Scoobydunk (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 272: | Line 272: | ||
:Focus on the content and not personal attacks. Facts don't cloud the issue and only give more context on the fact that there is a clear scholarly viewpoint on Reagan's use of coded language during his campaign. It makes no sense to use less reliable sources in an attempt to refute what so many peer reviewed sources acknowledge. [[User:Scoobydunk|Scoobydunk]] ([[User talk:Scoobydunk|talk]]) 07:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
:Focus on the content and not personal attacks. Facts don't cloud the issue and only give more context on the fact that there is a clear scholarly viewpoint on Reagan's use of coded language during his campaign. It makes no sense to use less reliable sources in an attempt to refute what so many peer reviewed sources acknowledge. [[User:Scoobydunk|Scoobydunk]] ([[User talk:Scoobydunk|talk]]) 07:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
::You are making the flawed claim that non-scholarly sources are inherently less reliable or lower quality vs ones from a scholarly publisher. It is clear that the editors of the WP:RS policy say you are incorrect in that assumption. Additionally, there are thousands of works that talk about Reagan. Google was clearly your friend in finding those. You have not shown that POV to be scholarly consensus. Putting up a wall of text however, makes it quite likely that few additional editors will join this discussion. So far we have one for inclusion and clear evidence that WP:RS does not mean to say scholarly sources automatically trump others. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 12:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
::You are making the flawed claim that non-scholarly sources are inherently less reliable or lower quality vs ones from a scholarly publisher. It is clear that the editors of the WP:RS policy say you are incorrect in that assumption. Additionally, there are thousands of works that talk about Reagan. Google was clearly your friend in finding those. You have not shown that POV to be scholarly consensus. Putting up a wall of text however, makes it quite likely that few additional editors will join this discussion. So far we have one for inclusion and clear evidence that WP:RS does not mean to say scholarly sources automatically trump others. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 12:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::My claim is not flawed and that's directly how WP policy is written. The strongest sources should be used and peer reviewed sources are generally the strongest sources and are the most reliable. If your authors views had any merit, then they'd be able to get them published in a peer reviewed source or at least you'd be able to find a peer reviewed source that voiced the same perspective. The "editors of the WP:RS" discussion from 5 years ago were split and there clearly was no consensus. Also, the only person who's responded only voiced inclusion if there were no other sources and clearly there are multiple peer reviewed sources that support the position as Lopez and Aistrup. Based on his comment, that means he doesn't support inclusion. That's the reason why I've listed multiple peer reviewed sources, because the only editor who's commented expressed interest in determining what other sources said on the topic. You're attempt to boil this down to 2 sources vs. 2 sources, misrepresents the scholarly viewpoint that Reagan used racially coded language. [[WP:BESTSOURCES]] also clearly explains that the best, most reliable sources be used to avoid POV concerncs, which is exactly the opposite of what you're doing. Again, this is why we don't use Ken Ham's books to write articles about dinosaurs in Eden, when there is scientific scholarly material already covering the dinosaurs.[[User:Scoobydunk|Scoobydunk]] ([[User talk:Scoobydunk|talk]]) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- !!! Reflist, please edit above this line !!! --> |
<!-- !!! Reflist, please edit above this line !!! --> |
Revision as of 16:32, 1 December 2015
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Are they reliable sources
http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.
The Five Gospels, Robert Funk, the Jesus Seminar
The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say?
Robert W Funk, Roy Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar
HarperSanFrancisco, 1993
Topic: Historical Jesus, especially on the Jesus page
Funk was a noted expert on Jesus' parables. John Dominic Crossan (one of the top names in contemporary historical Jesus research) was the co-chair of the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar includes other "name" scholars in the field and dozens of experts from various fields. The books that the seminar created include thorough reviews of the gospels, including summaries of scholarly thinking on many issues. Given the controversy around applying critical scholarship to Jesus as a historical figure, it's no surprise that editors object to books from the Jesus Seminar. Given that the Seminar represents many experts and several top thinkers in the field, I'd like it to be considered an RS. Given its breadth, I'd consider it a tertiary source. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what it could be considered a reliable source about, other than a primary source for the outcome of the Jesus Seminar. The length of the criticism section in the latter's article (which if anything is abbreviated) should be a clue: it represents one minority, popularized opinion. Mangoe (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mangoe. Do you have any evidence for your opinion? WP pages are not RSs, and using the Jesus Seminar WP page to assess their reliability is circular. Opponents of the historical view of Jesus hate the JS, but maybe that's just because the JS does such a good job of summarizing the historical view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please. The criticism page is well-cited; the citations are the evidence. Look, it appears to me that you're giving them a pass because you like their conclusions; but they do represent an eccentric methodology and position. Many of the people involved in the JS were not scholars, and people who objected to the methodolgy (and the press-mongering) as a rule were therefore self-selected out of participation. It's not surprising that their Tillichian precepts produced a result largely harmonious with the hist-crit zeitgeist, but that's something of a question of scholarly convergent evolution. Mangoe (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mangoe. Do you have any evidence for your opinion? WP pages are not RSs, and using the Jesus Seminar WP page to assess their reliability is circular. Opponents of the historical view of Jesus hate the JS, but maybe that's just because the JS does such a good job of summarizing the historical view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is unquestionably a reliable source for the perspective it represents. The perspective it represents is unquestionably a significant one that is owed due weight. That means describing its conclusions as well as putting it in context as to how well accepted those conclusions are. Rhoark (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rhoark. They are a significant minority opinion in terms of whether Jesus was apocalyptic. Other than that, they seem to be mainstream. But citing them as representing the most significant minority view seems fine by me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Is a government site a reliable source for non-controversial claims about its actions?
The section Israel#International humanitarian efforts was largely supported by this. Recently some editors began tagging the section as WP:SELFPUBLISH. There are no sources contradicting the claims and it's possible to find independent sources supporting each of the claims, but perhaps this is a wasted effort.
Can the section be considered properly supported just by MFA's site ? “WarKosign” 20:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- WP:SELFSOURCE can be used as long as the "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim." The content about Israel's international humanitarian efforts is clearly self-serving if not an exceptional claim as well. Tanbircdq (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Intents - probably not. Verifiable facts - I believe they usually are. Discovering government lies is a good subject for journalists and historical/political researchers, so as long as nobody disputes a fact I think it's reasonable to accept it. For example, large parts of NASA's New Horizons mission are supported by nasa.gov and nobody seems to object. “WarKosign” 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Journalists and historical/political researchers not objecting to the content is a poor argument for a source being reliable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with those adding or restoring material, not the other way round.
- Regarding the NASA example, it depends on the particular case in question and its context. As Qwertyus has stated, government websites are not reliable sources for their own actions and intentions as they operate to defend their policy.
- In addition, this particular subject is not included within articles of other nations. The section appears to give an editorial POV to the article, and in absence of independent, reliable, third-party sources it is self-serving, disproportionate coverage therefore WP:UNDUE. Tanbircdq (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to dissent here and say that this is probably fine as a source for straightforward, factual details, particularly when those details appear to square with accounts in independent RS, as is the case here. The Israeli government website puts a political spin on this that would obviously be inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but there is no compelling reason to doubt the facts themselves. The WP:DUE question is a separate matter that I won't venture an opinion on.TheBlueCanoe 04:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just because the content is presented as factual doesn't make it factual. The impartiality of the source itself makes it doubtful and we don't just blindly AGF with such sources. The content could be partially correct but the claims could be exaggerated. For example, here it states about the Haiti earthquake that "Israel was the first country to set up a field hospital" but this isn't supported by the corresponding sources, I presume this is originally from the MFA website. This could also possibly be the case of the claims regarding the tsunami in Japan.
