Petr Matas (talk | contribs) |
Chrystiewooley (talk | contribs) →Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children: new section |
||
Line 676: | Line 676: | ||
:The policy is that such videos are not "secondary reliable sources", and a "town website" is unlikely to meet the RS criteria for any claims not specific to the town government -- we do ''not'' use them for history etc. in articles. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
:The policy is that such videos are not "secondary reliable sources", and a "town website" is unlikely to meet the RS criteria for any claims not specific to the town government -- we do ''not'' use them for history etc. in articles. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC) |
||
== Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children == |
|||
Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter |
Revision as of 06:52, 13 April 2014
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Current large scale clean-up efforts
Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com
Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org
Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com
Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org
Partisan group self published source Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites in Saudi Arabia
The article [1] has a lot of citations from a single partisan self published source which reflects only a fringe standpoint of history. Many of the names of the graves mentioned are not even verified , here is the source:
http://www.al-islam.org/history-shrines/history-cemetery-jannat-al-baqi
It looks more like a blog presenting personal opinions on a matter and that too by a fringe group which accuses a Jewish conspiracy in the destruction.
Hence proof of the graves from reliable independent, non sectarian sources should be added. Relevant tag: WP:BIASED,WP:FTN (fringe theory).
partisan base self published source
[1]in article Mufaddal Saifuddin
However, Muffadal Saifuddin's succession has not been accepted by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, who claimed the title of the 53rd Dai of the Dawoodi Bohras Himself.[10] Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy.[11] After the death of Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin he claims that the succession was not done in London as Mohammad Burhanuddin suffered from a full stroke at the age of 100, that made it difficult for him to write, speak, or move.[1] Khuzaima Qutbuddin explains that he never claimed to be the rightfull successor, as per Mohammed Burhanuddin's instruction to keep it secret.[12][13] It is further claimed that former CJI upheld the validity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin as the rightful successor.
Daily Mail
I'd like feedback on any prior debate regarding dismissal or not of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper into the bin of tabloid journalism - Can this be considered a reliable source? Some of my fellow editors and I are in disagreement with others on the pages for Cara Delevingne and for Michelle Rodriguez, where some have noted information now bubbling out from a variety of sources about the nature of their relationship. The UK's Telegraph has been cited as reliable, whilst the Daily Mail has not. To me, clearly, the "Red top" UK tabloids are not reliable. But what of the DM, in a full-blown article (not just their celebrity gossip columns)? This is a fluid situation. Every day, it seems, more ink is spilled on this story, and because of the notoriety of the two women involved, more and more media sources are picking it up. Thank you. Jax MN (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest that you look through the archives for the extensive discussions that have already taken place regarding the Daily Mail. Its reliability has certainly been disputed by many, and there is a widespread view that it should not be used as the sole source regarding controversial matters. Frankly though, I suspect that this discussion might be better directed to WP:BLPN - even if reliable sources assert that individuals are in a relationship, it is often questionable whether such details belong in an article. Few people are notable for such relationships, and we have an obligation to respect their privacy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- For general use other than really contentious claims about living persons, where its reliability has been questioned especially for "lurid details" about people, it meets WP:RS. It is a strong source for UK news in general, especially politics and sports. It is, in truth, more accurate than the "Red Tops." One should note that the bar on "tabloid journalism" refers to a "style" and not the format of the publication, and specifically is aimed at "sensational supermarket publications" more than at major newspapers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. As the Americans say, I stepped in that one. Moments after my last post I did find that extensive discussion in the archive, and was reading it when you responded. Your own comments there were helpful. I was interested to read that some of the ire that some editors have about the "DM" may be due more to its nationalist or centrist or conservative perspective, where these same persons give more left-leaning UK papers, like the Guardian or similarly sensationalizing (but reliable) papers a pass. Jax MN (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Contrary to what Collect claims, the bar on 'tabloid journalism' very much includes major newspapers - in the UK, the Sun and Daily Mirror are archetypal tabloids - and regardless of Collect's personal opinion, there is no general consensus that the Daily Mail should be treated as a reliable source, as archived discussions make clear. And no, it isn't just about its political stance - it has a deserved reputation for concocting 'science' stories for example out of thin air. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail "a strong source for UK news in general" ? I don't think so, not for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia anyway, where I think it's more appropriate to treat it as a rather weak source to be avoided or replaced. There will usually be better sources available, and if there aren't, the content probably doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The issue invariable is, "would we repeat a claim that appeared only in the Daily Mail?" I certainly wouldn't. And if we expect corroboration from some other source, then we can use that other source in the DM's place. Mangoe (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The English tabloids meet rs. The issue though is whether something covered in one tabloid meets WP:WEIGHT, although the same thing applies to any news source. If only one source mentions something then chances are it lacks significance for inclusion, at least for articles about well known subjects. Columns in news sources are not reliable for facts, merely for the opinions expressed. The best approach is to use the best sources available, which in the U.K. would be the quality papers.
- The Guardian is not "left-leaning", and no one has suggested that the reliability of English newspapers is a function of their editorial policy.
- TFD (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Reliable sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue with a straight face that the Daily Mail has such a reputation. Its medical and scientific coverage is justly notorious for its sensationalism and inaccuracy. Its "straight news" is likewise untrustworthy, as exemplified by the Amanda Knox fiasco in which the Mail published a false story complete with fabricated "color", an entirely fictitious description of Knox's reaction to the "verdict", and faked quotes ([2], [3]). At the time, I thought we'd agreed on this noticeboard that it would extraordinarily foolish to treat such an outlet as a reliable source, but here we are again. I suppose if one is committed to the idea that celebrity gossip is encyclopedic material, then the Mail's celebrity gossip is no worse than that of various other tabloids, but... MastCell Talk 18:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Four Deuces: To rebut this, I simply refer you to look at WP's own heavily-cited listing regarding the leftist POV of the Guardian.
- While reliability is a separate assessment vis-a-vis one's acceptance of a paper's opinions, where it DOES come in to play is that some papers will give less weight or simply ignore points of view that disagree with the paper's political view. The most glaring example is whether one agrees or disagrees with the highly politicized concept of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming", i.e: that mankind is causing dreadful harm to our climate. It is a fact that some left-leaning papers will no longer print a contrary view on this subject. The Los Angeles Times is the example that first comes to mind, and there may be UK papers that have also taken this stance. I think this makes them less reliable, and shows bias; I for one desire to read contrary opinions, and because "the Deniers" are a large group and not just a handful of nutters, I would suggest that the responsible thing to do for a paper is to at least address and summarize their views, majority or minority, and to allow dissenting opinion. PLEASE NOTE: This is not an attempt to troll the legions of partisans on both sides of this issue, merely an example among many of how newspapers manipulate public view based on their agenda. Jax MN (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your comments about climate change have no relevance to the reliability of the Daily Mail (the ostensible subject of this thread, remember?). They look more like standard-issue flamebait, and thus best ignored. Do you have anything substantive to say? MastCell Talk 20:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a relevance. A publication that flouts the overwhelming scientific views is essentially establishing that they are willing to throw out facts and fact checking to present the story and views they want to present; hence, they may be site that carries opinions, but for Wikipedia purposes as something that we would rely on to do our fact checking, the topic establishes that their credentials as a fact checker are not something they value and not something that we should either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- In short -- any publication which does not exactly follow the TRUTH is now declared to be unusable? Sorry -- there is room enough for disagreements not to be treated in that manner, and Wikipedia, of all places, should be first to accept that if all sources which do not have the TRUTH are unusable, there is a slight chance that we shall toss out the baby with the bathwater. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, there is a relevance. A publication that flouts the overwhelming scientific views is essentially establishing that they are willing to throw out facts and fact checking to present the story and views they want to present; hence, they may be site that carries opinions, but for Wikipedia purposes as something that we would rely on to do our fact checking, the topic establishes that their credentials as a fact checker are not something they value and not something that we should either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Your comments about climate change have no relevance to the reliability of the Daily Mail (the ostensible subject of this thread, remember?). They look more like standard-issue flamebait, and thus best ignored. Do you have anything substantive to say? MastCell Talk 20:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- While reliability is a separate assessment vis-a-vis one's acceptance of a paper's opinions, where it DOES come in to play is that some papers will give less weight or simply ignore points of view that disagree with the paper's political view. The most glaring example is whether one agrees or disagrees with the highly politicized concept of "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming", i.e: that mankind is causing dreadful harm to our climate. It is a fact that some left-leaning papers will no longer print a contrary view on this subject. The Los Angeles Times is the example that first comes to mind, and there may be UK papers that have also taken this stance. I think this makes them less reliable, and shows bias; I for one desire to read contrary opinions, and because "the Deniers" are a large group and not just a handful of nutters, I would suggest that the responsible thing to do for a paper is to at least address and summarize their views, majority or minority, and to allow dissenting opinion. PLEASE NOTE: This is not an attempt to troll the legions of partisans on both sides of this issue, merely an example among many of how newspapers manipulate public view based on their agenda. Jax MN (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Press Complaints Commission publishes statistics on breaches of the UK-wide Editors' Code of Practice. From 2011-2013, the Daily Mail was the worst offender in the entire UK by far—it had more beaches of the code (47) than the next three newspapers combined (The Sun-19; The Daily Telegraph-17; Evening Standard-10) ([4]). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um -- The Guardian was sanctioned much more recently by the PCC (10-2103) -- the DM was sanctioned in 12-2011. Over the entire period, each had precisely one "adjudication upheld" result from the PCC which rather implies that (within an order of magnitude) they have similar rates of "adjudication upheld" results. Clearly your mileage varies. When using statistics, one well ought to count the cases which the PCC found problematic. One is not all that far from One. Collect (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- All complaints listed are those ruled by the PCC to be confirmed breaches of the Code. Whether a complaint is adjudicated as "Upheld", and whether it is adjudicated as "Sufficient remedial action", says absolutely nothing about the substance of the complaint. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um -- The Guardian was sanctioned much more recently by the PCC (10-2103) -- the DM was sanctioned in 12-2011. Over the entire period, each had precisely one "adjudication upheld" result from the PCC which rather implies that (within an order of magnitude) they have similar rates of "adjudication upheld" results. Clearly your mileage varies. When using statistics, one well ought to count the cases which the PCC found problematic. One is not all that far from One. Collect (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, no, NOT the Mail again. Please, OP, look through all the archives of this page then if you're still stuck, ask again. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- to jump on the bandwagon, there is clearly NO consensus that the Daily Mail is a generally reliable source, in fact if anything the general consensus is the opposite, that it for anything other than sports it is generally a questionable source at best and that where it may be basically reliable, there are going to be other MORE reliable sources that should be used instead .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree very strongly with TRPoD -- it is difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be both possible and necessary to cite the Daily Mail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- It could be used as a reference for its own claims about its editorial positions, as it is used here, Daily Mail. That doesn't make it necessarily relevant anywhere else or redeem its reputation for shoddy fact-checking and misleading failures to inform, of course.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- If the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is accepted I can't see what's wrong with accepting Daily Mail (gossip stories excluded). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- For the umpteenth and final time, the objections to the Mail are NOT about its politics. They are not about the BBC, Guardian or Huffington Post either. (WP:OTHERSTUFF). It's about fact-checking and the gossip to news ratio. See that last time i spent time trying to determine how far it can be reasonably used in sports or cultural coverage. And yet here we are again as if none of the previous discussions ever happened. As far as the query goes here: who's dating whom is gossip and we don't cover it unless or until it becomes news. Itsmejudith (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree very strongly with TRPoD -- it is difficult to imagine a situation in which it would be both possible and necessary to cite the Daily Mail. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- to jump on the bandwagon, there is clearly NO consensus that the Daily Mail is a generally reliable source, in fact if anything the general consensus is the opposite, that it for anything other than sports it is generally a questionable source at best and that where it may be basically reliable, there are going to be other MORE reliable sources that should be used instead .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. This is an inappropriate query because this board is for asking about specific sourcing concerns. AFAICT there is no proposed edit nor a specific article from the Mail to support said edit. I suggest someone archive this and get back to work.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: In the past some editors have called it the "Daily Fail" and "Daily Heil" and have suggested that its political orientation be "extreme right wing." The fact is that the paper - like almost every newspaper which prints "celebrity news" - has been sued in the past for defamation, but that most of the PCC complaints are such stuff as (specific example) DM asserting that a great deal of waste from the UK ends up in foreign landfills, but did not properly state that the practice is illegal. For most routine matters of fact, it is just as reliable as any newspaper -- they all are fallible, but when one removes "celebrity" stuff, they all tend to be in the same field. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- In its decision for Jones v Daily Mail concerning waste ending up in foreign landfills, the PCC ruled that the Daily Mail's breach of the Accuracy clause occurred because the Daily Mail misreported a statistic from the [Environment Agency]. The decision cites nothing about the newspaper not properly stating that the practice is illegal. [5] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- ... it was wrong to draw a connection between illegal exports of separated waste and the 12m tonnes of “green list” recycling – from both household and commercial/industrial sources – that was lawfully exported for reprocessing seems to be from the report. Then Furthermore, the Commission noted his position that the total annual amount of recycling collected from UK households is just 10.7 million tonnes. That is, they did not properly differentiate between illegal and legal export of waste, and overstated waste by over 10%. And I suggest that differentiation was what I stated the problem had been -- I did not also add the 10% error as well. Then the conclusion: However, the Commission noted that the “around 12 million tonnes” figure referred to all “green list” recyclables exported from the UK annually, and there were no specific figures available to support the newspaper’s assertion, as fact, that 12 million of tonnes of waste sorted for the purposes of recycling sorted by UK families is being dumped in foreign landfill. While the Commission accepted that the Environment Agency recognises illegal waste exports as a problem requiring investigation and prosecution, it had not provided figures relating to household waste alone or, indeed, showing the final destinations of exported recyclables (which both parties had acknowledged could not possibly be traced). Allof which looks very much like the DM was given the 12 figure from someone, and told it was the export total, and their chief sin was not making the legalistic dichotomy between legal and illegal exports. sorry -- that is not egregious IMHO. Collect (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC) .
