Mario Castelán Castro (talk | contribs) →Pegging: new section |
|||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
:::You're swinging from "it's not a reliable source" to "the thing being sourced shouldn't be there" which isn't what this noticeboard is for. [[User:Herr Gruber|Herr Gruber]] ([[User talk:Herr Gruber|talk]]) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
:::You're swinging from "it's not a reliable source" to "the thing being sourced shouldn't be there" which isn't what this noticeboard is for. [[User:Herr Gruber|Herr Gruber]] ([[User talk:Herr Gruber|talk]]) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
::::*No, I never changed. This isn't a reliable source. I simply addressed the editors questions. Nice try though. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
::::*No, I never changed. This isn't a reliable source. I simply addressed the editors questions. Nice try though. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::::::There is a lot of push-back on firearms articles about using sources that aren't highly reliable. In fact, even scholarly mainstream journlaistic sources are being rejected as insufficently accurate. So letting in an unsigned commerical website seems like we'd be loweeing our standards. They don't have the hallmarks of reliability - no obvious editorial policy, no identified contributors, no reputation for accuracy. If we can't allow "Newsweek" as a source, I don't see how we can alow "Frontier Tactical". Further, this information seems hightly trivial. Here's one of the typical entries: |
|||
:::::::{{quote|''6.5 WOA: This cartridge has not been tested with the War Lock™. We have not found enough currently available components to support the common use of this cartridge through the AR-15 platform. Use of this caliber would likely require significant effort and education for the enthusiast wanting this option.}} |
|||
:::::::Something fishy is going on if we include this but can't include notorious uses of the firearm that are reported in the most reliable sources available. [[User:Felsic2|Felsic2]] ([[User talk:Felsic2|talk]]) 18:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Daily Mail / Mirror use as sources on [[Battle of Fallujah]] == |
== Daily Mail / Mirror use as sources on [[Battle of Fallujah]] == |
Revision as of 18:08, 9 July 2016
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context! | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
worldofstadiums.com
A specific editor has been adding links to www.worldofstadiums.com to support facts about stadiums. I don't think it meets the criteria for RS as it does not list who the editors are, whether there is any oversight of the information. If it's found that this site is not a reliable source I would like to suggest that it be placed on a blacklist, such as the spam blacklist, so that it cannot be added, and a bot be commissioned to remove all existing links to the site. At the very least, could someone please indicate how I could find the links so I can remove them manually? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't look reliable to me, to me it looks like a fansite made by a few people using WordPress. The images are also taken from Wikipedia, albeit with correct attribution, e.g. [1], [2], [3], which suggests their information is probably just things they've found on the Internet. No evidence of how these database stats are calculated, as is needed to be a reliable source like Soccerway or CricketArchive for example. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Armenian source, not neutral.
Is this a reliable source? http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/cultural_genocide.php From the wikipedia page; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cultural_heritage_in_Turkey
It claims to speak in the name of "Unecso" and that many churches in Turkey were destroyed. However on the official Unesco it's never shown to be such kind of statement or claim.
- The source states that it was a 1974 UNESCO report. Find that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find the original 1974 UNESCO data, but I did find the same claim made in multiple sources. The most prominent would be this 2007 book by Robert Bevan, published by the University of Chicago Press. Here's the relevant passage:
A 1974 survey identified 913 remaining churches and monastic sites in Turkey in various conditions. At half of these sites the buildings had vanished utterly. Of the remainder, 252 were ruined. Just 197 survived in anything like a usable state.
Eidetic memory article
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Reliability of a review
I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss whether or not to include a review, but it is worth a shot. :) In Best Horror Movies reviews can either be written by staff, or they can be reader submitted. Reader submitted reviews do not undergo any vetting, but occasionally a reader review is selected to go on to the main site. In this case the reviewer was Christopher DuValle, who I can't find any other reviews by. The review was reader submitted, not by staff, he does not appear to be an expert, and the review was not included in the main list of reviews on the site. Should we be using this review? - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- This depends somewhat on context, but: if there's no vetting at all, I think this would be akin to user-generated or self-published material. It would be like citing the comments section of a news story.
