|
Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context. | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. | ||||||
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability. | ||||||
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board. | ||||||
|
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
Search this noticeboard & archives |
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207 |
Contents
- 1 Source does not include Mike Singletary
- 2 CelebrityNetWorth (copied from talk page, outside opinions desired)
- 3 Maine Department of Education List
- 4 Netflix as a source
- 5 François Asselineau
- 6 www.thefamouspeople.com
- 7 fullfact.org
- 8 Human interest story as a reference
- 9 stephenfollows.com
- 10 Encyclopedia Brittanica?
- 11 George N.M. Tyrrell
- 12 Erowid as a reliable source
- 13 Google maps
Source does not include Mike Singletary
At the time of his retirement, Sapp was one of only six defensive players in NFL history to make the Pro Bowl, be named Defensive Player of the Year and win a Super Bowl or pre-Super-Bowl NFL title. The others are Mean Joe Greene, Jack Lambert, Lester Hayes, Lawrence Taylor, Bob Sanders, Reggie White, Ed Reed, Ray Lewis and Sapp's former teammate, Derrick Brooks.
CelebrityNetWorth (copied from talk page, outside opinions desired)
- This discussion does not belong on the talk page of CelebrityNetWorth as it relates to the site itself and is not germane to the article on the site. The user 130.65.109.103 seems to be adding net worths to a variety of biographical articles with only this site as the source. I do not believe CelebrityNetWorth is an RS. Thoughts? Intelligentsium 23:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This web site seems to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- This edit suggests that it is not a reliable source.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, User:Mcfar54 accepted this edit, suggesting that it was an RS.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, it doesn't seem that the site's methodology is scholarly or rigorous. They claim to calculate net worth "by applying a proprietary algorithm", which excuses them from disclosing what data they use to arrive at that figure. Furthermore, reviewing a few of the pages on celebrities it seems quite likely that a significant portion of their information is in fact derived from Wikipedia. The fact that a pending change was accepted by an editor is not an endorsement of the edit beyond the fact that the edit is not vandalism or blatantly inappropriate. Intelligentsium 03:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- After reviewing their About us page, it also seems like their contributors are amateurs rather than professional journalists and analysts. Intelligentsium 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is most likely not a reliable source, however the edit was accepted for not being vandalism. Mcfar54 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that for net worth for Safra Catz, their page comes up with the same figure as our forbes.com citation.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's quite likely that CNW simply copied the Forbes citation, especially as they mention Forbes on that page. Forbes definitely is a reliable source of course, so when Forbes is available that is the source we should use. Intelligentsium 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but CNW covers a lot more people that Forbes does. Take another look at the article. Note the high Alexa ranking and read their "About Us" page. These guys are not amateurs.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- A high alexa ranking is perhaps the epitome of what Colbert calls truthiness - a lot of people repeat it because it's true, and it's true because a lot of people repeat it. However high it's alexa ranking is, I'll bet Wikipedia's is higher... I read the "About Us" page; not just amateurs, their team appears to consist of bloggers, marketers, and college students rather than professional journalists, much less respected finance journalists. I am beginning to question whether the site CNW is even notable.
- How about a compromise: I believe a good rule of thumb for net worth is, if a person's net worth can be found in Forbes (or a similar respected publication), it's probably OK for inclusion in an article. Otherwise, it's most likely unnotable (at best) and at worst plain wrong. Intelligentsium 02:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think their TOS tells us everything we need to know (the "we do not guarantee that any of the information is correct" part, especially). It would also fail WP:USERGENERATED, since visitors can correct articles theirselves. It's not clear how they verify information. Nymf (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but CNW covers a lot more people that Forbes does. Take another look at the article. Note the high Alexa ranking and read their "About Us" page. These guys are not amateurs.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's quite likely that CNW simply copied the Forbes citation, especially as they mention Forbes on that page. Forbes definitely is a reliable source of course, so when Forbes is available that is the source we should use. Intelligentsium 03:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I noticed that for net worth for Safra Catz, their page comes up with the same figure as our forbes.com citation.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is most likely not a reliable source, however the edit was accepted for not being vandalism. Mcfar54 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, User:Mcfar54 accepted this edit, suggesting that it was an RS.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not sure to what extent it's user-generated - the submit a correction link seems to link to an email form that someone will review rather than a direct edit link. However they seem to operate a totally unverifiable "black box" model which they call a "proprietary algorithm". On their About us it's not clear that any of the staff are qualified to do this kind of research. They seem to operate a Buzzfeed-like business model, though it doesn't seem CNW try to present the appearance of professional journalism that Buzzfeed does. Intelligentsium 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the end, most of the site is just a guess. They claim they start with publicly available info and then they figure out taxes, agent fees etc. Problem is, most of that isn't available, but just a guess based on norms. And not everything is publicly available. I'd have to say, as a general answer, I wouldn't call the site reliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
(Outdent)
Then what makes Forbes a reliable source? What makes Forbes' net worth assertions not just guesses? I do not see Forbes providing any guarantees of their assertions about net worth. And Forbes's reporters do not have to divulge their sources (or any other reputable newspaper for that matter).