- It says exactly how the Daily Mail breached the Accuracy clause: Because its "assertion about the amount of domestic recycling ending up in landfill abroad was inaccurate and misleading" because "there were no specific figures available to support the newspaper’s assertion, as fact, that 12 million of tonnes of waste sorted for the purposes of recycling sorted by UK families is being dumped in foreign landfill" because "it had not provided figures relating to household waste alone or, indeed, showing the final destinations of exported recyclables (which both parties had acknowledged could not possibly be traced)." It was given the export total, but then reported the export total as if it only consisted of sorted household recyclables and as if all of the export total went to foreign landfills. The distinctions between "all exported recyclables" and "only household exported recyclables", and between "all exported recyclables" and "only exported recyclables that go to foreign landfills" are not examples of just a "legalistic dichotomy", but are distinctions in material reality. Whether or not, e.g., an aluminium can is processed at a recycling factory is a material distinction. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- There has never been a consensus the daily mail should not be used in fact it was shot down the last time was brought up to be banned. Should be used for non controversial issues. Fact checking is an issue at the BBC & others we consider reliable. Its editor judgement pure & simple. Blethering Scot 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It says exactly how the Daily Mail breached the Accuracy clause: Because its "assertion about the amount of domestic recycling ending up in landfill abroad was inaccurate and misleading" because "there were no specific figures available to support the newspaper’s assertion, as fact, that 12 million of tonnes of waste sorted for the purposes of recycling sorted by UK families is being dumped in foreign landfill" because "it had not provided figures relating to household waste alone or, indeed, showing the final destinations of exported recyclables (which both parties had acknowledged could not possibly be traced)." It was given the export total, but then reported the export total as if it only consisted of sorted household recyclables and as if all of the export total went to foreign landfills. The distinctions between "all exported recyclables" and "only household exported recyclables", and between "all exported recyclables" and "only exported recyclables that go to foreign landfills" are not examples of just a "legalistic dichotomy", but are distinctions in material reality. Whether or not, e.g., an aluminium can is processed at a recycling factory is a material distinction. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- ... it was wrong to draw a connection between illegal exports of separated waste and the 12m tonnes of “green list” recycling – from both household and commercial/industrial sources – that was lawfully exported for reprocessing seems to be from the report. Then Furthermore, the Commission noted his position that the total annual amount of recycling collected from UK households is just 10.7 million tonnes. That is, they did not properly differentiate between illegal and legal export of waste, and overstated waste by over 10%. And I suggest that differentiation was what I stated the problem had been -- I did not also add the 10% error as well. Then the conclusion: However, the Commission noted that the “around 12 million tonnes” figure referred to all “green list” recyclables exported from the UK annually, and there were no specific figures available to support the newspaper’s assertion, as fact, that 12 million of tonnes of waste sorted for the purposes of recycling sorted by UK families is being dumped in foreign landfill. While the Commission accepted that the Environment Agency recognises illegal waste exports as a problem requiring investigation and prosecution, it had not provided figures relating to household waste alone or, indeed, showing the final destinations of exported recyclables (which both parties had acknowledged could not possibly be traced). Allof which looks very much like the DM was given the 12 figure from someone, and told it was the export total, and their chief sin was not making the legalistic dichotomy between legal and illegal exports. sorry -- that is not egregious IMHO. Collect (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC) .
- The comparison with The Guardian is particularly relevant. The Guardian has a pronounced liberal bias, but has a decent reputation for accuracy especially in science. No part of the Daily Mail can be endorsed as likely to be reliable. Its political coverage is biased and sensationalised, often inaccurate and sometimes completely fabricated, its health and medicine coverage is a byword for sensationalism and sweeping inaccuracy, there's even a parody Twitter account with a Daily Mail "cancer list" every week. This is reflected in its wooden spoon status with the PCC. And, as newspaper markets shrink, it is getting worse, almost becoming a parody of itself. It is particularly known for printing tittilating pictures of underage female children of celebrities (google "all grown up" for context), while fulminating against a largely imaginary army of paedophiles (and LGBT people) preying on children. Nothing in the Mail can be taken at face value, and it should only be used as a source if there is an independent corroborating source (in which case it's arguably redundant). It's pretty much The Drudge Report, but English. Oh, in case it's not obvious? I find it excellent for lining the guinea-pig cages, far and away the best use of its sole redeeming quality, its absorbency. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Verifiability and Popular Culture: Korean TV Dramas: Last time?
Hmmm, this archiving thing is getting annoying. This continues (and hopefully concludes) part one and part two. I'm going to quote the latter some; essentially, I was addressing two topics, one is clearly more or less finished [1], the other isn't.
- Newcomers I have made a concerted argument against the verifiability policy as presently applied, and it's been answered by silence. This may be because this is an inappropriate venue for such arguments; but nobody's pointed me towards a more appropriate one. Is it simply unacceptable for newcomers to be told reasons for Wikipedia's policies at all?
- I participated for a decade in a Usenet newsgroup dedicated to Usenet policies that lots of people had issues with, and already within a year I'd spearheaded this, meant to provide newcomers a one-stop shop for our side. Nor was I exceptional there, at that time. I'm unimpressed by what I'm seeing as a newbie here; I'm getting some pointers, especially but not only from WhispertoMe (apologies if there's a spelling mistake - I don't know how to get to the archived discussion), but only to Wikipedia policies and methods, not to Wikipedia explanations, let alone places to argue.
- The most I've been able to come up with as a result of this discussion is that Wikipedia verifiability (at least) is a set of rules for a game, and you win the game by writing Wikipedia-verifiable articles. When I started posting to news.groups I was already in my late 20s, and the reward for playing that game was the creation of newsgroups. This game has far more complex rules, information about which is far harder to find, for less of a prize, and I'm a lot older now. I learned from my news.groups experience not to take oaths, but if the response to this post is as I expect, I doubt I'll be throwing much effort into Wikipedia in the future.
- Third, if you make a user account, then people can follow what you're doing on Wikipedia. Just now, for example, I clicked on your IP address link to see if I can find the specific argument you're having (since you didn't link to it) and couldn't find anything since your IP must have changed since your argument. --GRuban (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- 3) I've always put off becoming a registered Wikipedian because I didn't want to take the time to read the rules, which I estimated would be about 40-200 hours. Now for the first time I've spent a significant amount of that time, and this is basically my last attempt to postpone my decision never to become a registered Wikipedian; I'm really unhappy with a fair amount of what I found in that reading.
- As for links? You participated in that discussion ("my uncle Al" - so hey, is javabeans still our uncle Al?). Anyway, I found it: here. But the argument there is mostly pretty diffuse. Its core is something I didn't write in one sentence - The existing verifiability policy makes significant areas of interest excessively hard to document on Wikipedia, because it rules out whole classes of communication that are primary ways those areas are documented.[1] - and something I did - It's also an engine of hostility between Wikipedia and communities. Which is what made me think of news.groups, whose policies were often accused of being such engines, and where a bunch of us spent a lot of time dealing with such accusations.
- [1] As witness the plagiarism.
- 3) Yes, are a lot of rules (and what's more, they keep changing, from discussions like this one, in fact!), but you're no less bound by them by editing from an IP than from a user account. There are no disadvantages of registration, only advantages. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I figure - obviously counterfactually, but I don't care - that registration is more or less an agreement to support the policies. So I've previously put it off, and now don't want to. What I'm trying to do is find out whether anyone here, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, thinks the person who wrote State income tax#History or Half of Asia, for a Thousand Years is worth giving the kind of elementary attention to newbies that could change my mind on this. (Much of the length complained about in the second discussion's first post was requests for pointers, e.g. to *how I could find out* why DramaWiki is blacklisted. Most went unanswered; GRuban at least pointed me to some documents, though mostly ones I'd already read.)
And if the rules change from discussions like this one, I'm not seeing how. I haven't been told what's inadequate in my arguments (except that they're long); instead they get refuted by appeal to the very policies I'm arguing against. So I'm not saying that my arguments are good enough to change policies, but am saying that I don't see a mechanism here that gets policies changed.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
[1] I continue to think verifiability policy is essentially insane, but it's quite clear by now that my arguments are not going to be addressed, and my requests for justifications for the policy are not going to be answered, except to the limited extent already provided by GRuban. But a couple of detail notes:
- Rosenbaum would probably be fine specifically because he is a former film critic and author of several books, as per WP:SPS which I linked to above. If you want to nominate some of the KDrama articles for deletion for lack of notability, feel free to follow those link too. Except, of course, you'd need a user account. --GRuban (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Presumably this relies on this sentence: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I note that the following sentence reads: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So where GRuban sees Rosenbaum's critical work as still OK thanks to his established bona fides, I see the specious claim that his views, if worth "reporting", will be stated by someone else. Hence citing his actual blog, as opposed to third parties mentioning it, is "discouraged", as I wrote and GRuban apparently objects to. Evidently, and this is part of what I consider insane, critical ideas are in fact judged by the same standards as scientific ones.
- 2) In general, if it's a blog written by a reliable author (one who's written a reliable source before on the topic), then it's a reliable source, and if it's written by an unpublished amateur then it's not. I strongly doubt that Korean television dramas are only covered by amateurs, and never in professionally published books, newspapers, or magazines. They may only be covered by amateurs in English, and you may not be able to read the Korean, but that's no more an excuse than saying that we should allow you to write an article on high-energy physics based on some guy's blog because you can't read the math used in real high-energy physics texts.
Does "amateurs" refer to Dramabeans writers as unpaid (which is factually untrue, as I've already mentioned) or as uneducated? If the latter, I note that Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, neither of whom were educated in film criticism or in film, are widely cited in English Wikipedia. Just to pick critics active in Chicago when I lived there. (Huh. Neither was Jonathan Rosenbaum, nor Pauline Kael.) Oh, but wait, they were paid. Oh, but wait, so's Dramabeans. Oh, but wait, Dramabeans is self-published, and we're back in circularity!