- To assume that because some of the content appears to be accurate then all of the content is accurate appears to be WP:SYNTH. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're misreading the source. The Argentinian field hospital was already deployed in Haiti. The Israeli field hospital was the first one to be deployed after the quake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Air_Force_Mobile_Field_Hospital#cite_note-9 Sir Joseph (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
There are authoritative sources on 'International humanitarian efforts', World Food Programme, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, International Organization for Migration, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, ... these are infinitely preferred to WP:SELFPUBLISH sources. If the authoritative sources are silent, it's a hint to me that the WP:SELFPUBLISH are WP:POV (except for breaking news, since many of those orgs aren't exactly nimble). Stuartyeates (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Anyway the point is moot now, several editors found independent sources for every single statement that was originally supported by the governmental site. IMO this effort could be spent doing something more useful. “WarKosign” 15:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- The section header is misleading. The claim specifically about 'first field hospital', later tweaked 'capable of complex surgery' is a complex claim, and looks wobbly. I believe government sources must be avoided for reasons mentioned above by Qwertyus and others. Most of the facts are simply picked up in scholarly works on each country, and they are the secondary sources we should be using. I would note however that there is a danger here. One cannot just single out Israel's mfa in this regard - I note that no one is challenging the articles on Canada, the United States, Great Britain, etc., which use a few government sources. The extreme caution about using government sources should be applied across the board. To have to raise this only with regard to Israel leaves, in my mouth, a sense of distaste for obvious reasons. But the argument against mfa citations is, for all that, sound. Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Canada was actually citing that country's military for its peacekeeping in former Yugoslavia. Replaced that with a critical scholarly piece. More work needed. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Nishidani: Thanks for avoiding double standard and for finding better sources. Regarding "First field hospital" there is no contradiction between sources, but they have to be read carefully. Argentine Air Force Mobile Field Hospital happened to be already deployed before the earthquake, while Israeli field hospital was the first one deployed after the earthquake, and the first one capable of (complex) surgery. “WarKosign” 07:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- You have 1 source for a contested claim. Israel’s hospital was operative by the 16th. 4 days later the IDF announced the situation was so serious that the IDF was preparing for ‘the long haul’ and that Israeli medics would stay on for at least another month, and then a week later, closed down its hospital and withdrew its medical staff, a mere 11 days after it was set up. (Marcy Oster, Israeli delegation leaves Haiti Jewish Telegraphic Agency January 27 2010). Unfortunately, as is common in many international relief operations by first world nations, it looks like a media stunt. Mind you, Cuba's huge investment of resources in international relief gets the same accusation, as if it were a sort of Trojan horse of Cuban ideology. Perhaps, but the sheer scale since 1963 of its humanitarian assistance shames the big name blatherers of international relief solidarity, who likewise get into these things with the usual mainstream reporter entourage praising them.
- The section header is misleading. The claim specifically about 'first field hospital', later tweaked 'capable of complex surgery' is a complex claim, and looks wobbly. I believe government sources must be avoided for reasons mentioned above by Qwertyus and others. Most of the facts are simply picked up in scholarly works on each country, and they are the secondary sources we should be using. I would note however that there is a danger here. One cannot just single out Israel's mfa in this regard - I note that no one is challenging the articles on Canada, the United States, Great Britain, etc., which use a few government sources. The extreme caution about using government sources should be applied across the board. To have to raise this only with regard to Israel leaves, in my mouth, a sense of distaste for obvious reasons. But the argument against mfa citations is, for all that, sound. Nishidani (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- As many sources now state, there was a huge media touting of U.S. relief efforts: in 700al hundred of these mainstream reports, Cuba was mentioned 18 times in passing, and the profile given Médecins Sans Frontières was equally low. Lost in the media shuffle was the fact that, for the first 72 hours following the earthquake, Cuban doctors were in fact the main medical support for the country. Within the first 24 hours, they had completed 1,000 emergency surgeries, turned their living quarters into clinics, and were running the only medical centers in the country, including 5 comprehensive diagnostic centers (small hospitals) which they had previously built. In addition another 5 in various stages of construction were also used, and they turned their ophthalmology center into a field hospital-which treated 605 patients within the first 12 hours following the earthquake. Israel's contribution got widespread praise and coverage. All this runs in the face of the fact that MSD and Cuba were (a) on the scene first; (b) had improvised surgical wards set up in tents first (c)were the major bearers of the burden of medical relief, and did several thousand surgical operations (MSF surgeons performed 5,707 major surgical procedures in the Ist 3 months, Cuba over 6,000), whereas the US did 800 (Israel 319). The IDF spoke of Israel's long term commitment, which however, like that of the US withered rapidly, whereas MSF treated more than 358,000 people, performed more than 16,570 surgeries, and delivered more than 15,100 babies.
- That said, Israel does frequently in humanitarian relief operations, and it is well documented. Trying, however, to tweak that, using just one promotional source, as a 'first', and somehow unique, looks to me, contextually, in poor taste. The source itself mentions what was being done in Port-au-Prince, and we have no idea of what Cuban doctors were doing all over the island in improvised situations of surgical emergency. Nishidani (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Her personal website is being used by experienced users in Bollywood articles. How much reliable is a personal website. --The Avengers (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- A person's personal website may be used to cite uncontroversial facts about that person (though even with uncontroversial facts, it's better to seek a secondary source) but is not considered reliable for anything else. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- In particularly, for performers ofany sort, some basic factsabout their earlier work, their birthplace, and their date of birth, are particularlikely to have some degree of inaccuracy,and even these should have third party cofirmation. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is the website in question missmalini. --The Avengers 16:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Wired re: time travel
Wired (magazine) is a generally a reliable source, but a generally-reliable source is not always a reliable source. In the case of the article List of films featuring time loops, this diff uses a rather poorly-researched article that makes a contradictory claim: the film Looper features a time loop and a grandfather paradox. Unfortunately, these two options are mutually exclusive. Either the character keeps reexperiencing the same events and time "resets" with each subsequent pass (Groundhog Day), or the characters can change time. In Looper there is no repetition, there is a grandfather paradox. The claims made in the previous sentence can be cited.