This topic has been dealt before with:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 90#Celebrity Networth
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 162#CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/TheRichest.com
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 188#Reliable source for net worth
and perhaps elsewhere.
However, the External links tool reports that CNW is already in use on dozens of BLPs.
--130.65.109.103 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, Forbes has an established reputation for reliability and editorial oversight. They're staffed by professional journalists that specialize in financial analysis and reporting. An EMT and a MD can both put a bandage on your cut arm, but that doesn't make them equal. Telling me where it's already used isn't helpful. Just because someone used it or it hasn't been questioned doesn't make it legit. Examiner.com was used in dozens of articles before it was blacklisted. In the previous discussion you linked: First one, 3 experienced users said no, not a RS and none argued for it. The second discussion doesn't support using it either. The third one isn't really helping either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I wasn't aware CNW was so widely used on Wikipedia. Thanks for the discussion links; it seems this has already been discussed on several occasions and the consensus definitely seems to be that this is not a reliable source. I consider possibly inaccurately reporting an individual's net worth could be a fairly serious BLP issue or even a gross privacy violation where such information is not material to the article (i.e., if it is due to relatives or because of irrelevant individual investments). I am especially alarmed that the site boasts reporting the net worths of public individuals worth only a few thousand dollars - i.e., when the individual is not even particularly wealthy. I'd like to assess consensus to to mass-remove net worths cited only to CNW, where a suitable alternative source cannot be found, or where such information is not obviously pertinent to the article. Intelligentsium 17:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'd support the removal. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd support mass removal as well. No independent evidence of its accuracy. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if that were the case, then CNW would have gone under long ago under a flurry of invasion of privacy lawsuits by these very wealthy people. I wonder why that has not happened yet. They have had eight years to sue CNW into oblivion. They better get cracking. You know, there is a basic reality here: you can typo a notable person's name with the suffix of "net worth" into a Google search and got some results. Why does Google provide such information if it harms the reputation of Google?--130.65.109.103 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Is your argument really, "They're reliable because they haven't been sued yet"?? You can also type "vaccines cause autism" into a Google search and get results - not everything that you can find with a Google search belongs on Wikipedia. Reliability and Verifiability are central pillars of the Wikipedia philosophy. Maybe some of the net worths reported by the site are accurate. Maybe they're not. But there's more than enough information available from known reliable sources, like academic journals, newspapers, books by respected publishers, and online articles by professionals in their field. Not only is it inappropriate, but unnecessary, to rely on dodgy sources when we've got all that available. Intelligentsium 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I have to wonder how many years will have to pass for CNW to build a reputation of reliability. Forbes seems to get a pass because it is old.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- How many years irrelevant in context of wikipedia. Forbes seems to pass in wikiedia not because it is old, but because we can find independent authorities which vouch for Forbes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have to wonder how many years will have to pass for CNW to build a reputation of reliability. Forbes seems to get a pass because it is old.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
"Alexa rank" != "reliable source." See also prior discussion and another prior discussion. Collect (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- not reliable and support mass removal - look at their own disclaimer here: "All information presented on CelebrityNetWorth.com is gathered from sources which are thought to be reliable, but the viewer should not assume that such information is up to date or completely accurate or final. CelebrityNetWorth does not assume responsibility for any errors in the information it presents on this site. All information on this site is based solely on public information and is subject to change without notice." Our mission here is to provide articles that communicate accepted knowledge. This is just celebrity gossip. Please don't cite this. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- not reliable and support mass removal shorouq★kadair 👱 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super ninja2 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Maine Department of Education List
Hello - There is currently a dispute on the European Graduate School webpage pertaining to the accreditation of this university. It appears on a published list of unaccredited institutions and diploma mills on the state of Maine's Department of Education website.[2] In the discussion at this page, a number of editors (including one who appears to be connected to the school) are arguing that the Maine list is "no longer valid" because a different page on their website simply refers readers to Wikipedia's own list of unaccredited schools.[3] Despite this alternative link, the Maine list is still very much live on their website. It also states on its landing page that "The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution." [4] This strikes me as a very clear case where the Maine source is reputable and should be included. It's from a state government website with regulatory authority over the validity of college degrees, and it is also used on several other WP articles about universities as a valid source for suspect accreditation status. Nonetheless a handful of editors are arguing very aggressively that it does not meet WP source standards and are trying to remove it from the article. Any advice and input is appreciated. Kizezs (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Maine source you mention doesn't say that it has anything to do with Wikipedia. We can take it as authoritative information provided by Department. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Since the EGS has recently been accredited by a European body the relevance of the US state recognitions is less of an issue.Martinlc (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have been trying to hold the middle policy/guideline based position on this article against rabid advocates for the school and advocates that claim it is a diploma mill, like the OP here. I have already explained all this there. The point of great frustration for this editor, is that the main page of the Maine website now looks like this. (Linked by OP and called "a different page" above) The page has been captured on the wayback machine, and if you go through the versions you can see that up to this version in May 2014, they maintained their own list of nonaccredited schools, but as of June 2014 (in this version) they had stopped maintaining their own list and no longer have a link to it (which is still how they do it today).
