Science", etc., which might very mean that it is not "News". The fact that the author of the article is given an affiliation credit suggests that it is not part of the regular News site. (HughD also uses actual blog entries at Forbes as if they were articles, so his word is not convincing to me.) I admit that I'm not good at tracking down whether a web page represents news or commentary (including gest commentary aka op-ed), but this item doesn't have many of the hallmarks of an actual news article. If you can find something at NBCNews.com which specifies what the "Investigations" section is, I would accept that. But I really don't see that article as "news", without some specific statement by the mangement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Again I ask that you please help us all focus here on the reliability of the specific source in the OP above. Thank you in advance.Hugh
- Interesting use of navigation links. So the sports news is not news and the science news is not news either? Hugh (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- News organizations also host blogs, which do not necessarily reflect their point of view or editorial control. The navigation links on NBCNews.com suggests that "Investigations" is parallel to "News", "Politics", "Sports", "Science", etc., which might very mean that it is not "News". The fact that the author of the article is given an affiliation credit suggests that it is not part of the regular News site. (HughD also uses actual blog entries at Forbes as if they were articles, so his word is not convincing to me.) I admit that I'm not good at tracking down whether a web page represents news or commentary (including gest commentary aka op-ed), but this item doesn't have many of the hallmarks of an actual news article. If you can find something at NBCNews.com which specifies what the "Investigations" section is, I would accept that. But I really don't see that article as "news", without some specific statement by the mangement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, your addition of two editors to the ping both will not go through Echo, as it's an edit of an already-signed section, and is probably inappropriate [[WP:CANVASSI]ING, as neither of those editors edited Donors Trust or Talk:Donors Trust in the past month. However, they may have comment on some of the related articles; if significant contributors, the addition might not fall afoul of WP:CANVASS. It won't WP:NOTIFY, though. Thanks. NickCT, Cwobeel Hugh (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable (but): This is simply a republication of this CPI article, which is reliable. CPI is a veteran journalism outlet with a strong reputation. The author is a professional journalist whose work has been published at Mother Jones, WaPo, and NBC. The fact that this article in particular was republished by NBC is further evidence of reliability. The "(but)" in my !vote is because, optimally, we should be citing the original CPI source rather than the NBC republication. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- The publisher is in fact NBC News, and the publisher in the well-formatted reference in the article is NBC News, exactly as per policy and guideline. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is The Bay Magazine usable?
Hey guys, I've got a question. I've been asked to revisit an AfD I started where people have added a lot of sources to the article. Most of them are unusable and that's not entirely why I'm asking here (although if someone wants to go behind me and look at my rationales and either back them up or point out flaws, then that'd be great). The main reason is that someone added the Bay Magazine to the article. I do see an editorial process and the article was written by a staff member, but what's stopping me is that this is a free local publication and I can't really see a whole lot out there about the magazine. I've said that it's potentially usable, so some input on that could potentially save the article. There's another link to a Boston Globe source, but my Highbeam has expired so I can't verify that it's very in-depth. If both the Boston Globe and Bay Magazine articles can be used then it might be able to save the article, although I'm not entirely comfortable with it being kept on three articles with no reviews, but still- it could be someone's chance to to a Hail Mary at the last minute. 05:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Also, if anyone wants to go in and mediate in general, I'd appreciate that. I'm not comfortable with the tone of the discussion that was going on in that thread prior to me posting about the new sources, so if anyone wants to wade in there then that'd be awesome. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)