Many Wired articles are reliable, but this particular blurb in this particularly poorly-researched article is not. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are not ones that don't make mistakes (all sources make mistakes), but ones that correct them when they do. Report the error to the editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- As the article doesn't seem to touch on distinguishing between the types of time loops, which to me is a vague-enough term that an average person would readily use to group both causal loops and grandfather paradoxes, I would agree for the purpose here that it's not a usable source. Particular when other RS articles go into depth on describing the exact nature of time travel in the film. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- BrightRoundCircle are you suggesting that the film Looper does not have reliable sources, because it is not a time loop film? Have you tried looking for sources or is your intent to have your version of the article retained so that your view prevails? The time it took to set up that chart on the talk page could have been used sourcing those films if you disagree with its status. What about Primer and 12 Monkeys which were sourced and removed. I agree with MASEM we need to specify the types of loops if sources can be found. Deleting content instead of tagging for improvement is not the way to go. Valoem talk contrib 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I remember commenting on this list before (AFD?) where I did suggest that because of the common use of what a "time loop" means by the population at large, which includes strictly repeating time loops (Groundhog Day) as well as casual loops and grandfather paradoxes, even though "time loop" more precisely means the Groundhog Day-type scenario, that it seems perfectly reasonable to add one column on this list to explain the type of time loop , and/or separate into different tables on the same page, as long as one has a source to indicate the proper time loop type, as above with the Atlantic article on the Looper. Otherwise, you are going to have people continually adding films they think have a time loop (which I would include 12 Monkeys and Primer in) even if they are not meeting the exact definition of a time loop. --MASEM (t) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am suggesting the claim "Looper features a time loop" is not cited in reliable sources, and the current proposed source making this claim is generally reliable but not so in this particular case. Further, I suggest that all sources that merely mention this in passing are not reliable (in those particular cases) because it's more of an offhand comment than an actual analysis or serious consideration. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- BrightRoundCircle are you suggesting that the film Looper does not have reliable sources, because it is not a time loop film? Have you tried looking for sources or is your intent to have your version of the article retained so that your view prevails? The time it took to set up that chart on the talk page could have been used sourcing those films if you disagree with its status. What about Primer and 12 Monkeys which were sourced and removed. I agree with MASEM we need to specify the types of loops if sources can be found. Deleting content instead of tagging for improvement is not the way to go. Valoem talk contrib 00:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, different sources may have different criteria used to define some pop culture trope, such as time loops in films. Just because one source doesn't agree with another source (or sources) doesn't suddenly make it unusable. It means that the definition may not be as stringent as some purists might like it to be. When someone disagrees with another source, it doesn't make their opinion "poorly researched". It means they have a different opinion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- The article is poorly researched because it features a small one-paragraph blurb in a list of "N best X". Regardless, you raise the point of the meaning of "time loop", which I have raised before (which has no bearing to the quality of the Wired article, which is poor, because it only involves a one-paragraph blurb among ten other blurbs about other films, and doesn't analyze the time loop in the film to any sort of extent).
- I raised this issue in the AfD process and it didn't get any consideration, so I guess I'll try again here:
- Either "time loop" means time loop, or
- "Time loop" means causality loop, grandfather paradox, and other assorted time travel phenomena, in which case the article List of films featuring time loops should be merged with Time travel in films.
- In fact I have argued the latter previously, and merged the articles, but the merge was reverted. Now I'm trying to clean up the list to comply with the former.
- So please decide what you want time loop to mean (by citing reliable sources of course) so this disagreement can be settled. "It means what the Wired article (or any other citation) says it means" opens the door for any time travel movie to be called a "time loop" movie, and so the list should be merged. Otherwise, the list should be kept to the cited standard. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- People could say "time loop" while meaning causal loop, because it also involves a loop and involves time travel. Most time travel films feature causal loops, for example Terminator: While Skynet attempts to prevent John Connor's birth (grandfather paradox) it actually causing his birth (causal loop). Back to the Future) involves "ruining" the future (grandfather paradox) and "correcting" it (causal loop with a twist).
- Time loop of the kind of Groundhog Day is an entirely different thing, not always related to time travel. Perhaps it's best to add a disambiguation notice on top of Time loop article. “WarKosign” 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
- If you want the list to be strict time loops you definitely need to qualify that in the lead and say this does not include casual loops, grandfather paradoxes, and the like. Mind you, I think BrightRoundCircle's point about this being part of a larger time travel aspect in films so that we don't keep on running into the problem of the "loose" vs "strict" definition of a time loop, but that's beyond the RS here: there is nothing wrong with Wired's take outside of not being very exact and using the "loose" definition. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The Michigan Daily — a reliable source or not?
I'm looking for consensus as to whether The Michigan Daily newspaper can usually be considered a reliable source which can be used to establish notability, as with most independent newspapers with editorial control and presumed fact-checking, or whether it should instead be considered, like most other college newspapers, not to be of sufficient reliability for establishing notability. The paper is published daily (M-F) during the school year and weekly during the summer; unlike most school newspapers it offers subscriptions rather than being a free paper.
I'm inquiring about this newspaper in an attempt to assist a visitor to the Teahouse (where I volunteer) who has been working on this draft article and is having difficulty establishing the notability of the draft's subject, Mike Green, a motivational speaker. While other sources are sparse, there are a number of articles in The Michigan Daily which are substantial enough to establish notability... if the paper is reliable enough to be used for that purpose.
Here are the most germane of the Michigan Daily articles I've found:
- Lebowitz, Randy (November 11, 1993). "Recovered alcoholic advocates moderation". pp. 1–2.
- Wood, April (November 10, 1994). "Recovering alcoholic warns students against one-night binges". p. 1.
- Sprow, Maria (October 30, 2001). "IFC sponsors anti drinking lecture by recovering alcoholic".
If these Michigan Daily sources can be used, Green's notability will easily be established; if not, someone will have to go hunting through library archives for other articles. Thanks in advance to all who respond. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
The aper is a reliable sources for the facts about something o the university campus or relating to the university. it is not, nor is any campus paper, a reliable source for notability, any more than any other local paper is for local figures. The may be accurate, but they are not sufficient discriminating. More precisely, they coverall college events and speakers. Further, reports of a speaker's talks on college campusesor anywhere else will normally be considered mere notices, and will not establish notability in any event. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
No. (See how easy that was, DGG?) DreamGuy (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Unreliable sources found on the article Bulgars
Hello,
Reading the article "Bulgars", which topic is history, I found that there are cited two books written by amateurs:
1. Encyclopedia of European Peoples, https://books.google.hr/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC written/compiled by the musician Carl Waldman; here is how Amazon.com describes him:
"A musician as well as a writer, he has also delved into the lives of Sinatra and Elvis. And he writes fiction."
The book is cited 7 times in the introduction of the article Bulgars : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars
2. The Jews of Khazaria, https://books.google.bg/books?id=hEuIveNl9kcC&redir_esc=y is written by the business administrator Kevin Alan Brook: http://www.khazaria.com/brookcv.html
The author of the article refused to remove them - as you can read on the talk page of the article "Bulgars": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgars#Hard_question
Citing such unreliable sources (written by amateur enthusiasts) multiple times on important article as "Bulgars" doesn't help to improve WP.
Thank you NewZealot (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
- They are professional. They wrote the books. That's not unusual. People can have multiple interests. Do you have other problems with the sources, or better ones? DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't argue that they are not professionals. Probably they are. What I argue is that it is forbidden on WP to cite books (in some particular area) written by people who don't have degrees in that area. NewZealot (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Neither Waldman, nor his coauthor, seem to have any credentials in history, so the Encyclopedia of European Peoples is certainly not an ideal source and I'd say that any scholarly source that contradicts it should override it. As for Brook, he seems to have done some historical research and got this published in academic journals. I'm not familiar with the field, so I cannot comment on the quality of those journals. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The salary of a public figure
The job held by the current governor general of Canada, prior to his appointment by the queen, was as the president of a university in the Canadian province of Ontario. The province has made the salary of most high-grossing "civil servant", which is what this is as the school is funded primarily with public funds, public. At least two reliable sources have published and commented on the salaries: http://www.macleans.ca/education/uniandcollege/how-much-does-your-universitys-president-make/ http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/gg-johnston-earned-more-than-1m-in-2010-at-waterloo-1.625946, with the latter directly related to the subject. It was removed. It was restored. It was removed again. A discussion was opened Talk:David Johnston#In response to "trivia" or "smear". It's claimed that it's a violation of BLP. I don't think it is. Comment here or in the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think the CTV News Toronto source is reliable for the information on his salary. Looking at the edit on the page concerned, the text may be slightly WP:UNDUE in reporting details of his salary, but an abbreviated comment ("In 2010, he earned over 1 million") would not be undue, IMO. I don't see a BLP issue here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- Typically the salary of a public servant would not be notable enough to include however, because David Johnson has been recognized among the "most high-grossing civil servants", it may be significant. I think those who are wanting to include this content on the page have a clear motive - to disparage the subject by noting his salary is funded by public funds - and for that reason, I do not support adding the information. Meatsgains (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Ship on a banknote
Based on this source there is an editor asserting that the ship on the 500,000 Rubles and 500 New Rubles note is the Argentine sailing ship ARA Libertad (Q-2). The source itself doesn't make that claim it states:
Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.