Your most obvious way out is to point out the role of the editor; editors hired those film critics, while javabeans hired herself. So I assume much of Charles Dickens's non-fiction work, which appeared in various magazines he edited, is just as untouchable as Dramabeans? And again as to William Morris: we should rely on his works published in third-party publications, not on News from Nowhere, to get at his real views, right? because he was the latter's only editor. [2] Oh, and again: the one thing a Wikipedian on William Blake must not do is consult the original editions, because those were self-published, right?
javabeans and girlfriday are editors to the other writers at Dramabeans. So are those writers OK to cite, just not the two who run the site?
[2] Sigh. Morris was editor and publisher of Commonweal, where the serial version of News from Nowhere began appearing in January 1890, until May of that year, when David Nicoll replaced him as editor but not as publisher. Morris and Nicoll disagreed considerably, and it isn't at all obvious to me that Nicoll would have edited News in any meaningful way while it continued, until October. It appeared, revised, in book form May 1891. Sources: pp. 580ff in William Morris: A Life for Our Time by Fiona MacCarthy, 1995, and relevant entries in A Bibliography of William Morris by Eugene LeMire, 2006. Does this mean that if News is cited as representing Morris's views, it should only be to the May-October 1890 issues of Commonweal, and not to the book version or the first part of the serial?
128.95.223.129 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is a lot to try and digest, what are you getting at? What source are you seeking comment on from this noticeboard? Are you asking about Dramabeans? If you know of reliable sources about Dramabeans, that would be very useful. There are many reasons blogs are avoided as sources here. One is that relying on self-published sources makes it almost impossible to assess due and undue weight. There are a ton of opinions out there, and without these guidelines it becomes almost impossible to determine which ones are significant and which ones are not. As for Chuck D, I'm pretty sure all of Dickens' work has since been republished with vast amounts of commentary, making the comparison moot, but regardless, I doubt there is much direct citing of Dickens non-fiction outside of historical contexts where it can be given appropriate context, or as a WP:PRIMARY source about Dickens. Grayfell (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm getting at two things.
- One: Dramabeans: On-Topic Dramabeans's reliability as a source, especially as regards founder javabeans and #2 girlfriday. Footnote [1] above concerns this. I previously cited what I knew about Dramabeans; none of it is what y'all consider "reliable". This discussion started after I cited javabeans at Dramabeans in a K-drama Wikipedia article, and the relevant sentences were then deleted because of self-published sources.
- So OK; thanks for the suggestion; now to look for "reliable sources" about Dramabeans, primarily online since it's a website started in 2007. Not much at The New York Times or other journalistic sites; scholar.google.com turns up mostly writing in Vietnamese, plus some master's theses (oops; by the way, these consistently describe Dramabeans primarily as a "fan" site, which is, um, unreliable evidence against my claims).
- But at www.google.com the search 'Dramabeans -site:dramabeans.com/' puts a possibility at the bottom of the first page of results. Asia Pacific Arts is an edited online magazine published by several bits of USC. It's a student publication; USC owns one of the two significant collections of K-drama on VHS known to Worldcat. Betty Bong, who's published a lot of articles there, interviewed javabeans and girlfriday of Dramabeans as The Gurus of Korean Drama. Later Google results are less helpful: a blogger on CNN's "Geek Out" quotes both javabeans and girlfriday as sources re K-dramas; someone at Dramafever, the main streaming site for K-dramas, calls them "experts" and "queens of the K-drama blogosphere"; Dramafever is called out, slightly earlier, for issuing a DMCA takedown notice to Dramabeans over the still photos their recaps use - the blog post in question certainly isn't reliable, even by my standards let alone Wikipedia's, but gets at stuff I deal with below.
- As to "due weight". Thanks for using that term; now I know what y'all call what I've been trying to talk about. See, my actual concern isn't with Dramabeans's reliability at all. Of course someone is reliable as to their own critical opinions, even if self-published. Verifiability is simply the stick I've been hit with, and I've been using 19th-century writers mainly to illustrate its lunacies. Throughout this discussion I have not been defending Dramabeans as a factual source for news and gossip about K-dramas, although they offer a lot of that, and that's the main purpose for which European-language Wikipedias cite Dramabeans. What I've been defending is the due weight of their viewpoints on K-drama; I've produced evidence for this, to which the above minimally adds. My pessimism about this discussion is partly because this evidence hasn't been disputed or disparaged, but ignored.
- Two: Newbies: Partly Off-Topic Nobody's told me a more apposite place, so I'm also talking here about Wikipedia's care and feeding of newbies. The stuff above footnote [1] above is related to that; a majority of it is quotes from the previous round, now archived. There are two prongs to this:
- General I claim verifiability policy operates as a source of discord with newbies in general, in particular in popular culture areas that may not come to the attention of the sorts of publications Wikipedia considers reliable. I give an example, Wikipedia's persistent and copious plagiarism of DramaWiki, to which Wikipedia blacklists links even at archive.org. I claim the plagiarism is probably driven by people's desire to document for English Wikipedia things that verifiable sources in English don't cover. It has resulted in hostility towards Wikipedia documented on DramaWiki's home page. (Note also that the best resources in English about K-dramas are Dramabeans and DramaWiki: English Wikipedia is two for two in telling K-drama fans "No!" And although English and Korean Wikipedias each have uses for the K-drama researcher, this is really rather like a kid declaring the unreliability of his tutor.) This is also where the blog post cited above is relevant.
- Hey, what do you know? Wikipedia policy hasn't changed, but a Wikipedia essay agrees with me! See in WP:RSUW "Depending on the topic at hand, certain sources otherwise seen as unreliable may be highly appropriate. ... Articles on popular culture sometimes rely on less academic sources for their information."
- Specific I claim that I'm personally experiencing Wikipedia's care and feeding of newbies as inadequate, over the weeks I've been dealing with this, and in contrast to the care and feeding of newbies I used to do in a Usenet newsgroup usually understood as exceptionally newbie-hostile. See, for example, the ignoring of my evidence; the fact that it's taken a month for "my uncle Al" to turn into "due and undue weight"; and my now thrice-stated, unanswered, request for information on how to find out why Wikipedia blacklists links to DramaWiki. I acknowledge that WhisperToMe, in the first round, gave me as much help as someone solely concerned with complying with verifiability policy could have asked, and that GRuban has given a little in both rounds.
- Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
- 128.95.223.129 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree Wikipedia has a newbie problem. There isn't a clear-cut consensus on how to deal with it, but many people have noticed it and commented on it. Part of the issue is that Wikipedia is much more purpose-oriented than Usenet. Usenet is about discussion, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. I had the habit of wikilinking to every policy that I mention (WP:WEIGHT, WP:SPS, etc.) but I've been trying to avoid that lately, because I was afraid it came off as condescending. It's not an easy problem, and we're all doing the best we can, y'know? (WP:ASSUME) Pop-culture subjects are often areas of contention (WP:POKEMON is an infamous example) and compromises that come out of that often leave everybody frustrated. I think 'due weight' and WP:VERIFIABILITY are the policies at hand. DramaWiki might be a great resource for people interested in the subject, but it looks like it has different goals and guidelines than Wikipedia, and by design it's going to contain a level of detail that doesn't belong here. There's a mess of WP:COPYVIO issues at hand, too, which makes it so complicated that there's no easy resolution. Adding wikis as sources is a nightmare that I don't think any experienced editor is eager to revisit.
- As for your question, go here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and search for "d-addicts" to find the discussions that lead to DramaWiki being blacklisted. It sounds like you've already got this, but one additional point is that Wikipedia sources do not need to be English (WP:NOENG). Korean-language sources can be used to build articles, but for obvious reasons English language sources are preferred. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
- DramaWiki Thanks much for answering my question. DramaWiki was indeed, as one error message hinted, blacklisted (in November 2008, both in English Wikipedia and in Wikimedia) for "spamming", but this turns out to mean that it was for being externally linked in too many articles; the complainants themselves attested that the links were placed by lots of individuals. None of the examples given were inappropriate if one assumes DramaWiki an appropriate external link, and ironically your "level of detail" remark points to a reason it is one. If more English Wikipedia K-drama articles were like Dae Jang Geum (if not as long as that special case), heavy on text, light on data, the world would be a better place. Unable to link to DramaWiki, many K-drama articles instead point to Hancinema, which also has its own English Wikipedia stub, and which (like English Wikipedia) I've consistently found inferior to DramaWiki for information. Biased much?
- As for copyright violation, um. If English Wikipedia could link to DramaWiki it would be much easier to find plagiarism from DramaWiki. Flipside, DramaWiki has not in my experience linked to illegal downloading sites, and is heavily supported by the legal near-monopoly streaming site Dramafever. It is, of course, a sub-site of D-Addicts, which is itself an illegal downloading site. I have in the past seen Hancinema linking to illegal download sites, but something seems to have changed, and it now ostentatiously boasts legality and its own ties to Dramafever.
- GRuban made a convincing case against using DramaWiki, *as* a wiki, as a source. My concern is primarily with the blacklist, which is of course off-topic here.
- Dramabeans You started out by focusing on the most on-topic bit of my complaint, but you haven't actually addressed my evidence either. Is this because you take for granted that I can see it isn't good enough, or because I've only offered one piece in this particular segment of the discussion?
- Verifiability I didn't expect I was saying anything new, but it still isn't getting answered. Don't y'all *document* FAQs, somewhere in the insanely voluminous Wikipedia documentation? "Verifiability policy helps turn Wikipedia into a snotty ivory tower." "BTDT. See WP:NIT#Ver." How hard is that?
- Thank you for informatively replying to me. But I'm still not seeing a route to either changing, or becoming reconciled to, the policies I object to.
- Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
- 66.212.78.59 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Calling fellow editors "snotty", even obliquely, is not helpful. Wikipedia:FAQ index and Help:Contents might be what you want. Typically, you would be presented with links like this after creating an account. You might also find WP:TV and WP:KDRAMA specifically useful.
- It sounds like the issue with DramaWiki should be dealt with elsewhere. I would not use HanCinema as a WP:SECONDARY source in an article.
- One very rough rule-of-thumb about self published sources is to determine if it has an article, or could have one. Looking through the sources, I don't think Dramabeans has been covered enough for an article. There's the student paper you mentioned, and a CNN blog post, but that's all I could find. I would say the same thing about Hancinema, actually. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you felt insulted by my wording. In these three linked threads, I've repeatedly reified Wikipedia when referring precisely *not* to individuals but to things that I think systemically result from policies. (E.g. no individual intended that plagiarism would result from blacklisting DramaWiki, but it sure seems to have, so I blame "Wikipedia".) Admittedly "snotty" is shorter than "engine of hostility", which is what I called verifiability policy last time, and shorter still compared to more detailed exposition. Anyway, since you don't cite the rest of my claimed evidence re Dramabeans, I'm concluding that you did *not* read the previous iterations. So to repeat: 1) Blurb usage. 2) Individuals encountered. 3) Lecturer.
- To expand: 1) YA Entertainment has issued probably the majority of all Region 1 K-drama DVDs marketed in North America. (Their total is 87. I know of 14 from Tai Seng, their only independent competitor. Each major Korean network has also sold some Region 1 discs more or less on its own; I have little info about these, but they sure don't seem to be numerous.) I've seen nearly all the resulting YA packaging. I claim that Dramabeans is the most-quoted source of blurbage for them. Note that this isn't just because Dramabeans is routinely complimentary (which they aren't); it's because instead of saying "Best drama ever!" (a fairly typical blog remark about a particular drama), Dramabeans writers say things like "Superb plotting, with appealing leads" as lead-ins to (not blurbed) "wasted on a thoroughly unoriginal story." I've repeatedly offered to go actually compile the numbers. I suppose the fact that nobody's taken me up on it is because it's irrelevant, but considering that YA discs are probably *the* most common way anglophones first encounter K-dramas (though streaming video certainly outweighs DVD for viewing over all), I'm not seeing why.