- Most sites that let users post guest essays do subject those essays to some degree of editorial oversight (Huffington Post, for instance). If there is some vetting, there might be some case for using it as a primary source for a statement of a person's opinion, but then it's a matter of notability e.g. Alec Baldwin's essays for the Huffington Post might be considered a good source for Alec Baldwin's political views in the Alec Baldwin entry, but that's about it. Nblund (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, as best I can tell, the review is used to establish that the review of the film exists and to cite what the review says about the film. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- It remains self published and not by an established reviewer. We don't need it to establish that the video exists, and we have no cause to cite what the reviewer says about the film. - Bilby (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to have a little more detail on what review and what statement we're discussing here. Nblund (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The article is Jesse Waugh. The review is, as far as we know, the only review of a 25 minute Youtube video he produced, although due to a copyright claim that video is now muted on Youtube. I don't want to link directly to the review, because when I went to the site I had a warning about malicious cookies and a pop-behind was blocked by my ISP as containing a virus. The archive of the review is at: [4]. - Bilby (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It would be helpful to have a little more detail on what review and what statement we're discussing here. Nblund (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It remains self published and not by an established reviewer. We don't need it to establish that the video exists, and we have no cause to cite what the reviewer says about the film. - Bilby (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- In this case, as best I can tell, the review is used to establish that the review of the film exists and to cite what the review says about the film. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Right to exist quotes Renan and Hamlet but attributes the quotation to German Nazis
While The Guardian did indeed put We do this because Germany's right to exist is now a question of to be or not to be in quotation marks, it appears to be an original paraphrase that no one before The Guardian and no one since Wikipedia has attributed to the Nazi government. Can someone familiar with the topic check this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Korean gaming website, looking for Korean speakers to help out. --Prisencolin (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Frontier Tactical
I can't see this commercial being a reliable source. [5] It's a blog entry for a company that sells a product called a War Lock. It was being used a staggering 56 times [6] as a source in the article on the AR-15. Aside from Frontier Tactical not appearing to have any editorial oversight, the blog post is simply to sell the War Lock. Every mention of every round talks about how it relates to the War Lock product. Some of those entries even admit that they haven't tried it, but he parts should work. I probably wouldn't even notice if it were a one off source for some obscure caliber, but 56 times? Does anyone see this passing RS? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I used this as a reference for the fact that various chamberings for AR-pattern rifles exist, which I figured a company that makes multicalbre AR accessory kits would probably need to know. Sure, it's a page selling a particular system, but they don't gain anything by making up an enormous list of things their product doesn't do. The section in question is going to be rewritten anyway and this probably won't need it as a source when it is. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- They do gain from having their commercial spammed 56 times into a high profile article on Wikipedia. And having "nothing to gain" isn't one of the criteria for a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're implying that referencing is spamming. It's not. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to do the job of adequately proving that these things exist. That being said, I wouldn't mind a higher-quality source replacing it. However, I'm struggling to think of anywhere we might find a list of different chamberings that doesn't come from a company that profits from them. Is there any sort of AR-15 handbook, or maybe an article in a gun enthusiast magazine? The WordsmithTalk to me 16:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- You probably won't find a single source to cover all 56 because the vast majority of them are obscure, infrequently used novelties. Like I said, we don't list all the colors a car can be painted by every customizer out there. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're swinging from "it's not a reliable source" to "the thing being sourced shouldn't be there" which isn't what this noticeboard is for. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, I never changed. This isn't a reliable source. I simply addressed the editors questions. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- There is a lot of push-back on firearms articles about using sources that aren't highly reliable. In fact, even scholarly mainstream journlaistic sources are being rejected as insufficently accurate. So letting in an unsigned commerical website seems like we'd be loweeing our standards. They don't have the hallmarks of reliability - no obvious editorial policy, no identified contributors, no reputation for accuracy. If we can't allow "Newsweek" as a source, I don't see how we can alow "Frontier Tactical". Further, this information seems hightly trivial. Here's one of the typical entries:
6.5 WOA: This cartridge has not been tested with the War Lock™. We have not found enough currently available components to support the common use of this cartridge through the AR-15 platform. Use of this caliber would likely require significant effort and education for the enthusiast wanting this option.
- Something fishy is going on if we include this but can't include notorious uses of the firearm that are reported in the most reliable sources available. Felsic2 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- You're swinging from "it's not a reliable source" to "the thing being sourced shouldn't be there" which isn't what this noticeboard is for. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Daily Mail / Mirror use as sources on Battle of Fallujah