By the way, the Russian Internet users break and another inconsistency in the "canvas" in denominations of 500 rubles. According to them, standing on a moored near Arkhangelsk Sea Commercial Port sailboat never comes close to Russia. And even more so to Arkhangelsk. Considering the number of masts and location of the cabin, was identified as an Argentine sailing ship "Libertad". In the image of a foreign ship on the Russian bill began to seek out almost a hint of economic "relations" between the two countries.
i.e. the article is repeating Internet rumours this is the case. I'd appreciate some third party input on whether this is a reliable source to make that claim. The relevant edit is [1]. According to the Russian Ruble article it is the STS Sedov. See File:Banknote 500 rubles 2010 front.jpg and File:Banknote 500000 rubles (1995) front.jpg. WCMemail 08:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Other sources confirm Sedov [2],[3],[4],[5]. WCMemail 09:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- If reliable sources say it, then cite those sources. If it's just rumor then remove it. You know what to do here. 14:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is not reliable sources. The latter, in general, a copy of the wiki-article Russian ruble.--Insider (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Designer (painter) of the banknote Igor Krylkov in the interview said: "I immediately found a photo of the sailboat and repainted." (Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал.) See also: 02:08 "Народная экономика" выяснила, как время изменило виды с денежных купюр // First Channel (Russia): "Многие горожане думают, что на 500-ке изображена шхуна "Запад", она стоит с 83 года, последний парусник Беломорья. Если взять справочник, то можно определить - это корабль ВМФ Аргентины "Либертад", - говорит историк Сергей Терентьев..--Insider (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- At no point does the designer say it is the Argentine ship. All online sources state this is the STS Sedov. WCMemail 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Кстати, именно пользователи Рунета разрыли и еще одну нестыковку на “полотне” достоинством в 500 целковых. По их версии, стоящий на приколе около Архангельского морского вокзала парусник никогда и близко не приближался к России. И уж тем более к Архангельску. Посчитав количество мачт и местоположение рубки, парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад”. В изображении иностранного корабля на российской банкноте начали выискивать едва ли не намек на экономические “сношения” двух стран.
— Не нужно искать тайного смысла там, где его нет, — говорит Игорь Крылков.
— На фотографии, с которой я срисовывал порт, стоял современный пароход. Но в последний момент в Центробанке сказали, что с общей идеей банкноты пароход не стыкуется. Я срочно нашел фотографию с тем парусником и перерисовал. Откуда мне было знать, что в Архангельск он не заходил?
— Moskovskij Komsomolets - тем парусником in Russian means "the sailing ship", not just "sailing ship". Definite sailing ship, which is written above (парусник идентифицировали как аргентинский корабль “Либертад” - sailboat identified as an Argentine ship "Libertad"). --Insider (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Also see video (from 00:39) of Channel One Russia. Если взять справочник, то можно определить - это корабль ВМФ Аргентины "Либертад", - говорит историк Сергей Терентьев. - If you take a guide, it is possible to define - it is the Argentine Navy ship "Libertad", - says historian Sergey Terentyev. --Insider (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Further, no I am not a moron, I didn't cite a wikipedia article, I cited a number of currency websites, all of which say Sedov. The above claim of a quote saying it is the Libertad is citation fraud, it does not at any point state it is the Libertad. Further in the same interview he ridicules the suggestion of "secret signs" or gaffes. WCMemail 19:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- [6] - See to bottom of the page "Source(s): Wikipedia Ruble (Creative Commons)", [7] - copy of the article Russian ruble (images, wiki-markup). The rest of the sites of the same authority. See official page of Bank of Russia: just "sailing ship", not Sedov. All the more so on the banknote 3 mast, but the sailing ship with 4 masts. That is generalized image of one of the birthplace of Russian civil and navy fleet (Arkhangelsk). --Insider (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- At no point does the designer say it is the Argentine ship. All online sources state this is the STS Sedov. WCMemail 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Original image from soviet book-guide. It is worth paying attention to the position of the sails, sailors, flags and other details. --Insider (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
NPGL teams sources for notability
Hello all, I am looking for some outside input on a few recently created articles where I am not sure the sources used would allow them to pass GNG. A user decided to make team articles for the National Pro Grid League, a barely covered new fitness sport league which spun off of the CrossFit Games. It has been occasionally shown on NBC Sports, but other than that I have a hard time finding non-routine coverage for anything significant on the teams themselves. I gave the user what advice on the Talk Page for as much as I could on the three articles he has created so far but I don't want to waste much time improving them (content-wise anyways, as I can't find any significant independent coverage) if they will be deleted anyways for failing GNG. The articles in question are Baltimore Anthem, DC Brawlers, and Phoenix Rise (GRID). Most of the sources used are either primary or non-independent secondary sources (ie, non-notable fitness magazines and journals). The independent sources used, such as The Washington Post and The Baltimore Sun, seem like they could be borderline WP:ROUTINE as they are simply announcements of the existence of a team or a signing in their local coverage section. Thanks, Yosemiter (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Reliable source on South Asian History?
Is A.P.H. Publishing reliable? Also, is this [8] book published by them reliable? It is titled "A Social History of India" by some S. N. Sadasivan. Xtremedood (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Official residences
Re: Monarchy of Canada#Federal residences and royal household: "The sovereign's principal official residences, as well as that primarily used by the governor general, are Rideau Hall in Ottawa, Ontario, and the Citadelle, in Quebec City."
The Glossary in A Crown of Maples Constitutional Monarchy in Canada, Department of Canadian Heritage, p. XVII says, "Government House: Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall." It provides no reference for the claim.
There are reliable official sources that each of these dwellings is the residence of a governor general or lieutenant governor, who all represent the queen, but none that they are the official representativeresidence of the Queen. I would expect if they were official residences that there would be an official source, such as legislation, orders in council, or case law. Also, "The official website of The British Monarchy" does not mention these residences although it has a section on Canada and lists her numerous official residences in the UK (See: "The Royal Residences".)
Who or what made them official residences, when was this done and does it apply to government houses in the dozens of government houses throughout the Queen's realms and territories? Or are they just unofficially official residences? I think this is an extraordinary claim that requires an extraordinary source explains the situation.
TFD (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- You're confusing "legal" (legislation, orders in council, case law), with "official" ("relating to an authority or public body and its duties"). This is no more an extraordinary claim than the fact that the official residence of the Governor General is Rideau Hall, or the official residence of the Prime Minister is 24 Sussex, and in fact there are two official sources below, it's rather straight forward:
- Crown of Maples (official Government of Canada publication put together by academic and professional experts): "Government House (“Rideau Hall”) is the official residence of Her Majesty The Queen", and " Her Majesty’s official residences in Canada, situated in Ottawa and most provincial capitals and occupied by the Queen’s representative. Government House in Ottawa is known as Rideau Hall."
- The Parliament of Canada's official journal, Parliamentary Review: "...Rideau Hall the Governor-General's and the monarch's official Canadian residence".
- From the book Fifty Years the Queen by Arthur Bousfield (published historian): "Rideau Hall was her home...the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Airforce - took turns mounting guard at her Ottawa residence [Rideau Hall]", and "She [the Queen of Canada] stayed at the Citadel, her official residence".