- 2) Last fall, I called an office on the campus from which I write, to volunteer for a research study. The long conversation that resulted didn't get me into the study, but I did mention that I was watching a Korean drama, and it turned out the person interviewing me was Korean-American. She said she no longer had time, being in grad school, to keep up with dramas, and mostly just read the recaps on Dramabeans. A couple of months ago, I was at Scarecrow Video looking at their K-drama section, and a white woman came by, reminiscing about K-dramas she'd seen. She mentioned that she no longer really watched them much, for lack of time, and instead read Dramabeans recaps, and enthused about a recent Dramabeans "meetup" in Seattle.
- 3) A week or two ago, I attended a lecture on K-dramas given at the Seattle Asian Art Museum. The lecturer was Bonnie Tilland, who's ABD at the University of Washington in anthropology; her dissertation seems to be about how Korean women interpret K-dramas and interpret their lives through K-dramas; she's defending it this summer. She taught a class on K-dramas last fall, which I'm sorry I hadn't heard about. The audience was mostly white, and obviously there as museum members rather than as K-drama fans, so she kept the talk pretty introductory. She said she'd been asked by the museum to recommend a book on her subject, and apologised that she couldn't offer a physical one (that the museum could sell...), but the e-book she suggested is the (self-published) Why Do Dramas Do That? by javabeans and girlfriday.
- In other words, in my experience as an anglophone viewer of K-dramas, not only in the K-drama blogosphere but in lived life, Dramabeans is pretty prominent. Whether or not any of these is what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. I do note that I tried to refute your search (which sounds like the same search I mentioned above) by putting "Dramabeans" into Hangul and searching for that, but got nothing from it; the Korean press is not going to support me either.
- By the way, DramaWiki gets nowhere near this level of attention from any of these sources.
- Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
- 128.208.76.107 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Does a blurb on a DVD validate the use of a blog as a reliable source for a review? That's an interesting question, but lacking any other info on the site's editorial process, I would say no. There's still no oversight or independant validation of the expertise of the reviewers.
- The personal examples you give are not really anything we can work with. Nobody else has any possible way of knowing what you're saying is true. I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, but it's not verifiable. Hostile, snotty, infuriating, call it what you want: verifiability is a critical part of Wikipedia, and you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone otherwise at a reliable sources noticeboard! Nobody has taken you up on your offer to count blurbs, because Wikipedia has a policy against original research (WP:OR). Personal conversations are both original research and unverifiable. Grayfell (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying. I note that you omitted reference to Ms. Tilland; I don't know whether that's because you consider a lecture given (on that occasion, not its sole one) to about a hundred people "personal", or because you assume someone whose name I gave and whose e-mail address is publicly available an unreachable source. Or maybe it's just the idiocy I've been decrying, that Ms. Tilland will magically turn reliable if and when she's a professor, but until then remains among the rest of us unwashed unreliables. Or maybe it's just that since you still haven't looked at the previous iteration, you don't know that I there copiously documented Ms. Tilland's bona fides. But whatever. I'm not just concerned about specific sources...
The main issue is that I've been asking, for about a month now, for either discussion of the policies you're citing, a pointer to a more appropriate place for such discussion, or a pointer to existing written explanations of why they have to be the way they are. None has been offered, nor have I found the latter on my own, and the conclusion I came to early, that Wikipedia's verifiability policy is nothing but a very strange game whose rewards don't measure up to its challenges, remains, against all my expectations, unrefuted. I know that my standards of evidence are both vastly looser and vastly tighter than Wikipedia's, and don't know why I should adapt.
So I'm done. I'm not feeling childish enough to go and wipe out all the work I've done on Wikipedia to date, to the extent I can find it, but here's a list of the main items in case someone else wants to protect the encyclopaedia from my flawed understanding of how it should be written:
Note that while the first, essentially a synopsis of a non-fiction work, and the last, based on a raft of "unreliable" sources, are easily challenged, you'll have to get more creative when it comes to the income tax section. I'd suggest lack of interest as the obvious reason to delete it, if one's wanted; it's been around long enough that if it'd had significant readership, it ought not remain essentially all my work.
At any rate, nobody need fear any more of my writing here.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
66.212.73.202 (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I did look up Tilland, and yes, I did read the previous threads, although it was such a wall of text I might easily have missed something. In the interest of brevity, I'll summarize my understanding of your argument: You're saying we should treat Dramabeans as a reliable source because of your personal recollection that a grad student once recommended the pseudonymous authors' self-published book for further reading in the Q&A portion of a lecture you attended. In my opinion, the answer is no. As for your other contributions, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:POINT. Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
RT news and Crimean status referendum, 2014
There is a dispute at Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy, whether many citations of RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) can be removed from the article without explaining each particular instance removal. For example, one of the statements that some editors are trying to remove completely, is this:
A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum,[1][2][3]
- ^ Crimean ‘referendum at gunpoint’ is a myth – intl observers — RT News
- ^ "135 observers from 23 countries are registered in the Crimea". News from Armenia. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
- ^ "Over 130 Observers from 23 Countries to Monitor Crimea Referendum". CrimeaInform. 2014-03-15. Retrieved 2014-04-02.
— Petr Matas 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you refer to RT as biased in favour of the Russian Government? Would you say that the BBC is in favour of the British Government? How about CNN as in favour of the American Government? Look at all these sources and identify which impartially reported on the US - Iraq war and the claim of weapons of mass destruction. If you are claiming that RT's reports regarding the Crimean crisis are non-factual then provide evidence. In particular look at the activity of Volunteer Marek on the Crimea pages - removes anything which puts some balance in the article.
— equilibrado 7 April 2014
- Every medium has its opinion, including CNN and BBC, and biased articles appear everywhere from time to time. It seems to me that facts reported by RT can be trusted, but their evaulations can't. But that does not really matter here. The question is, whether RT can be declared universally unreliable and your answer to that is obvious. — Petr Matas 04:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There are controversial facts and there are non-controversial facts. For controversial facts RT is most certainty not a reliable source:[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. It could be used for non-controversial facts (indeed on the Crimean Referendum where RT was used to cite non-controversial facts I left it alone). The thing is, if a fact really is non-controversial, then 99 times out of a 100 one can find a more solid, really reliable source. And replace.
Additionally, there's really no reason to try and include more than at most two citations to any piece of text. You know, don't do cite-padding like this "blah blah blah [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]". That just looks bad and betrays a certain kind of desperate attempt to push some POV. Hence if there's already solid, reliable sources used to cite something, an additional source such as RT is simply not necessary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that more than two refs can be excessive but it may be appropriate to have RT as one of them. My personal rule, not particularly for wikipedia, is that if a 'Western' source and RT agree then something is likely to be true, for everything controversial I have to choose between them. We should bear in mind that Russian sources were highlighting the involvement of Pravy Sektor for some weeks before 'Weestern' Sources really picked up on this. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if RT says something and others neither agree nor oppose, then we shoud write "RT says...," as their report may be unreliable, but it is surely notable: There are zillions of people who believe it. — Petr Matas 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing anything controversial in the statement being removed that isn't backed up by the claim. Your not saying there was your saying he said there was. Would strongly object to anyone removing content without a valid reason provided each time. Editors shouldn't have to second guess why you feel something requires removal. Your reasons may be totally invalid. Plus more than three refs being provided as inline is def excessive, would prefer two but three max. However see no reason why can't that source be one of them. Plus we shouldn't not be using that source at all, the points they make are one sided of course and need to be used in context but that does not make the source unreliable. The Crimean side should be as equally represented in the article as others. It's all about context and I'm not seeing common sense applied here. Blethering Scot 18:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't see anything controversial in the statement about observers, then you're not paying attention to what the content is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am paying attention, but your blindsided by a pov to remove it without any justification on the actual content, in fact wanted to be able to remove any mark of it without giving justification. Im sorry but the Russian, Crimea viewpoint is equally required in the article, there is nothing questionable in the statement or the source. Were not saying there was were saying this notable individual in the crisis made this notable statement. You can equally balance that out neutrally with the viewpoint of actual observers, real or western. As someone totally disinterested in the article I'm very concerned with some of your actions, which fly in the face of neutrality and also the clear edit warring involved. This is a reliable source for certain information and in this case it is not controversial at all.Blethering Scot 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is controversial. See below. And above. And the talk page. And you seem to misunderstand the concept of "neutrality". It most certainly does not require that we present fringe views as facts, or use controversial and non-reliable sources to present these views. That's not "balance". In fact, that's exactly POV. If the statement is uncontroversial then it should be trivial to find other, actually reliable, sources to support it. No? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Marek the editor below me is telling you it isn't controversial.Blethering Scot 22:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am paying attention, but your blindsided by a pov to remove it without any justification on the actual content, in fact wanted to be able to remove any mark of it without giving justification. Im sorry but the Russian, Crimea viewpoint is equally required in the article, there is nothing questionable in the statement or the source. Were not saying there was were saying this notable individual in the crisis made this notable statement. You can equally balance that out neutrally with the viewpoint of actual observers, real or western. As someone totally disinterested in the article I'm very concerned with some of your actions, which fly in the face of neutrality and also the clear edit warring involved. This is a reliable source for certain information and in this case it is not controversial at all.Blethering Scot 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you don't see anything controversial in the statement about observers, then you're not paying attention to what the content is about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- The content being taken from RT - that "a Crimean official stated that international observers had arrived" - is not particularly controversial, as the official's statement is notable, but neither endorsed nor refuted by being recorded in the article. -Darouet (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's controversial - first the "Crimean official": anyone can claim he is a "Crimean official". Second - is "international" Political international or a mixture of accidental people coming from many countries?Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
The most recent edition of Private Eye, arguably the best investigative journalism periodical in the UK, described RT as "Putin's propaganda channel". I don't think it can be considered to be a reliable source for anything concerning Russia or something the Russian government has a strong opinion on. Number 57 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Private Eye, is hardly a pillar of journalism and certainly not something I would look to to decide what & what isn't a reliable source. Context is key here and that source very much backs the statement. Im not saying should be used for everything but it backs the crimea view that there was observers, you then neutrally say that the west did not agree if thats the case using other sources.Blethering Scot 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's the biggest selling news magazine in the UK. If you're serious about it being "hardly a pillar of journalism" (I sincerely hope not given that you consider yourself to have enough of a grounding in media that you feel able to comment on RT), then I suggest you start by reading about Paul Foot. Number 57 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Biggest selling does not mean its a pillar of journalism (It Isn't), nor should we be taking advice on reliability of a statement from a source from it. If we took a reliability of a source from our sales were in more trouble than i thought.Blethering Scot 22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- If we were talking about newspapers then I'd fully agree, as they rely heavily on celebrity scandal and scantily clad ladies for their circulation figures. However, news magazines are a different kettle of fish entirely. Number 57 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Im not disagreeing with the overall point, just the comparison to Private Eye. The source is only reliable for certain things and a statement such as the one above is one such thing, its not for us to say he's lying or wrong its for us to say the notable figure said this about this notable event and use context to balance out the claim. We cant only put the non Russian viewpoint in the article. Its our job to put in context not deny it happened or was said, which is by default censorship.Blethering Scot 22:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- If we were talking about newspapers then I'd fully agree, as they rely heavily on celebrity scandal and scantily clad ladies for their circulation figures. However, news magazines are a different kettle of fish entirely. Number 57 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Biggest selling does not mean its a pillar of journalism (It Isn't), nor should we be taking advice on reliability of a statement from a source from it. If we took a reliability of a source from our sales were in more trouble than i thought.Blethering Scot 22:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's the biggest selling news magazine in the UK. If you're serious about it being "hardly a pillar of journalism" (I sincerely hope not given that you consider yourself to have enough of a grounding in media that you feel able to comment on RT), then I suggest you start by reading about Paul Foot. Number 57 22:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would any newspaper misreport on a statement made by person X, if the newspaper is biased in favor of X? — Petr Matas 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's not the issue. You keep insisting on missing the point which makes the discussion very difficult. See below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Ukrainian Revolution 2014
The same issues are coming up at Ukrainian Revolution with references from RT removed without consideration of context. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- As explained right above, there is in fact "consideration of content".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not ploughing through it in hope of finding what you refer to because I don't edit that page. You certainly haven't 'consideration of context' thus far on the Ukrainian Revolution 2014 page. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Looking from outside altogether I agree with Sceptic. Blethering Scot 18:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Consideration of content" is explained above. If it's simple fact and sourced to something else, then remove because it's not needed. If it's controversial remove because it's not a reliable source. If it's a simple fact and not sourced to something else, keep it for now, though we should find a better source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- A better source is not required, there is nothing controversial in the statement. I would strongly object to removal of that source without very good justification, although double ref listing would be fine but unnecessary.Blethering Scot 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the statement is controversial because the nature of these "observers" is controversial. See above. The fact that there is argument about whether to put scare quotes on the word "observers" - as several sources do - itself shows that there is indeed controversy. The justification for removal is simply that a source which has been widely described as a "propaganda tool" (and similar) and which fails the criteria for WP:RS is ... not RS. "A very good justification" would be needed to USE the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't controversial at all, there is not one fact there that is. He is a notable figure making a statement about a notable event as another editor has told you above and on talk page. Its our job to balance that out with context not to dismiss altogether. It does not fail as an RS in this case whatsoever and you clearly don't want to hear that, so go ahead and continue edit warring without justification to do so, you've been warned more than once and clearly don't want to hear it. You most certainly do need a good justification to remove it and there is no reason why to sources cant match the claim if you so wish.Blethering Scot 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ok. I've explained it several times by now and I'm getting a bit tired and irritated with people not listening. But let me try explaining it one more time.