- Yes, like many webmasters, who ever runs that site didn't actually take down pages you can no longer navigate to within the site, but that you can find by googling. That is how you get to the Maine "E" page, that the OP links to. That page is about 2 years outdated and is just moldering there. I don't use such pages when I edit. And i don't think such a low quality source is useful on a hotly contested article. I don't consider it reliable. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Netflix as a source
How should Netflix be dealt with as a source for the titles of episodes of a television series? Typically, episode listings on Netflix can only be accessed if a person has a subscription to it, but can a screenshot of the titles saved to an image-uploading website be considered as a reliable source? Or should the episode listing of the series in question be linked to directly in the source with a note that it can only be accessed by subscribed users? Alex|The|Whovian? 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, open access is not a requirement of a source. Pursuant to that, screenshots can be easily faked (here's an example of a fake screen shot I made), so they are not acceptable at all.
- Regarding using Netflix, I'm fairly certain that titles of episodes of television series would be subject to editorial oversight and fact checking, so I think it would be fine. (Advice: Include a link to the page for those of us who do have a Netflix account.) I'm interested to see if anyone disagrees with me, and why, however. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with the above user - It would seem as though information such as titles of shows, movies, etc., would be fact checked by an editor. I think that type of information can be relied on, however I don't think Netflix should be used as a source for information about movie/television series plots, characters, story lines, etc. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Episodes names and numbers are one of those occasions where IMDB is acceptable. Is this material not available through them? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I agree with the above user - It would seem as though information such as titles of shows, movies, etc., would be fact checked by an editor. I think that type of information can be relied on, however I don't think Netflix should be used as a source for information about movie/television series plots, characters, story lines, etc. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
François Asselineau
Hi everyone,
Can the following two online sources be considered reliable?
- Self-Gutenberg, to prove that François Asselineau graduated at HEC with a Masters of Science in Management?
- TV83 (Departmental TV of the Var), to show he enrolled at the École nationale d'administration where he ranked second at the exit examination (promotion "Léonard de Vinci", 1985), as an older version of the article stated?
I, for one, can see no particular reason to have them removed.
Thank you,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- For something to be a reliable source, it should be clear who authored it and who published it.
- The first source seems to be a user-contributed encyclopedia, much like Wikipedia. So, no, it wouldn't be a reliable source.
- The second source, if published by the department you mention, is a reliable source. Otherwise, you would need to find the original version of the announcement and its publisher.
- That said, educational qualifications are rarely questioned. So, it is generally ok to use weak sources, unless there is an issue with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi,
-
- Thanks for the reply. I have an extra doubt.
- The following website leplus is the user-contributed part of Le Nouvel Obs and is referred to at least 5 times on the page and with a noted inacurracy in quotes. Should it be considered reliable though? According to your reply, I very much doubt it but prefer asking before removing it because it's used to a substantial extent. Yours,--S.P.R. Lewitt (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I have an extra doubt.