- From Shelldrake: Canadian Artillery Museums and Gun Monuments by Harold A. Skaarup (published historian): "The Citadelle...has also been an official residence of the Queen in Right of Canada and the Governor General of Canada since 1872".
- I have yet to see any sources stating that these residences are not official residences of the Queen of Canada, so in light of multiple reliable references supporting a clear fact, and no reliable sources contradicting this fact, I don't see what has lead the editor to believe that the Canadian head of state has no official residences in Canada. trackratte (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Relative weight when highly reliable sources don't agree.
I have a question regarding dealing with relative weight when reliable sources don't agree. A subsection of the Southern Strategy article[[9]] has several claims largely based on two books from academic publishers, Lopez[citation 1] and Aistrup.[citation 2] Material in two books, Cannon [citation 3] and Mayer [citation 4] disagrees with some of the material from Aistrup and Lopez. Neither Cannon nor Mayer's books are published via academic press but...
Mayer is a university prof in the field. His book has been reviewed (favorably) in a peer reviewed journal. For 310 pages of text the book as 50 pages of citations/references. His text has been cited as a reference by other scholars in peer reviewed articles/academic books. The text has a Google Scholar citation count of 51. I verified that at least 10 of those 51 citations are peer reviewed sources using Mayer as a reliable source (used without disclaimers or simply to show what others are saying). Thus other scholars treat Mayer's work as scholarly. The material in the book on the whole not controversial. The book has been cited in other parts of the article without controversy. I argue that based on WP:USEBYOTHERS the Mayer text should be treated similarly to an academically published book.
The second text is by Lou Cannon. Cannon is a reporter but acknowledged by scholarly authors as a Ronald Reagan biographer and has published several books on that subject. The book in question has been reviewed by at least 4 peer reviewed journals and has almost 600 citations according to Google scholar. Another database shows 141 citations in peer reviewed journals. Again, we have wide spread use of this source in other scholarly works WP:USEBYOTHERS. The work has also undergone peer review via the post publican reviews in peer reviewed journals.
I feel the above is enough to give the articles weight similar to what the Lopez and Aistrup articles are given. In places where they conflict both views should be presented. What are the thoughts of other editors? Is it reasonable use it were it does not agree with statements from the Lopez and/or Aistrup books? Does the WP:RS guideline intend that the only sources that can conflict with a scholarly book are other scholarly books even if the "non-scholarship" book is widely cited in scholarship? Would WP:IAR trump a narrow reading of WP:RS reasonably apply assuming the books are of high quality (not fringe) and widely cited already?
- Side note: This question is related to a stale NPOV discussion opened by another editor.[[10]] Because that topic has been stale for almost two weeks with no 3rd party input I decided to ask my questions relating to RSs here. I state this to avoid an impression of forum shopping. Springee (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Privately published books are not as reliable as scholarly articles that have undergone the peer review process. Counting citations does not bypass WP policy identifying the most reliable sources and WP:RS specifically says "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." Both of the peer reviewed sources are more current than the Cannon source, and both of them reflect the scholarly consensus of the Southern Strategy being a top-down strategy consisting of racially coded language largely responsible for southern realignment following the 1960s. So there is no reason a less reliable source should be used, especially when it's being used to try and contradict what peer reviewed sources say. Also, since you referenced WP:usebyothers, it explicitly says "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." Since your argument almost entirely rests on outside citations, it's clear other WP policies should be used.Scoobydunk (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Per WP:IAR we should avoid being dogmatic to rules when common sense suggest otherwise. Note the word "usually" in your quoted sentence. It does not say that we cannot treat other works as highly reliable. A claim their works are fringe would need to be supported. The two books in question works have been reviewed by scholarly journals and have been cited by main stream scholars. WP:USEBYOTHERS says, "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability". Both Cannon and Mayer are widely used by scholars without comment and for facts thus mainstream scholars have accepted the work as reliable. We should not censor the work because it disagrees with specific claims contained in other works. Springee (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it says "usually" then gives examples of out date sources or sources not representative of the scholarly viewpoint as the exceptions. I've already addressed these concerns and neither of these apply to the numerous peer reviewed sources being used for the article. Common sense says we use the strongest sources available, which WP defines as peer reviewed scholarly sources, also I'm pretty sure WP:IAR doesn't apply to the pillars of WP. Regardless, you've presented your questions, I suggest waiting to hear from others.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't limit "usually" to just discounting out of date sources. Common sense does not say we exclude highly reliable sources just because they don't agree with a few scholars. With regards to the particular points in question there the article does not present a scholarly consensus. Furthermore, we are not trying to present a single answer. In cases were reliable sources disagree we should provide both points of view. WP:IAR applies to all WP guidelines.
- Just to add a bit more information about Lou Cannon to assuage any concerns that he might be a fringe source. He was granted an honorary doctorate by Cal State [[11]]. In granting the doctorate the Cal State announcement noted:
- Mr. Cannon has written five books about Mr. Reagan, including the acclaimed President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, originally published by Simon and Schuster in 1991. ... Mr. Cannon has received many distinctions from several higher education institutions in California. ... On a national level, Mr. Cannon has won numerous awards including the White House Correspondents Association's coveted Aldo Beckman award (1984) for overall excellence in presidential coverage, and the first Gerald R. Ford Prize (1988) for distinguished reporting on the Nixon, Ford and Reagan presidencies.
- Dismissing his work just because it wasn't published by a university press simply doesn't pass the sniff test. Springee (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Just like you removing Herbert from the article doesn't pass the sniff test? This is no different, regardless of how you try to dress it up.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Go by the other sources to weigh a percentage, and if there aren't any put both opinions in the article. We aren't here to pick. DreamGuy (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ Dreamguy - Sounds like you're addressing weight instead of answering concerns about privately published books and blogs being less reliable than peer reviewed scholarly works.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about blogs? None of the sources being discussed are blogs. The sources are widely cited books, one by an acknowledged scholar and the other by a distinguished reporter. Both books have been subject to academic reviews after publication and both books are widely cited by peer reviewed academic articles with out disclaiming comments. Note that WP:RS states, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." So if non-academic sources may be used in articles about scholarly issues, how can we justify excluding Mayer and Cannon, sources that are clearly respected by scholarship, from mention just because they don't agree with Lopez and Aistrup's interpretation of the facts. Do note that there isn't a disagreement on the facts of the event, only how the information should be viewed. Springee (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the part preceding that explains how peer reviewed academic works should be used when available and the Southern Strategy is vastly covered by academic sources, so thee is no need to include inferior quality sources, especially when they are being used to dispute what scholarly sources say. This is why WP establishes peer reviewed sources as the most reliable. This applies to privately published books, new articles, and blogs, which is why I mentioned blogs, especially since you were just trying to add a blog into the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Why are you talking about blogs? None of the sources being discussed are blogs. The sources are widely cited books, one by an acknowledged scholar and the other by a distinguished reporter. Both books have been subject to academic reviews after publication and both books are widely cited by peer reviewed academic articles with out disclaiming comments. Note that WP:RS states, "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Material should be attributed in-text where sources disagree." So if non-academic sources may be used in articles about scholarly issues, how can we justify excluding Mayer and Cannon, sources that are clearly respected by scholarship, from mention just because they don't agree with Lopez and Aistrup's interpretation of the facts. Do note that there isn't a disagreement on the facts of the event, only how the information should be viewed. Springee (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ Dreamguy - Sounds like you're addressing weight instead of answering concerns about privately published books and blogs being less reliable than peer reviewed scholarly works.