- You're confusing the aspect of whether a particular statement is true or not, with whether it is controversial or not. It's not the same thing. A statement can be true, and it can be controversial at the same time.
- Suppose I went to the article on Evolution and inserted the statement "John Smith, who holds a PhD in Biology, [an "expert", of sorts, definitely being portrayed as an "expert" in this instance] has said that "evolution is just a theory"". And sourced it to some Creationist website [let's call it CT.com]. Now. It may be exactly true that this fellah John Smith does have a PhD in Biology (there's some creationists who do), and that in fact he did say this thing. So the statement as inserted into the article is in fact true. That DOES NOT in any way make the statement "non-controversial". And it does not make that insertion/edit NPOV. In fact, that would be the essence of POV-pushing, especially when sourced to a non-reliable source. It's the same thing here.
- Like I keep repeating, the main issue in regard to the sentence being discussed is actually not whether RT is a reliable source, although it's not. It's how to present any of the information about "so-and-so said this-and-that", in regard to these "observers". Funnily enough, the people arguing for inclusion here don't wish to discuss that but instead keep yelling "the statement is true, he did say that, hence it's not controversial!" and "RT is a reliable source for statements which are actually true!" (???) "therefore we MUST include it!". We must not do anything. Especially when it violates Wikipedia WP:PILLAR policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Such statement is probably true, is non-controversial, and is relevant, but is not notable, because John Smith is just one of thousands of scientists with PhD in biology. For "Mikhail Malyshev said..." it is almost the same, except for that it is notable, because Mikhail Malyshev is the Crimean election spokesman. If you feel that some important information for balancing is missing, then add it yourself, but it is not acceptable to remove one viewpoint from the article only because the other viewpoint is missing. — Petr Matas 06:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
- No it isn't controversial at all, there is not one fact there that is. He is a notable figure making a statement about a notable event as another editor has told you above and on talk page. Its our job to balance that out with context not to dismiss altogether. It does not fail as an RS in this case whatsoever and you clearly don't want to hear that, so go ahead and continue edit warring without justification to do so, you've been warned more than once and clearly don't want to hear it. You most certainly do need a good justification to remove it and there is no reason why to sources cant match the claim if you so wish.Blethering Scot 22:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the statement is controversial because the nature of these "observers" is controversial. See above. The fact that there is argument about whether to put scare quotes on the word "observers" - as several sources do - itself shows that there is indeed controversy. The justification for removal is simply that a source which has been widely described as a "propaganda tool" (and similar) and which fails the criteria for WP:RS is ... not RS. "A very good justification" would be needed to USE the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- A better source is not required, there is nothing controversial in the statement. I would strongly object to removal of that source without very good justification, although double ref listing would be fine but unnecessary.Blethering Scot 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not ploughing through it in hope of finding what you refer to because I don't edit that page. You certainly haven't 'consideration of context' thus far on the Ukrainian Revolution 2014 page. Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Policy on using a Wikiversity article as a reference
At Wikiproject Medicine, AndyTheGrump has claimed that Wikipedia has specific policies which currently rule out using Wikiversity material as sources for article content, but I don't see such a policy. Both wp:citing sister projects and wp:Citing a wiki are just red links at this time. wp:Identifying reliable sources states that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications... are usually the most reliable sources", and peer-review is mandatory for articles in Wikiversity:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I suggest that we come to a consensus about what to write at Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia, and I suggest adding "A Wikiversity page cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia content without first having reached consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard or at the relevant WikiProject for each individual case". Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". So far we have seen no evidence that the 'peer review' process used on Wikiversity has any validity whatsoever. Likewise, we have seen no evidence that this 'journal' has ever been accepted as a valid source by any credible outside party. Given that material on a wiki is by definition self-published, and given the complete lack of evidence that this journal has any 'reputation' at all, never mind one for accuracy, it seems to me self-evident that such material cannot be used on Wikipedia - even more so when one considers the fact that these are articles on medical topics, where reliable sourcing is absolutely critical. Before Wikipedia can even consider including such material, it will be necessary to prove that the journal has the necessary trustworthiness and status to merit citation - it would be entirely inappropriate to apply a lower standard to a journal just because it is from a sister project.
- Incidentally, I note that yet again, Mikael Häggström has failed to indicate that it is his material on Wikiversity that he is pushing for inclusion as source material in Wikipedia - indeed he has already included such material, citing himself in what I consider an entirely inappropriate manner. I am currently in the process of removing such invalid citations as clearly contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Andy is pretty much right. If you really want to push it then maybe something like the Village Pump would be a better place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mikael, this is nothing more than vanity publishing. This material cannot be used anywhere on enWP. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- So, as I understand, we do not establish any policy on this issue right now, but wait for evidence of being accepted as a valid source by credible outside parties, as well as having other authors publish in the journal first. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. The policy already exists: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The Wikiversity Journal has no reputation for anything. And until it does, policy says we can't cite it, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:USERGENERATED is a subsection of our reliable source guideline. It states, Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. @Mikael Häggström: this seems more in "not even close" territory than "borderline case." VQuakr (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- These guidelines do not clearly say that such content must always be removed, so my impression of this issue remains the same as above; This journal needs time to develop some evidence of reputation first. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mikael, vanity journals are created by researchers who can't get their work published anywhere else. There are plenty of them out there and, unless they're causing a bother, they're ignored, both at enWP and in the wider research community. If you want to consign your work to oblivion, I can't think of a more efficient way of pulling that off. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Mikael, the policy says that such material should not be cited in the first place. That is all that needs to be said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It hardly needs saying, but since there is some pushback on the issue perhaps it does need saying—Andy is correct, and no page at Wikiversity is suitable for use as a reliable source at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. And I'm getting tired of these repeated attempts to get this through. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- 100% not a reliable source. We should not be citing ourselves or that at all. Blethering Scot 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Absolutely. And I'm getting tired of these repeated attempts to get this through. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP:MEDRS applies. So no "ifs, buts and maybes". But while we are here, there is also strong advice never to cite oneself. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
The Pilgrims Would Be Shocked: The History of Thoroughbred Racing in New England
Should The Pilgrims Would Be Shocked: The History of Thoroughbred Racing in New England by Robert Temple be considered a reliable source? The book is self published by Temple, however self-published sources are considered reliable if written by an established expert on the subject matter. According to Amazon, Temple is a former a sports writer who covered horse racing for the "Boston Herald Traveler", worked in the publicity departments of various race track, and writes for "Horse Talk", a southeastern Massachusetts horse racing publication. Does this qualify him as an expert and is this book an appropriate source for articles related to thoroughbred racing in New England (i.e. Suffolk Downs, Narragansett Race Track, Walter E. O'Hara)? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is the claim you would like to support using this work? Are there any third-party reviews of the work that could help establish the author's expertise? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to use it for facts about Narragansett Race Track, including the cost of construction, opening date, number of spectators, and amount of money taken in. While a can not find any reviews of this work, it has been used as a source by the Daily Racing Form [22]. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Nope. Working in PR does not make one an "expert" on much - though the racetracks' official histories published by the tracks may be used to a very limited extent. He has no claim to credentials as an historian in general, so SPS really does hit this one hard. He is likely reliable as a source for his journalism about races, but not much outside that sphere. Collect (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- What about his work for the Herald-Traveler? Isn't that "work in the relevant field has previously been published by [a] reliable third-party publication"? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would say so! StudiesWorld (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- What about his work for the Herald-Traveler? Isn't that "work in the relevant field has previously been published by [a] reliable third-party publication"? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The Islamic Contribution to Science, Mathematics and Technology: Towards Motivating the Muslim Child
- Boulanger, D. (2002). The Islamic Contribution to Science, Mathematics and Technology: Towards Motivating the Muslim Child, OISE Papers in STSE Education, 3, 53-68. (OISE = Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, STSE= Science technology society environment)
- Articles and uses:
- Natural History
- His student Ibn al-Baitar wrote a pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which were his own original discoveries. A Latin translation of his work was useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
- History of botany
- His student Ibn al-Baitar (circa, 1188–1248) was an eminent Arab scientist. His Kitab al-Jami fi al-Adwiya al-Mufrada was a pharmacopoeia describing 1400 species, 300 discovered by himself. Translated into Latin in 1758 this was used in Europe until the early 19th century
- Traditional medicine
- Islamic physicians and Muslim botanists such as al-Dinawari[+] and Ibn al-Baitar[*] significantly expanded on the earlier knowledge of materia medica.
- Timeline of biology and organic chemistry
- c. 1225 — Ibn al-Baitar, al-Nabati's student, writes his Kitab al-Jami fi al-Adwiya al-Mufrada, a botanical and pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which are his own original discoveries; a later Latin translation of his work is useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
- Herbalism
- was removed in 2013 in this edit
- Materia_medica
- and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the thirteenth century.
- History of biology
- His student Ibn al-Baitar (d. 1248) wrote a pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which were his own original discoveries. A Latin translation of his work was useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries
- History of herbalism
- and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century.
- Timeline of biology and organic chemistry
- c. 1225 — Ibn al-Baitar, al-Nabati's student, writes his Kitab al-Jami fi al-Adwiya al-Mufrada, a botanical and pharmaceutical encyclopedia describing 1,400 plants, foods, and drugs, 300 of which are his own original discoveries; a later Latin translation of his work is useful to European biologists and pharmacists in the 18th and 19th centuries.
- Herbal
- n the 12th century Ibn Al-'Awwam described 585 fungi (55 associated with fruit trees),[+] and Ibn Al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century[*]
- Medicinal plants
- and Ibn al-Baitar described more than 1,400 different plants, foods and drugs, over 300 of which were his own original discoveries, in the 13th century
- Natural History
[+] another ref [*] Boulanger
My reservations are as follows:
- OISE Papers in STSE Education has an unclear status, is it peer reviewed? In any case it's an educational journal, not a history of science journal.
- Boulanger is a graduate computer scientist and educationalist, not a historian of science.