These outlets have a history of outrageous stories like this and this. A user advised another editor to post here in relation to this being used as a source for SAS involvement in the recent Battle of Fallujah, so I figured I'd beat them to it. Note how these outlets cite other tabloid outlets making the same unverified claims. This is a constant in these sources' coverage of the war against ISIS. Tabloid sources using anonymous/unclear sources and/or citing each other, detailing the utterly secret operations of elite special forces in a warzone. This reeks of war propaganda. Eik Corell (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Moved from Talk:AN Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is not a reliable source (for the simple reason that they often simply wildly exaggerate, take things ridiculously out of context or simply make stories up) and shouldn't ever be used to source anything more contentious than water being wet. The Mirror is a bit better but I'd still try to find something else. Laura Jamieson (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- No, no, a million times no. --John (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- And if the same story is reported on by a reliable source such as the International Business Times [7]? EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Then you can use the better source to verify it! But there is no place on an encyclopedia for these trash tabloids. --John (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- The IBTimes states that they picked it up off of a tabloid paper, but also that "The report is the latest in a long line of under-sourced and unattributed reports of dramatic killings of IS militants by coalition forces fighting IS. Each of the reports cite unnamed sources and cannot be independently verified by IBTimes UK.". I think that speaks for itself. Eik Corell (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- It speaks IBTimes couldn't confirm it themselves but at the same time doesn't deny it. Also, the source doesn't use the wording tabloid paper. Finally, the fact that IBTimes (a reliable source) thought the whole story was relevant enough to devote a whole article to it I think also speaks for itself. EkoGraf (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Factual claims (not the "headline claims") seem in order for those sources. The only area where the tabloids named really fail is in "celebrity gossip" where I do not trust even the New York Times. If you avoid the "headlines" you will find the actual stories are compliant with other sources, as a rule. Collect (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- While true, in this case the basic claims are of low verifiability. Which is what the stronger source (IBTimes) actually says - it directly attributes it to other tabloid stories then states that those stories lack attribution and sourcing. So there are really 3 options: 1.Dont include material. 2.Include material based on unreliable sourcing (Daily mail etc). 3.Include material based on the IBTimes which would *also* require us to state that it is basically sourced to tabloids and low quality - which functionally is the same as 1. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- And when you got even more sources [8][9][10] thinking the news is notable enough to be reported on? (Overall this brings the number to 6 media outlets reporting the story) At the very least this gives some level of verifiability to the main issue that is trying to be sourced in the article in question. And that is whether the SAS was active in Fallujah during the battle or not. Whether there was a kukri-wielding soldier decapitating people around isn't really the main point nor is it mentioned in the article. Hmmm, how about this, would it be an appropriate compromise to put, beside the SAS in the infobox, in brackets alleged? EkoGraf (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't really: none of these sources appear to have independently verified the story, and it's not unusual for unreliable sources to simply use other unreliable outlets as sources.
- The IBTimes ran a follow up story where they quote a military expert who says this sort of story is entirely speculative and unverifiable. Nblund (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- The expert in that source is talking about a totally different incident/story unrelated to what we are discussing here and doesn't even mention in any way the SAS Fallujah incident. So, again, I'm asking if it would be an appropriate compromise (taking into account 6 different media outlets found the story notable enough) to put alleged beside the SAS in the infobox? EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- My bad. But you can see why I would be confused: this an entirely different story about an SAS soldier in Fallujah, who, according to unnamed sources who spoke to the Daily Star, did something that sounds incredibly unlikely. Multiple outlets ran with it, despite the fact that it can't really be verified. I think the comment from the expert would apply here as well, given the similarities: it appears British tabloids seem to run some variation on this claim every few months without bothering to verify it, and (being tabloids) they don't really care if the story is true.
- You have six examples of other places (some aren't even news outlets) that repeated this claim, but they all attribute this story to the Daily Star. They don't add any veracity to the claim, because they didn't do anything other than repeat what someone else said. exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this is the opposite of that. Nblund talk 02:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- The expert in that source is talking about a totally different incident/story unrelated to what we are discussing here and doesn't even mention in any way the SAS Fallujah incident. So, again, I'm asking if it would be an appropriate compromise (taking into account 6 different media outlets found the story notable enough) to put alleged beside the SAS in the infobox? EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- And when you got even more sources [8][9][10] thinking the news is notable enough to be reported on? (Overall this brings the number to 6 media outlets reporting the story) At the very least this gives some level of verifiability to the main issue that is trying to be sourced in the article in question. And that is whether the SAS was active in Fallujah during the battle or not. Whether there was a kukri-wielding soldier decapitating people around isn't really the main point nor is it mentioned in the article. Hmmm, how about this, would it be an appropriate compromise to put, beside the SAS in the infobox, in brackets alleged? EkoGraf (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The Doe Network
I came across this website being used as a source on Robert Black (serial killer), which is a WP:BDP. It seems to be a voluntary organisation and I suspect therefore that it is not a very strong source. Opinions on this are sought by those with experience in this area. There is a wider discussion on sourcing at the article's talk page that could do with some input too. --John (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I can get a volunteer to look at Baloch Students Organization and evaluate it for RS issues? Balochistan is under heavy press censorship. So, not a lot of news comes out through mainstream news sources. I have had to use some liberal/rights groups sources, sometimes using multiple ones for corroboration. A review of the article with a critical eye to the sources would be helpful. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Pegging
Hello. In the following text, (meant for the article pegging (sexual practice)), are the sources included considered reliable to support the corresponding content?.
Advice columnist Dan Savage wrote that he believes all men should try pegging at least once, as it may introduce them to a new enjoyable sexual activity and illuminate them to the receiver's perspective in sex.[1] According to the advocate of pegging Ruby Ryder, females can enjoy the experience of being active in pleasing their partner, reversing the typical roles, the strong intimacy implied in the exposed vulnerability, and the breaking of taboos.[2][3]
Thanks in advance. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC).
- ^ These three links chronicle how the term pegging came into usage.
- Let's Vote, May 24, 2001
- Count Every Vote, June 7, 2001
- We Have a Winner!, June 21, 2001
- ^ Ryder, Ruby (2013). "Intimacy and Pegging". Pegging 101.
- ^ Ryder, Ruby (2013). "Do Women Love Pegging?". Pegging 101.