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I went hunting for previous archive topics similar to this one. I found a discussion by the editors who worked on WP:RS that I think is relevant and probably can close out this topic.[12] What I basically read in that discussion is that peer review is one way to establish a reliable source but it is not the only one and it is abusing the policy when one says a non-academic source can not be used if it disagrees with an academic source: There are many other examples, in many areas, which I have seen myself over the years, where editors become confused and assume that scholarly sources always trump news media or other popular sources, to the point of excluding the latter kind. Springee (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Quoting one part of a conversation 5 years ago, doesn't close out this subject, especially when other editors explicitly say that peer reviewed academic sources trump non-academic sources. The conversation boils down to how do we define reliability, and WP:RS clearly considers peer reviewed sources the most reliable. As I said before, specific exceptions are given being that an RS is too old to reflect current scholarship and/or is a view not representative of current scholarship. Neither of these apply to Lopez and Aistrup. You can not take a book from Ken Ham and use it to dispute claims all over the article regarding Climate Change. This is why articles are written based on the strongest sources available and when there are peer reviewed sources available, the article is written to reflect those peer reviewed sources. Scoobydunk (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I quoted one of many editors who said the same thing. The editors were discussing if it was necessary to draw specific attention to this phrase in WP:RS "but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." They were discussing emphasizing that passage specifically because of cases where editors tried to exclude reliable sources that didn't agree with a scholarly source. There is clear consensus that it is not OK to exclude a reliable source that doesn't agree with an academic source because it isn't academic. That is exactly what you are trying to do on the Southern Strategy page. Springee (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Clarification The article currently uses Lopez and Aistrup to avoid WP:CITECLUTTER, however there are numerous sources that support the relevant entries. Here is a list of more sources, all of them peer reviewed/scholarly sources:
- "Like Nixon and others, Reagan successfully used the southern strategy...Reagan's use of such racial code words...was enough to win back the South."[citation 5]
- "....Reagan playing very much to the Southern Strategy...using those code words."[citation 6]
- "The Southern strategy offered a more palatable reality, retooled and 'recoded' by...Reagan to sell an embittered white citizenry..."[citation 7]
- "Reagan made his case against civil rights legislation not in the pugnacious, arm-waving, and belligerent style of Wallace but in a polished and low-key manner."[citation 8]
- "Reagan showed that he could use coded language with the best of them, lambasting welfare queens, busing, and affirmative action as the need arose."[citation 9]
- "While Nixon has been more pronouncedly identified with the southern strategy, many presidents before Nixon and since have used it. Ronald Reagan did in his infamous 1980 speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, in which he called for states' rights."[citation 10]
- "The strategy for such a politics gathered a powerful momentum during the Reagan era with the practice of "coding" racial meanings so as to mobilize white fears. Hence, the use of terms such as quotas, busing, welfare, and multiculturalism as signifiers to arouse the insecurities and anger of whites.[citation 11]
The above is simply an attempt by Scoobydunk to cloud the issue or perhaps to shut down this discussion via a wall of text. The base question appears to have been answered by an archived discussion, WP:RS was not meant to be a way for editors to block reliable content just because it didn't come from a scholarly source. Springee (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Focus on the content and not personal attacks. Facts don't cloud the issue and only give more context on the fact that there is a clear scholarly viewpoint on Reagan's use of coded language during his campaign. It makes no sense to use less reliable sources in an attempt to refute what so many peer reviewed sources acknowledge. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- You are making the flawed claim that non-scholarly sources are inherently less reliable or lower quality vs ones from a scholarly publisher. It is clear that the editors of the WP:RS policy say you are incorrect in that assumption. Additionally, there are thousands of works that talk about Reagan. Google was clearly your friend in finding those. You have not shown that POV to be scholarly consensus. Putting up a wall of text however, makes it quite likely that few additional editors will join this discussion. So far we have one for inclusion and clear evidence that WP:RS does not mean to say scholarly sources automatically trump others. Springee (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- My claim is not flawed and that's directly how WP policy is written. The strongest sources should be used and peer reviewed sources are generally the strongest sources and are the most reliable. If your authors views had any merit, then they'd be able to get them published in a peer reviewed source or at least you'd be able to find a peer reviewed source that voiced the same perspective. The "editors of the WP:RS" discussion from 5 years ago were split and there clearly was no consensus. Also, the only person who's responded only voiced inclusion if there were no other sources and clearly there are multiple peer reviewed sources that support the position as Lopez and Aistrup. Based on his comment, that means he doesn't support inclusion. That's the reason why I've listed multiple peer reviewed sources, because the only editor who's commented expressed interest in determining what other sources said on the topic. You're attempt to boil this down to 2 sources vs. 2 sources, misrepresents the scholarly viewpoint that Reagan used racially coded language. WP:BESTSOURCES also clearly explains that the best, most reliable sources be used to avoid POV concerncs, which is exactly the opposite of what you're doing. Again, this is why we don't use Ken Ham's books to write articles about dinosaurs in Eden, when there is scientific scholarly material already covering the dinosaurs.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- ^ Haney-Lopez, Ian (January 13, 2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. Oxford University Press
- ^ Aistrup, Joseph A. (2015). The Southern Strategy Revisited: Republican Top-Down Advancement in the South. University Press of Kentucky. p. 44. ISBN 0-8131-4792-1
- ^ Lou Cannon President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime 1991, Simon & Schuster
- ^ Jermey D Mayer Running on Race: Racial Politics in Presidential Campaigns, 1960-2000 2002 Random House Inc.
- ^ Tasha Philpot (22 December 2009). Race, Republicans, and the Return of the Party of Lincoln. University of Michigan Press. p. 47. ISBN 0-472-02500-7.
- ^ GUILLORY, FERREL. "On The Temper Of The Times." Southern Cultures 18.3 (2012): 25-41.
- ^ Susan Searls Giroux (28 July 2010). Between Race and Reason: Violence, Intellectual Responsibility, and the University to Come. Stanford University Press. pp. 91–92. ISBN 978-0-8047-7047-7.
- ^ Earl Black, Merie Black (2002). The Rise of Southern Republicans. First Harvard University Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0674007284.
- ^ Dan T. Carter (24 February 1999). From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963--1994. Louisiana State University Press. p. 64. ISBN 978-0807123669.
- ^ Hill, Ricky (March 2009). "The Race Problematic, the Narrative of Martin Luther King Jr., and the Election of Barack Obama" (PDF). Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society. 11 (1): 140.
- ^ Henry A. Giroux (2002). "Living dangerously: Identity politics and the new cultural racism: Towards a critical pedagogy of representation". Routledge: 38.
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help)
Confirmation for reliable sources
I am on of the regular editors of article Diyar-e-Dil and have started this discussion for confirmation of few websites which are considered to be acceptable by me and few other users. However, one of the user has started removing them by declaring them non-reliable, the article is in serious consideration and by this moment we need a confirmation if these sites should be used or not. As It is a Pakistani TV Series, our region has few sites available with such information, we are are not in Hollywood where printed media such as Hollywood reporter, variety, Guardian, New York Times, TV Guide, LA Times or all other acclaim mediums who released entertainment news on major level, our media industry mainly confined to TV medium and to us they are proper sources, howevernewspaper such as Aaaj News, Dawn News, Express Tribune release news regarding showbiz of television or their details and production but very often, so in that case we have to use references like that. But they are not poor, where as user RedPenOfDoom removes them. I have added few examples for you so you can see if these sites are acceptable in such cases.
Lastly should also be noted that due to limited web information, any user generated material was never or would never be added to the article e.g promotional material, false information, fan's information or user's personal opinion regarding the characters or the series itself , only important material such as release dates, production information, cast information etc. will be extracted.