- The article is consistently cited without "Towards Motivating the Muslim Child" in the title
- It is used to support " 300 of which are his own original discoveries" which is inherently unlikely (more likely they were not present in older materia medica we generally do not speak of someone having "discovered" a plant in this era).
All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
- Who is the "he" in the several uses of "his student" above? I'd be curious to see the sources listed by this book, especially because your observations indicate to me this might only be scholarly by association.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- The OP contains quotes from the linked articles, and the "he" is mentioned in the article. The absence of the "he" is distracting here, but it is not relevant to the point since the report mainly concerns Ibn al-Baitar, and the use of the source to support the quoted text. I have not looked at the source, but I agree with the suggestion in the OP that a document with that title clearly has an agenda that is not compatible with its use as a reliable source. I looked at the history of Materia medica (which is on this Jagged cleanup page), and it was a Jagged edit that added the text quoted above. That pretty well automatically disqualifies the statement and the source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks John. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
- I'll also go with a "no" as it being a RS. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks John. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
- (ec)
- "He" is Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati
- A little more digging has shown that these are indeed User:Jagged 85's work, dating back to 2008. (See WP:Jagged 85 cleanup for more details.) All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
- By the way, I have a heap of files on my computer from a couple of years ago when I tried to do an analysis of Jagged's edits. If you are ever wondering about something, you could try asking because it is a lot easier to search local files than search Wikipedia. For anyone who may be unfamiliar with the history, there was a quite amusing sequel—several editors with a history-of-science interest tried to remove Jagged but could only get a voluntary withdrawal from the topic. However, after moving to gaming articles and apparently wreaking similar havoc there, the uproar from the gamers quickly led to an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- That is amusing, currently my wiki-life is under threat by a smurf and Game of Thrones editor - I suppose that's a dangerous combination. I tried to look at some of Jagged's edits recently but I have lost 2 years over wiki-drama and they are very much more obscured now than then. I did find unattributed copies of his boosterism articles on another wiki. Also internal copying of bad material is quite common, which is very tricky. I was contemplating a serious systematic attack on his edits, but I doubt I'll have time for that for a while. If you would care to email me anything you think might be useful, I will archive it until such a day comes. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC).
- The OP contains quotes from the linked articles, and the "he" is mentioned in the article. The absence of the "he" is distracting here, but it is not relevant to the point since the report mainly concerns Ibn al-Baitar, and the use of the source to support the quoted text. I have not looked at the source, but I agree with the suggestion in the OP that a document with that title clearly has an agenda that is not compatible with its use as a reliable source. I looked at the history of Materia medica (which is on this Jagged cleanup page), and it was a Jagged edit that added the text quoted above. That pretty well automatically disqualifies the statement and the source. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Aol reliable?
This one: http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/09/we-dont-need-no-education-meet-the-millionaire-dropouts/
Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Looks reasonable. What concerns did you have? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just needed to check to see if this is reliable to use in TerraCycle. Bananasoldier (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad by Lesley Hazleton
Hi,
Looking at Islam-related articles I see a plethora of original research and polemic opinions and lack of neutral views. I ran into this book by Lesley Hazleton and was wondering if I could use it in the articles related to early Islamic history. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, depends on the claim I guess, but regarding most for which I'd imagine it'd be used, it's probably not reliable. It's a popular biography by a non-expert in a field with a good number of experts. It does not seem to have any scholarly reviews either, which could otherwise be used to establish it as reputable. I'd imagine though that most of her claims could be sourced to some other reliable source, because it does seem like a honest attempt at a popular biography from a capable author. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into my queryUser:Atethnekos. Just wanted to let you know that I was able to find a review of this book by a professor here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link User:Kazemita1; I didn't see that one in my search. Berkey is an obvious expert, so this review is very useful for seeing the reception of the book. The review is definitely mixed. The negative aspect is that he says she used a "considerable, and sometimes unsettling, degree of imaginative license" in order to fill in details which are not in the pre-modern sources, which suggests that the book does not reach the level of serious scholarship. He does say though that "most readers will still appreciate and benefit from the portrait of the Muslim prophet provided in this book" which suggests that the book is generally reliable. I'm not sure what to think. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into my queryUser:Atethnekos. Just wanted to let you know that I was able to find a review of this book by a professor here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sustainable Life Media, Inc.
Hi! Is this online source reliable as a news source? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, also, are Earth911.com and treehugger.com reliable? Thanks. Bananasoldier (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Um -- do you really think a site selling stuff or services is RS for claims about much? Earth911 specifically has an "advertorial department" which ruins it as a source. Treehugger.com is more problematic - it says it has news, but is mainly a blog produced by people who do not appear to be professional journalists at all, other than its food and fashion editor. Its Managing Editor has been an architect, developer, inventor and prefab promoter. None of which seems to grant him an expectation of expertise other than in "promotion." Sorry. Collect (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Short answer is no. --Precision123 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
General question about (eg) court documents
A new editor is considering the use of, for example, court documents as references in an article. These documents, not restricted to those from a court, but 'official' papers, are to be used as references in an article. They are what one might term "Official Papers."
I am unsure whether these documents form primary sources or reliable sources, or, indeed, whether their status would vary from article to article. I am aware that some may be of the calibre of Witness Statements, which, by their very nature, are flawed except to show the contents of the witness statement. Others may be the formal submission of evidence.
Please would experienced editors look at this class of reference in its broadest sense or point me at the right place to look if the discussion has been held and documented previously?
I am inviting the new editor to come here to join in with any discussion. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Court documents in general are considered WP:PRIMARY. I would be very reluctant to cite a witness statement or evidence submission. If the contents haven't been reported in reliable, secondary sources then you're likely to be running into a problem of WP:UNDUE weight (and if they are reported, you don't need to cite the primary sources). That said, the more specific you are with your request, the better advice you'll get here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. This is what I suspected (both the answer and the 'please be specific' issue). That is why I have invited the new editor to participate. I have only the most general idea of what he wishes to use as references, and I don;t want him to run headlong into a brick wall. Fiddle Faddle 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. This topic is in reference to a murder case and the court case surrounding it; the material for which court documents would be referenced would discuss the presence or absence of certain points in the court case. The topic discusses the media's skewed interpretation of these points, and thus the most useful sources are the primary material which discusses this or the trade nonfiction book which is the topic of concern. In this case, would it be preferable to cite the book as a secondary source reiterating the information in the case or the documents from the court case itself, which are mentioned but not cited by page number in the book? Or is it instead necessary to omit any objective information of this sort and rely only on the media's responses in the book, of which there is an almost cyclical pattern of sources which attempt to refute the book and then sources which attempt to refute those refutations because they inaccurately present the content of the book? DevinDarkness (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article is not the place to make original arguments about a court case. A book that is considered to be a reliable source otherwise can be cited but should not be given undue weight if it disagrees with other reliable sources. If it can be considered a fringe or thoroughly discredited view it probably shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. The article should repeat the arguments of reliable sources. If most sources we generally regard as reliable don't think much of the book's arguments, then you'd need a very, very good argument to ignore them. We generally wouldn't consider the legal interpretation of primary documents from a single anonymous Wikipedia editor, or an interpretation considered an unpopular fringe view, to be given primary weight in an article. And if no one's going to mention what article this is for, then nobody's going to get any more specific opinion here. How are other editor's supposed to judge your claim that all other media are wrong and non-objective, and this unnamed book has the real scoop? Name the book, article, or theory or you are wasting people's time.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Particularly with court documents, you must be extremely careful. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. It is always best to use secondary sources. It's very easy to get into original research or (particularly) synthesis with court docs. If you're trying to use court docs to compare with media statements, you're getting into synthesis. You must find secondary sources that do comparisons and draw conclusions. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The Glottolog website as reliable source on Meroitic or Rilly's assessment of Meroitic
1- Source: http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mero1237 2- Article: Meroitic language 3- Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meroitic_language&diff=601316645&oldid=597844831
Hi, it has come to my attention that one user kwami added the glottolog website opinion on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. But glottolog is not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic. I tried to reverse the edit made by kwami but my edit was undone by kwami. When I tried to ask for proof and reference demonstrating the glottolog website is a reliable source on Meroitic, I was responsed with "sure it is" and "the rest of us disagree" without such proof and references ever demonstrated.
Let's recall the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline stating "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.". There's no doubt in my mind that the glottolog website can't be considered a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic as it is referenced by no other source beside User:Kwamikagami and Wikipedia.
I read some academic works on Meroitic and none of them mention the glottolog website. I did a google book search on glottolog and didn't see any works using glottolog as content source at all in general, much less about Meroitic and Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. In fact, I never heard of glottolog before kwami created a wikipedia article about it on the 17 of Mars 2014 and proceed to link (almost plugging) the glottolog website in many Wikipedia articles.
My main contentious is that the glottolog website is not used as a reference on Meroitic or Rily's assesment of Meroitic by any source beside kwami and now Wikipedia. So the glottolog's website point of view on Meroitic shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia page. It's not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Rily's assessment of Meroitic. Thank you for reading me. DrLewisphd (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Stack Overflow a reliable source for an algorithm?
Over a period of years, various algorithms to determine whether a year in the Gregorian calendar is a leap year have been added to Leap year and repeatedly disputed my many editors. User Kriceslo claims that an algorithm the editor wrote is from a reliable source because the editor had previously posted it to Stack Overflow. I contend that while Stack Overflow may offer useful suggestions to programmers with the expertise to evaluate which posts are correct and which are erroneous, for Wikipedia purposes it is user-generated content, self-published, and the authors are not demonstrably experts in their respective fields (which means, for Wikipedia purposes, having published in reliable, non-self-published, sources in the relevant field). I think in this case, because of the frequent disputes, the source be obviously reliable to nearly any reader who comes along.
The talk page discussion is at Talk:Leap year#Demand reliable algorithm source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- REBUTTAL: Thanks Jc3s5h, however, I dispute the above position on three major bases: First, the supposed "algorithm" is not computer code at all and has been so overwhelmingly simplified into plain text that it only differs from the textual description of leap year determination (posted in the Gregorian calendar section) by virtue of not being in grammatically correct sentence form. Second, I content Stack Overflow is, in fact, a demonstrably expert source by way of its own massive success in the programming community. I have received advice numerous times from not only book authors, but also the actual architects of a computer language. A post such as mine--which has received a high rating from other users--would simply not receive such a rating if it were in any way faulty. Bad posts do exist on Stack Overflow, however they do not survive the rating system. Third, I have cited 'obviously reliable' sources (currently on the talk page) which only require the most simple of critical analyses to show that my posted 'algorithm' is the same used by the National Institute of Standards and Time and by the open-sourced Linux operating system kernel. In fact, the 'algorithm' really isn't mine at all, as it is found all over the Internet in similar and exact form. In closing, I believe it important for Wikipedia to provide and defend a computer leap year algorithm as it is a very commonly encountered programming problem. Many novices and experts turn to Wikipedia (due to its search rankings) and implement the algorithm for leap year. This is attested to by numerous "leap year" web posts from programmers who cite Wikipedia. Thank you. Kriceslo (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Stack Overflow is user-generated content. The user rankings are not equivalent to peer review (these are likely not experts who have reviewed the solution, but users who find the solution useful). Thus, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source. You might want to considered citing NTP instead. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the NTP source is appropriate for two reasons:
- It contains the statement "We deal in a 4 year cycle starting at March 1, 1900". It requires expertise to figure out if the algorithm applies before that date.
- It requires expertise to translate the algorithm into pseudo code, which ought to be independent of any particular programming language. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the NTP source is appropriate for two reasons:
Ok, how about this:
For civil use (as opposed to ecclesiastical use), leap years are calculated as follows:
Every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400. [1]
- ^ Seidelmann, P. Kenneth, ed. (2006). Explanatory Supplement to the Astronomical Almanac. University Science Books. p. 580. ISBN 978-1891389450.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's equivalent to what it says in the "Gregorian calendar" section, which also has similar sources. The problem is that there has been a constant stream of changes and challenges, despite what it says in the "Gregorian calendar" section, so I don't think that citation will stop further problems. Non-experts (and sometimes experts) have a hard time translating requirements from English to source code (or even pseudo code). Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Trying to nail down a source for a "definitive algorithm" is probably unnecessary. What needs to be sourced (and is already sourced) is the definition of the Gregorian leap year. The translation from this to pseudo-code is not hard, and the version currently displayed is correct, transparent, and reasonably efficient. (I agree with Jc3s5h that the algorithm section needs a bit more documentation.) It wouldn't hurt to reference actual code, but the version displayed in the article need not be identical, as the source would likely be tied to a specific programming language and might require additional explanation or interpretation. I do not regard Jc3s5h's complaint as a problem: yes, the article is often edited by well-meaning but misguided editors; but it is always corrected in relatively short order. This is no different from countless WP articles, and as we all know, even a sterling source will not forestall this. If Jc3s5h is primarily concerned about the authority of the correction, it would suffice to add an HTML comment to the algorithm indicating that it is the result of consensus on the talk page and that suggested changes should be discussed there first. -- Elphion (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment A good many RS authors post on SO. Of course you would need to establish their bona fides before using the source.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, Stack Overflow is user-generated content, not subject to formal peer review (upvoting doesn't count), so it's not a reliable source for this algorithm (which I may nevertheless swipe myself next time I need to check leap years).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Corexit (Rico-Martinez et. al., and synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersants)
We have a disagreement over at Talk:Corexit on the use of sources that we feel warrants outside opinions. We already have article content on a study by Rico-Martinez et. al. that asserts that adding Corexit makes oil 52 times more toxic than the oil was alone. This result has been criticized in various places by scientific community due to perceived methodological shortcomings (some of the rebuttals are written by scientists with a potential COI). Two of us would like to add this additional information to put Rico-Martinez into context. The use of these sources is opposed by others on the grounds that use of multiple sources in showing that would be WP:SYNTH, picking one idea from one place, another idea, and adding them together to create a third conclusion not found in any source. I don't think that's the case. I think Rico-Martinez is somewhat disputable and that Corexit didn't necessarily create synergistic toxicity.
The sources we'd like to use are:
(I believe this might be secondary, because it's a rebuttal of one paper by another group one step removed) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113000705
(I believe this is secondary because it's a review of the existing literature on the topic) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2501/full
Media coverage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm
Media coverage: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-oil-dispersants-marine-life.html
I'm hoping someone will better flesh out the opposing view. Geogene (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand all the issues here. But my first thought is that the purpose of the secondary reference rule is to show some degree of mainstream acceptance of an idea. Since this is a hotly controversial subject, neither side can be considered "fringe". So it seems unsportsmanlike to take a legalistic position on the secondary source rule to keep out opposing POVs. Nor does it serve the interests of our readers.
- In any case, I'd avoid any general statements about trans-species toxicity on the basis of the Rico-martinez paper. Its behind a paywall, but the study seems restricted to rotifer egg hatching. Is the population of rotifers known to be hatch-limited? Or is it usually limited by predation or competition for food? Can one draw any conclusions from the paper other than that the dispersants "might" affect rotifer populations without engaging in OR? The EPA says that the combination of Corexit-oil is not more toxic than oil alone in the species they looked at. Large interspecies differences in toxicty are commonplace. In fact, there are large interspecies differences in toxicity of pesticides to different rotifer species, as demonstrated by "Effects of an Insect Growth Regulator on Plankton and Gambusia Affinis", Aquatic Toxicology, 4 (1983), 247-269. Strictly speaking, the direct conclusions of the Rico-Martinez paper cannot be used to show toxicity to any species not tested, even other rotifer species.
- Since all are living in a glass house, it seems to me that compromise is in order.Formerly 98 (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll add my two cents, as I'm the other at Talk:Corexit trying to include criticism of the Rico-Martinez study.
There are four sources in discussion:
- 1) Rico-Martínez et al., toxicology study (cited in Wiki article)[23]
- 2) Coelho et al., commentary article[24]
- 3) Bejarano et al., review article (proposed for inclusion, with stated conflict of interest)[25]
- Secondary coverage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm
- 4) Hodson et al., toxicology study (proposed for inclusion)[26]
1) A toxicology study by Rico-Martínez et al.[27] claiming that Corexit made oil 52x more toxic to rotifers (which GA Tech's media center turned into just 52x more toxic[28]) was widely publicized in 2013. It is cited in oil dispersants and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the lead paragraph of the latter. The study by Rico-Martínez was published in Environmental Pollution journal.
2) In that same journal, a commentary by Coelho, Clark, and Aurand[29] was published later in 2013 that criticized the study. From the abstract of this commentary:
"The 2013 Rico-Martínez et al. publication utilized laboratory testing approaches that severely limit our ability to reliably extrapolate such results to meaningful real-world assessments....Further, they drew real-world conclusions from static exposure tests without reporting actual exposure concentrations."
It was pointed out that Coelho, Clark, and Aurand work for HDR Ecosystem Management, a consulting firm that has worked for BP, Chevron, ExxonMobile, NOAA, EPA, the UN, and more, suggesting possible conflict of interest of Coelho. Furthermore, I agree that to use it to criticize Rico-Martínez et al. could be WP:SYNTH, as they don't obviously criticize Rico-Martínez; they just say their data isn't very useful, and they identify that Rico-Martínez et al. didn't report exposure concentrations. I'm sharing this as context.
3) A review article was written by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho (same Clark and Coelho as 2). Again, there is conflict of interest, as Bejarano is another environmental consultant and adjunct faculty at the University of New Hampshire.
"Many believe that dispersants make oil more toxic, when in reality existing data generally do not support these claims."
In their paper, they reviewed a lot of studies which compared toxicity of Corexit-dispersed oil to toxicity of just oil:[30]
"The present review of the toxicity of oil ... that had been chemically dispersed with Corexit 9527 or Corexit 9500 (CEWAF), and oil physically or mechanically dispersed (water accommodated fraction [WAF]), reveals large discrepancies between studies reporting measured versus nominal aqueous exposure concentrations (329 WAF-CEWAF paired-data for individual species from 36 independent studies..."
"Most studies with reported measured concentrations (78% of paired-data) had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF values (lower or equal toxicity). .... By contrast, 93% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.2 and greater than 1000-fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values"
This is an important finding. Re-writing this in a simpler way for the Wikipedia article, I would like to include:
In the review of Bejarano et al., of studies that reported nominal concentrations, 93% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity; whereas of studies that reported measured concentrations, only 22% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity.
I do agree it would be WP:SYNTH to use this review to criticize Rico-Martínez directly. However, without synthesis, it makes a strong claim about synergistic toxicity between Corexit and oil - that it's probably an artifact of poor methodology. I think something like the italicized should be included in the article, along with acknowledgement of possible conflict of interest.
4) Finally, a recent study without any obvious conflict of interest, written by Canadian scientists at Queen's University.
"The chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 may not be as harmful to fish as first thought, says new research from Queen’s professor Peter Hodson and his team of researchers."
"The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity," says Dr. Hodson.[31]
Use of this article was downplayed on two fronts: 1) Dr. Hodson says "could be", and 2) the university page only says "dispersant" and not "Corexit". First, I think it's clear the "could be" means "was" (i.e. they did attribute it). Use of "could be" in this way is common in scientific dialect. Second, I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to identify the "chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" as Corexit. At this point, it's pretty clear.
In case there's any doubt about the "could be", Dr. Hodson's meaning can be verified from his own article: "Contrary to Rico-Martínez et al. [6], neither experiment in the present study was consistent with synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersant in dispersed oil mixtures. Rather, the dispersant in the mixture increased the exposure of embryos to hydrocarbons, without changing or contributing to their toxicity." [32]
I think a reasonable addition is Canadian scientists at Queen's University found that Corexit increased exposure concentration of oil, but did not increase its toxicity.
Kjhuston (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- For what its worth, I think the level of uncertainty here is pretty high, and the debate may reflect a greater interest in the particulars on the part of the editors than the average reader. My suggestion would be: "It is unclear whether the toxicity of Corexit-petroleum mixtures is greater than that of petroleum alone" followed by a few footnotes supporting each side of the debate. Ecosystems are way too complicated to be understood in terms of experiments performed in aquaria. The risk that the mixture is overall worse for the environment is credible, but unproven. At least that's how I see it. Its an important issue, but nobody really knows the answer at this point. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, fwiw, I have a response from someone working on this issue, but who is too busy to take part in Wikipedia, so I'm copying here: "Essentially the treated crude is a new animal from a chemical standpoint. One of the initial observations I made when quickly reviewing the data showed the concentration factor may be closer to -10X instead of +52X, but that is for chemical concentration versus toxicity to the biomass. Again, the problem of understanding that concentration versus toxicity is created by comparing two dissimilar characteristics.
- The problem of comparisons between chemical concentration and toxicity is based on a lack of understanding of what toxicity is all about. The perfect example is the toxicity testing required by the EPA for a chemical dispersant to be listed on the NCP Approved Vendor/Product list. It uses a baseline for invertebrate and vertebrate species of small shrimp and minnows. This allows an apples to apples comparison of relative toxicity levels, but does not indicate toxicity levels that would affect humans or more complex vertebrates in the water column like large predatory fish. At lower levels of the food chain where less complex animals are affected more readily by changes in environment from anthropogenic inputs, the affect of chemicals of all sorts tend to create similar levels of toxicity with respect to concentration in the habitat of choice for those organisms." More to come, as I have asked others to weigh in. petrarchan47tc 18:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Primary sources should rarely be used. Secondary sources are needed to establish their WP:WEIGHT. The review study by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho seems fine. Conflict of interest is a problem that the publication is supposed to determine. If they think contributors are likely to falsify information for financial benefit, they are unlikely to publish them. And if they have any sort of review process they are likely to catch it before publication. And the Queen's study is a primary source. TFD (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the Queen's study is a primary source, and its press release is not a meaningful secondary source. I do question whether a run through the science news cycle [33] and repeating of the primary source's claim by news articles is proof of validity over another study. The process seems fairly arbitrary, except that more extraordinary claims are likely to attract more news attention faster. I think the Rico-Martínez study is given undue weight by its placement in the lead paragraph of Corexit, but I'm more interested in inclusion of opposing POV in the large Corexit toxicity section that has amassed. Speaking of which, I don't understand why what's supposed to be an informative NPOV section on toxicity has a paragraph in isolation:
- "During a Senate hearing on the use of dispersants, Senator Lisa Murkowski asked EPA administrator Lisa P. Jackson whether Corexit use should be banned, stating she didn't want dispersants to be 'the Agent Orange of this oil spill'."