Please respond to my request as soon as possible i have made this attempt once again for the article, please respond as soon as possible
Article: Diyar-e-Dil
Content: 1. Previously it was announced that the show will air during Fridays replacing channel's Sadqay Tumhare. [13]
2. "Cast selection was a mutual understanding between Momina, Haseeb, and me. Everything in this script was done with mutual agreement of all of us and I am very satisfied with the cast and very happy. There are many details in the characters and really this was a dream cast." Farhat Ishtiaq and Haseeb Hassan talking about Diyar-e-Dil cast and writing. [14]
3. Sheeba Khan of HIP states the serial is, "As great as the script was, the direction was equally fantastic. Haseeb Hassan took the script and visualized it for us with absolute perfection. The cinematography and presentation was beautiful and it was nice to see the beauty of Pakistan. [15]
4. Commenting on the leads of serial Sheeba Khan of HIP said, " We got to see more of Wali and Faara along with the dining table in the haveli. It was nice to see the lead pair's banter. With all the hatred Wali says he has of Faara, you can see how completely he is in love with her. In their last scene together, you could see how the hurt in his eyes when Faara tells him off, again!"[16]
5. Writer/reviewer Ghazal Sulaiman at BrandSynario, praises the chemistry between Sanam Saeed and Meekal Zulfiqar saying, "All praises for Diyar-e-Dil, this drama seems to have all the elements to be HUM TV’s next hit. With an outstanding entry in the season, the drama is pacing fast and is successfully keeping the viewers hooked. Moreover, the drama’s crisp editing and exceptional direction will make you head over heels in love with the natural scenic beauty of Baltistan."[17]
6. Filming of the series was extensively done in hills areas of Pakistan, production house choose Khaplu Palace for main shooting location, in Skardo, Gilgit–Baltistan. [18]
Sammy.joseph (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Felix V: Are These Reliable sources?
Felix V is an ancestor of every French monarch from Francis I (succ 1515) onwards and, through Mary Queen of Scots, an ancestor of Queen Elizabeth II, UK Prime Minister David Cameron and Umberto II, the last king of Italy.
Here is a line of descendants from Felix V to Queen Elizabeth II. It shows the descendant on the left of each row (both parents above). I am convinced it is well sourced. Please let me know if there are any errors or inaccuracies. AlwynJPie (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Amadeus VIII of Savoy, Pope Felix V (1383-1451) = Mary of Burgundy (1380-1422) are parents of: Louis I of Savoy (1413-1465) = Anne of Cyprus (1418-1462) are parents of: Margaret of Savoy (1439-1483) = Peter II Count of Saint-Pol (1440-1482) are parents of: Marie of Luxembourg (1472-1547) = François of Bourbon, Count of Vendôme (1470-1495) are parents of: Antoinette de Bourbon (1493-1583) = Claude of Guise (1496-1550) are parents of: Mary of Guise (1515-1560) = James V King of Scots (1512-1542) are parents of: Mary Queen of Scots (1542-1587) = Lord Darnley (1545-1567) are parents of: James VI & I (1566-1625) = Anne of Denmark (1574-1619) are parents of: Elizabeth Stuart (1596-1662) = Frederick V Elector Palatine (1596-1632) are parents of: Sophia, Electress of Hanover (1630-1714) = Ernest Augustus (1629-1698) are parents of: George I (1660-1727) = Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick and Luneburg (1666-1726) are parents of: George II (1683-1760) = Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach (1683-1737) are parents of: Frederick, Prince of Wales (1707-1751) = Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1719–1772) are parents of: George III (1738-1820) = Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744–1818) are parents of: Adolphus of Cambridge (1774-1850) = Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889) are parents of: Mary Adelaide Wilhelmina Elizabeth (1833-1897) = Francis of Teck (1837-1900) are parents of: Mary of Teck (1867-1953) = George V (1865-1936) are parents of: George VI (1895-1952) = Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002) are parents of: Elizabeth II (1926-)
http://fabpedigree.com/s076/f662700.htm http://humphrysfamilytree.com/famous.thelist.html#henry.ii</ref>
AlwynJPie (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- These look like personal webpages and not published, vetted information. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have looked at each Wikipedia article for each of the descendants on the list from Felix V to Elizabeth II above, although that only show immediate descendants and ancestors, taken together they appear to confirm the list of descendants is correct. How can I tell if the two websites I quoted are adequate for Wikipedia? AlwynJPie (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- You can't. They aren't. What you can do is use the references from the Wikipedia pages (I do hope they have reliable references) to make the point. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Gizmag.com
It seems that there are hundreds of technology and science articles that have used this as a source. I don't find it in the archives here, which comes as something of a surprise. I'm concerned about it in several ways, not just reliability: the site is loaded with clickbait, it often fails to clearly identify the sources it draws from, and it often blatently copies content from those sources. Is this a candidate for the blacklist? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- So it's a wannabe Buzzfeed? Welcome to the 2010s. Has a (hidden) editorial board, so it isn't as bad as some. I never heard of it until now, which means nothing. I'd lean toward not using it until reliability can be established one way or another. DreamGuy (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Salon.com
The piece was originally published by The_Washington_Spectator[19] with it's own editorial staff and a print circulation of 60,000. The piece was then reprinted by Salon.com. Salon's editorial staff can be viewed here. The piece in question has therefore been through two rounds of editorial review. Salon.com is cited in ~17,394 Wikipedia articles, indicating a rather substantial reputation as a reliable source in general.
Article: Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz
The source is being cited for "How salon describes Cruz". Specifically:
Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[1]
References
- ^ Lou Dubose; Hannah Harper (19 October 2015). "Ted Cruz's dad has a very sketchy resume: Rafael Cruz's credentials are exaggerated, at best". Salon. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
Rafael Cruz is primarily notable for his speeches at the intersection of religion and politics. Salon is far from the only source describing Cruz as Dominionist. Of particular note Encyclopedia Britannica says: Rafael Cruz, was a pastor with the Dominionist ministry[20]
I'm posting because User:Winkelvi objects that Salon.com is "just the opinion of a Salon blogger".