- It doesn't seem to have much information content to me, unless we're talking about fears of toxicity rather than toxicity itself. Kjhuston (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- PS Sorry, I got off-topic on that last bit. Forgot we're in reliable sources. Kjhuston (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the Queen's study is a primary source, and its press release is not a meaningful secondary source. I do question whether a run through the science news cycle [33] and repeating of the primary source's claim by news articles is proof of validity over another study. The process seems fairly arbitrary, except that more extraordinary claims are likely to attract more news attention faster. I think the Rico-Martínez study is given undue weight by its placement in the lead paragraph of Corexit, but I'm more interested in inclusion of opposing POV in the large Corexit toxicity section that has amassed. Speaking of which, I don't understand why what's supposed to be an informative NPOV section on toxicity has a paragraph in isolation:
One of the folks over at the Fringe NB said the article might should have a look at it from the NPOV board, because it was kind of weird. But as far as how we can use sources, and since we're talking about Rico-Martinez, we have:
"In 2012, a study found that Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic than oil alone,[5][6][7] and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bio-available to plankton.[8] The Georgia Institute of Technology found that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.[9]"
This is how Rico-Martinez is presented in the article's lead. (We mention it twice, actually, in consecutive sentences.) My mention of plankton was a major compromise that went through a number of bold:revert cycles. There were accusations of greenwashing and sugar-coating just to get to this point. But it's still misleading as we have it, don't you think? Geogene (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] :::We generally don't second guess why so many reliable sources cover a particular study, we simply try to reflect this coverage in our articles. The study is mentioned by Susan D. Shaw here. Again on the Australian 60 Minutes' coverage of Corexit here, and as has been expressed, in many news articles. In general, the idea of increased toxicity by the combination of oil and Corexit has been discussed by scientists from EPA's Hugh Kaufman to Wilma Subra, to Riki Ott. This finding is not fringe by any stretch. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Geogene, it is preferred to stick with the wording as summarized by RS, and they all state the same thing, which is what was added to the article originally. When it was changed it became too technical for general readers to understand and did not make the results of the study more clear. The body is a better place to add details of the study, which was that plankton was used in the tests. The change deviated from the title and subtitle of the study [later edit: and by this, I meant review - my mistake], and from what RS said about the study, in such a way that 'whitewashing' seemed the only motive. It came on the heels of a months' worth of similar POV editing to BP oil spill articles which has been very disruptive. The study is in the Lede because it truly is the most widely cited Corexit study to date, as there is notoriously little research on the dispersant and dispersed oil. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The secondary review of the study to is titled Gulf of Mexico Clean-Up Makes 2010 Spill 52-Times More Toxic with the subtitle Study shows mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to Gulf’s ecosystems.
- Your change was to In 2012, a study found that Corexit's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bioavailable to planktonic animals, increasing their toxicity to plankton by up to 52 times. The longstanding version read "In 2012, a study found that Corexit increases the toxicity of oil by 52 times.", so as to stay as close to the source material as possible, understandable to laypersons, and to keep it concise for the Lede. petrarchan47tc 01:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's the title of Georgia Tech's press release, which is unfortunately the reason we now have a sentence in the Wiki article:
- The Georgia Institute of Technology found that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.
- Do we really want to say Georgia Tech found that adding Corexit to oil made the oil spill worse, and they figured this out based on a single experiment in a lab? Forget all those oceanographers out in the field, studying the effect of dispersed oil on the marine ecosystem. Forget all the complexity and uncertainty involved in assessing effects on the marine environment. Georgia Tech decided adding dispersant made the oil spill worse. We can shut down all the research now - our environmental policy questions are solved. I don't think we want that.
- The study is titled "Synergistic toxicity of Macondo crude oil and dispersant Corexit 9500A® to the Brachionus plicatilis species complex (Rotifera)" [34].
- But anyway, we may want to discuss a bigger question (not on this noticeboard), which is whether we want the Corexit article to be a hodgepodge of toxicity studies, claims and counter-claims, or if we want the more general conclusion that it is difficult to assess the damage of dispersing oil to marine environments, particularly in deep water, studies are ongoing, and that some have claimed the EPA didn't have sufficient information to decide whether dispersing oil had a net benefit over not dispersing. Kjhuston (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Both. WP articles are generally a bit of hodgepodge, as the encyclopedia is meant to chronicle information. But the claim that a "general conclusion is difficult to assess" has RS backing it up, so it should be included as well. The issue of WP:WEIGHT is an important to look at as you learn the ropes of building a neutral article based on WP's guidelines. To argue that Georgia Tech got it wrong, besides being WP:OR, is quite fruitless given the rules here. petrarchan47tc 07:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I haven't followed this as closely as some. But there was an EPA study that reached the opposite conclusion. Are we then arguing that "The EPA got it Wrong"? What was the basis for concluding that the EPA is wrong and "Georgia Tech" (I doubt the entire university was involved in this study) is right? Thanks!Formerly 98 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The EPA may not be the most reliable source when it comes to BP oil spill science. They also lied during the 911 tragedy telling workers there was nothing harmful in the air during cleanup. They've done a similar thing during the gulf crisis, although I'm not arguing we shouldn't include their findings, but an awareness of the facts is imperative. Here is one example, and I left a list here.
- For instance, whistleblower and current employee of the EPA, Hugh Kaufman: MSNBC video of interview "Some of the toxicologists who have experience and education, were trying to get [EPA] management to pay attention to the data that EPA had and has had for decades, but to no avail. 'There was a political decision made to let BP take the lead as opposed to the government being proactive'. He alleges that his agency (he was one of the founders) has known all along how toxic Corexit is, and that the EPA lied about it. He also says that the EPA has known that the toxicity is increased when oil and Corexit are combined. petrarchan47tc 19:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I haven't followed this as closely as some. But there was an EPA study that reached the opposite conclusion. Are we then arguing that "The EPA got it Wrong"? What was the basis for concluding that the EPA is wrong and "Georgia Tech" (I doubt the entire university was involved in this study) is right? Thanks!Formerly 98 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The "52 times study" (Rico-Martinez) is in effect arguing that the EPA's toxicity studies are "wrong" in the sense that they underestimated the combined effect of oil + Corexit on small organisms, using rotifers as a model animal. From what I gather, by breaking the oil into smaller droplets, you get more surface area, there more exposure of oil to planktonic organisms. Rotifers were the model animal but I think what they're really getting at is "plankton", and some of the better media coverage emphasizes that, the article tends to de-emphasize that we're talking about plankton and emphasizes vague "damaged ecosystems" and "made the oil spill worse". Note that I may have misused the term "synergistic toxicity" at the top and this may be causing some confusion. Geogene (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Compromise OK, as my last comment on this, I'd going to say that it seems pretty clear that 1) there is a lot of controversy regarding the overall beneficial vs. negative effect of applying dispersants, and 2) this controversy exists because aquariums are woefully inadequate models for actual ecosystems. (WP:OR doesn't mean we have to assasinate our brains SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. Good essay here WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not just any synthesis Therefore the article should reflect the uncertainty among experts on the larger point of whether the use of dispersants is overall harmful or helpful. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- So as with any article, we include all relevant opinions, findings and sides. We have studies on both sides and they will continue to be offered to the reader. We came here to see whether the Coelho opinion was RS, and it passes. We can't however use that piece to throw out the study, which has been attempted. Now the argument at the talk page is that since we just don't know yet whether dispersants hurt or helped, we should only say that and not offer the reader a look at the various findings to date. I believe this line of reasoning goes beyond "what is RS"? and verges heavily into agenda territory. petrarchan47tc 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'm going to retract my statement about not saying anymore about this and suggest that you carefully review WP:GF. I think it would be good to consider the idea that when people continue to try to deal with you in a constructive manner after you insult them and question their motives, its not because they find you less frustrating than you find them, but because they are behaving more graciously. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Office of Management and Budget
Is the Office of Management and Budget a reliable source on it's own analysis of federal budget proposals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ryan&oldid=603620005&diff=prev
Hcobb (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The link is to a clearly partisan editorial, and is not a statistical analysis from OMB usable as such, nor is it a report created by the OMB.
- Clues are: House Republicans today released a budget resolution for fiscal year (FY) 2015 that would harm the economy, seniors, the middle class, and those most in need, while not using any savings from ending inefficient tax breaks to help reduce the nation’s deficits. The proposal stands in stark contrast to the President’s FY 2015 Budget, which would accelerate economic growth and expand opportunity for all Americans, while continuing to improve the nation’s long-term fiscal outlook.
- Which rather implies the author is directly supportive of the President in a partisan issue, which is not surprising as the article is not a report from the OMB but an editorial piece by its Director, who is a political appointee. No more useful for "facts" than a speech by Boehner, or Ross Perot. But citable as her "opinion" cited as opinion. Collect (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- The cited material said, "The OMB found that Ryan's 2014 budget proposal would increase taxes on middle class families by an average of $2000, while cutting taxes for the richest Americans." So, it was properly cited as an opinion from the OMB and it should not have been reverted. Furthermore, the opinion that Ryan's budget would squeeze the middle class further and give the wealthy yet another tax break that they don't need is hardly controversial. It's the cornerstone of his entire platform. CFredkin's revert with the edit summary "political press release from WH is not reliable either" has jumped the shark...along with the rest of the Republicans. Facts are not funny things. The source and original quote added by Hcobb is perfectly acceptable and was attributed properly in the first place; it is neither controversial nor unusual. There is an underlying reality here, and others are welcome to join it. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's reliable if expressed as partisan opinion, as the OMB has been a mouthpiece for administrations going back to Nixon. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source?
I see the North Borneo dispute and Sultanate of Sulu articles use this source. Seems like a self published website when I see the website page icon on my browser. Any opinion about this website? Should we remove it from the article? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
LA Weekly?
Reliability check for this one, please. Thanks! :) Bananasoldier (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is a blog. It reads much like a press release. What is it being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sigh. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG. The source and author are reliable. Emily Dwass is a notable food journalist who writes for the LA Weekly and other publications, such as the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks! :) Bananasoldier (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Are government sources RS with regard to issues about government?
Are government sources considered reliable sources regarding issues of government over their own country? At issue is whether the Russian government is a reliable source about whether Crimea and Stevastapol are considered federal subjects of Russia. Specific edit in question is here. Source in question is http://kremlin.ru/news/20605. See Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects for context. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is somewhat dependent on the specific situation, but in general, I'd say a government source is generally good information concerning that government's position on the issue discussed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- In this specific situation, the information in the source is not about their own country. It's a primary source from a government responsible for military occupation of a foreign country. There are no secondary sources that support the claim being made by the occupying government, because there's an international dispute. USchick (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- How does that refute that it's that government's position as to the issue? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- In this specific situation, the information in the source is not about their own country. It's a primary source from a government responsible for military occupation of a foreign country. There are no secondary sources that support the claim being made by the occupying government, because there's an international dispute. USchick (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Sources for pronunciation of a composer's name
There is an ongoing dispute over the pronunciation of Aram Khachaturian's name in English.
At least four sources use "AH-rahm KAH-chah-TOOR-yahn" as the pronunciation of his name:
- The Well-tempered Announcer: A Pronunciation Guide to Classical Music (published by Indiana University Press) -- [35]
- Grolier Online (now part of Scholastic Corporation)[36]
- Greene's Biographical Encyclopedia of Composers[37]
- NPR[[38]
Are these sources reliable? At least two of them (Well-tempered & Grolier) are academic.
Question: Is the pronunciation used by these sources notable/significant/relevant enough to be included in the article alongside the (apparently more common) pronunciation used by generic dictionaries? --Երևանցի talk 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Non-professional YouTube videos as sources, when linked to from professional websites
I'm interested in using this YouTube video [39] of a local singing competition, to state that Scotty McCreery's parents had him take sixth months of piano, before letting him learn guitar (discussed in the introductory remarks from around 0:42 to 0:52). I'm not sure who took the video - it could have just been someone in the audience or it could have been someone involved with the event. This seems to be the only place that the video is available online, so it might be fair to assume that it was taken by the same person that uploaded it. However, I'm not sure what to make of the characters in the top left corner.
The information presented in this video is clearly accurate, since McCreery himself appears in the video. However, since it was simply uploaded onto a personal account, by someone who doesn't seem have any established credibility, I'm not sure that the video would be acceptable as a reference under normal circumstances. However, there's one thing that makes me think that it might be okay - the video was linked to from the town government's official website [40] (Second paragraph - "Here he is on the stage of the Clayton Center").
What's the typical policy on using these types of videos, and how is the video's reliability effected (if at all) by it being linked to by an official website? --Jpcase (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- The policy is that such videos are not "secondary reliable sources", and a "town website" is unlikely to meet the RS criteria for any claims not specific to the town government -- we do not use them for history etc. in articles. Collect (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dispute as to who Sheb Wooleys Children
Sheb Wooleys Wikipedia says that he had two daughters ; when in fact he had ONE LEGALLY ADOPTED daughter Christi Lynn Wooley who was his ONLY CHILD and a step daughter ( never legally adopted) Shauna Dotson . Wikipedia states that Sheb had two daughters ; when in fact he had one legal daughter and one step daughter