I'd like to use the Salon cite because it was the top hit in my Google search, and because it conveniently includes a reader-helpful definition of Dominionist. If Salon is not an RS, would it be acceptable if I used Encyclopedia Britannica as an emergency replacement Reliable Source here? Or is Britannica also just the opinion of some blogger? Thanx! Alsee (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely a RS. To argue against it is weird. It's not a blogger by any means, since it was in two publications that count as more of a real source than most. DreamGuy (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Salon is probably fine with attribution, but given the number of other sources attesting to Cruz's association with Dominionism, it might be better to pick a stronger source. (For example, from the National Journal: "(Cruz) has been identified over the years with a movement known as Christian Dominionism. In a 2012 sermon posted online, Rafael preached that Christians are 'anointed' to 'take dominion' of every aspect of life on Earth—'society, education, government, and economics.') MastCell Talk 01:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Concur with what's been said here. Also, the primary author, Louis Dubose, has what appears to be a healthy resume as a political journalist. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, I have always been told by other experienced editors over the last three years that salon.com is not a reliable source. Secondly, sources may claim Cruz is a dominionist, however, if Cruz himself has not said he is a dominionist how can we claim he is? It's truly no different than when political publications say Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, but if Barack Obama himself has not said he is born in Kenya, then we don't say he was born in Kenya. Reliable sources can still be reliable sources but if what they are publishing is opinion, we need to make sure that what we write indicates that it is opinion only and that the individual has not confirmed one way or the other. This has been my problem with the dominionism content from the beginning: we have nothing saying that Cruz is a dominionist from his own mouth, or even from the mouth of his son. One can attend a Catholic Church regularly, that doesn't make them Catholic. Same with Cruz: he may attend a church that preaches Dominionism, but does that make him a Dominionism? I say it does not. Barack Obama for 20 years attended a church that preaches a certain Black Nationalism philosophy: he later denied he espoused those beliefs. How is this instance with Rafael Cruz any different? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- We go by reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources say he's a Dominionist, he's a Dominionist regardless of whether he says anything. Salon and Spectator are obvious reliable sources. There can be even better, and they exist too. Wikipedia follows the sources and not the subjects. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. If a reporter gives an opinion -- doesn't back it with facts and proof -- we don't blindly go with what a reporter says because they work for an alleged reliable source. If we truly did that, we would go with every op-ed in the NYT, LAT, and so on...because it's coming from a reporter who works for a major publication and they have journalistic oversight. Never mind that the reporter has given no proof to support their opinion. That's not the way to build an encyclopedia, that's the way to build a tabloid or online blog. Someone needs to save Wikipedia from itself if that's truly what WP:VNT and WP:REF means. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- So Winkelvi's original objection is that the information & cite came from Salon.Com. However, since every interview and article I've seen about Rafael Cruz describes him as being a Christian minister, I think it is valid to describe his particular theology in the associated Wikipedia article and to provide cites to back that information up...not every Christian sect is the same, not every theology described as being Christian is the same...for instance, there are many differences between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals/Charismatics and Church of England...yet all of these institutions are described as Christian churches by multiple reliable sources... Veering off of the matter at hand (re Salon.Com etc) but how should Rafael Cruz's theology be described by Wikipedia. He doesn't have a church, the Suzanne Hinn/Purifying Fire Ministries no longer exists, Cruz told National Journal writer Andy Kroll that "Purifying Fire and Grace for America are merely the names for his {Cruz'] traveling preaching business, which is based out of his apartment." So what does Rafael Cruz believe, what is he on record as saying about his religious beliefs? Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Shearonink, Cruz is extensively on the record in sermons and in political speeches (which are commonly compared to sermons). He preaches/campaigns that God has anointed Christians to take dominion over Government, business, and social institutions. I find it amusing that he preaches that God will transfer wealth from the unrighteous to the righteous during the end days.... but only if you tithe lots of money to him now. As far as I know Cruz has not publicly described himself as a Dominionist (it would be politically inconvenient to do so). However sources, up to and including Encyclopedia Britannica, routinely use "Dominionist" in connection to Cruz. Some people think "Dominionist" is a positive term, some people think it is a negative term. The issue here is whether we should expunge that word, and expunge the Weight of Reliable Sources using that word, because Cruz himself has not publicly described himself with that word. Can we quote them using that word. Alsee (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- WV, I appreciate and share your concern to be very careful with biographies. Particularly when it comes to something like religion. "if Cruz himself has not said he is a dominionist how can we claim he is?" - We don't. You cited it yourself - we deal in Verifiability, not truth. We don't debate the Truth of it. It is Verifiable to say Salon describes him that way. When there are a pile of valid sources all saying basically the same thing then it is Due Weight to accurately inform the reader what those source are saying. Our job is to summarize what Reliable Sources say, with due caution on BLP-sensitive aspects. We don't allow attack-POV, but we also don't whitewash anything Weighty. Alsee (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- We also don't allow undue weight. As long as there is no undue weight, the content is worded NPOV, doesn't try to lead a reader to a conclusion via insinuation, and it is clear the writers of the articles are claiming Cruz is a Dominionist and Cruz has never said he is a Dominionist, there should be no issue(s). If the content, however is attempted to be used subjectively to paint the article subject and his son as fringe religionists, we will have problem. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- So Winkelvi's original objection is that the information & cite came from Salon.Com. However, since every interview and article I've seen about Rafael Cruz describes him as being a Christian minister, I think it is valid to describe his particular theology in the associated Wikipedia article and to provide cites to back that information up...not every Christian sect is the same, not every theology described as being Christian is the same...for instance, there are many differences between Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals/Charismatics and Church of England...yet all of these institutions are described as Christian churches by multiple reliable sources... Veering off of the matter at hand (re Salon.Com etc) but how should Rafael Cruz's theology be described by Wikipedia. He doesn't have a church, the Suzanne Hinn/Purifying Fire Ministries no longer exists, Cruz told National Journal writer Andy Kroll that "Purifying Fire and Grace for America are merely the names for his {Cruz'] traveling preaching business, which is based out of his apartment." So what does Rafael Cruz believe, what is he on record as saying about his religious beliefs? Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- No. If a reporter gives an opinion -- doesn't back it with facts and proof -- we don't blindly go with what a reporter says because they work for an alleged reliable source. If we truly did that, we would go with every op-ed in the NYT, LAT, and so on...because it's coming from a reporter who works for a major publication and they have journalistic oversight. Never mind that the reporter has given no proof to support their opinion. That's not the way to build an encyclopedia, that's the way to build a tabloid or online blog. Someone needs to save Wikipedia from itself if that's truly what WP:VNT and WP:REF means. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- We go by reliable sources. If multiple reliable sources say he's a Dominionist, he's a Dominionist regardless of whether he says anything. Salon and Spectator are obvious reliable sources. There can be even better, and they exist too. Wikipedia follows the sources and not the subjects. DreamGuy (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
@WV: "No. If a reporter gives an opinion -- doesn't back it with facts and proof -- we don't blindly go with what a reporter says because they work for an alleged reliable source." In fact this is how Wikipedia works, although obviously not blindly. We do actually discuss if a source is the right kind to be reliable for the case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think that questioning the reliability of Salon as a source is just one of many diversions. I offered many sources (which WV rejected) as the basis of my edits for the dominionism references. Here's but one: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/ted-cruz-rafael-father-video-christian-tea-party That article has many embedded video references of what Cruz said to different audiences. A main speech has been removed by its owners from the Internet, presumably because explaining the remarks of Cruz away has become a bit of a liability and formidable task, but excerpts remain which are embedded in that story. These sources all consistently pretty much say the same thing. There are over a hundred of them. They are certainly not all wrong. In one of the MJ videos Cruz says Obama needs to go "back to Kenya," by the way, with a good deal more of extremely startling additional rhetoric. Activist (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- So, Activist, now your anti-Cruz POV and bias is out in the open and the reasons why you have been working so pointily to add the amount of undue weight on certain aspects of his life and religious beliefs along with sources that share your anti- bias is exposed. Good. This will cause me to take an even more cautious approach in regard to your edits at the article. See, I don't care one way or the other about the man or his son. I just care about the integrity of Wikipedia's BLP policies being upheld and that the readers of such BLPs come away with an informative, balanced, and NPOV experience. Perhaps you now will better understand my motivation at the article in question. I'm certainly glad I now better understand yours. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
When there are no RS
Scenario - a relatively new city (1970s) with attractions and much of its history undocumented in RS; much of the content is dependent on OR. Page and section banners have been added along with cn templates. At what point can the material be removed or should it be? Atsme📞📧 15:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" (WP:V) ... My interpretation which agrees with some other editors, is that the "is likely to be challenged" is indeed important. Unsourced statements that are common sense and basic and not likely to be challenged, can remain in articles. Someone could come along and maliciously challenge any statement, if they choose. (An article could state "Dogs are animals" without a source, and someone could challenge that. That one could be sourced, but it would take some poor editor's time for no reason, and some things that are obviously true are hard to source.) Anyway, that's my 2 cents. My attitude is to leave non-controversial unsourced content, because unless there is a reason to challenge it, it is just make-work. That said, an article on a city is not meant to be a tour guide to the city, and this hypothetical article might do with some pruning anyway. SageRad (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)