- First source is a Wiki which is not reliable per SPS. 2nd source is just a press release (here is another instance; there are many more) so also SPS and not reliable. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
www.thefamouspeople.com
thefamouspeople.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • WhosOnMyServer.com
I just undid the addition of source http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/galileo-galilei-123.php to article Galileo Galilei because for this web-based article no author is given, no sources are listed, and anyone can add content ("Did We Miss Something In ...? Why Don't You Add It"). That's probably a no-brainer, but here's the problem: in article space I count 50 occurrences of references to similar articles on that site. Would it be OK to mass-remove them all, pointing to this section? - DVdm (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ugh - the site does not appear to be plagiarizing, but it also gives no indication of how they write the bios. Lacking any named editor or writers, this is a "limbo source" I suppose. I can not say it is specifically "unreliable" but it sure does seem an odd duck. Collect (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The "Society for the Recognition of Famous People", aside from being a bit of an oxymoron, doesn't seem to exist anywhere else but this website. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive May 1#thefamouspeople.com -- is it spam? and a reply by Ronz. - DVdm (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question: please advise on what to do with BLP Shana Muldoon Zappa:
- Remove entire minisection Personal life per unsourced opening sentence (as second sentence doesn't make sense without the first)?
- Remove source from opening sentence and tag with {{cn}}?
- Stick {{better source}} to the citation?
- ?
- There's bound to be many more similar examples. For instance Aidan Quinn#cite ref-11 - DVdm (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
fullfact.org
Hello, Full Fact is registered UK charity which does fact checking. As they work within their area of expertise and work with external experts, would information produced by Full Fact count as a reliable source? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- From where I sit, fact checking organizations are some of the best sources, precisely because they operate so transparently, and rely on so many publicly available records (which themselves are often textbook primary sources). So I wouldn't object to seeing a citation to a fact checking organization. I'm sure there are some people on WP who would cry "They're owned by George Soros!" or "They're owned by the Koch brothers!" upon seeing such a citation, but I can't think of any real compelling arguments against using them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Human interest story as a reference
I believe I already know the answer to this, but the other person keeps reinserting the source because they feel it is reliable. This applies to the Goshen Scout Reservation article.
Is the following source, [1] a valid source for.
In a traditional trek scouts hike from outpost to outpost during the week and experience various activities with significance to history or high adventure sports.
.
Personally I feel that the source is a non-notable interest piece about a local Boy Scout Troop and doesn't serve as a reliable source about anything for WP, let alone about what the editor is claiming it does.
References
- ^ "Falls Church Scouts complete backpacking trek : Falls Church Times". Retrieved 2016-05-03.
Marauder40 (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, not even remotely. Not because the source is necessarily unreliable, as this appears to be a small community newspaper that -while it may not be notable itself- still meets WP:NEWSORG standards for simple, non-controversial claims. (Note that I said it appears to be this; I could be wrong.) The problem is that the source doesn't support the claim. At best, this is a form of WP:SYNTH, and at worst, this is straight up deception, thinking no-one will check the source. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
stephenfollows.com
Don't know if this is worth looking into, but the recently created user Lars Prestegarde (talk · contribs) (hereby pinged) seems to be here to add content to various film related articles, with every edit (that I checked) including a link to a private website https://stephenfollows.com/ - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The site is the blog of a film producer who does a lot of analytics on industry activity. I have been searching through his work for factual information not represented on wikipedia, or using his findings for existing uncited claims on relevant pages. Although I cannot vouch strongly for his reliability, he appears to meet the criteria of being a published expert in his field. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed that he at least appears to meet the criteria. But does he? I was not sure about whether this is appropriate. After all, these are all wp:primary sources, and your activity seems a bit wp:SPAish. I hope you don't mind my wondering. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a blog partly sourced to WP & IMDB. Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- SPECIFICO I replied to you re this on my talk page. The info sourced from WP & IMBD is for analytics of fairly uncontroversial information such as box office gross for films. The vast majority of the information on the site is original research or statistical analysis - I don't think it is fair to say the whole body of work is unreliable based only on what is, as far as I can tell, a rare use of IMBD ratings or wikipedia-sourced figures. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Original research on a self-hosted blog is an even worse source. Could you tell us whether you have any personal or professional relationship to the blog or its author? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- For full disclosure: I am working for Stephen's production company, and he has asked me to see if his findings are represented on wikipedia. Perhaps 'original research' is the wrong term if that comes across even worse, it is mostly just statistical analysis of existing data or surveys of industry professionals. If in doubt, please review the additions I have been making from the research and you should find it is just tidbits of data from the key findings of the research, no opinions or interpretations etc. Stephen (via the website in question, presumed to always be his work) is already cited on wikipedia on the many of the pages I have been checking, so past precedent suggests his findings are deemed credible. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- You are not doing us a favor by disclosing that, you are obligated to disclose that per the WP:PAID policy and you have been violating that policy up until this moment. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog, I have added the disclosure and provided some more information in response to your request on my talk page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I was not up to speed on the disclosure rules. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are not doing us a favor by disclosing that, you are obligated to disclose that per the WP:PAID policy and you have been violating that policy up until this moment. Not good. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- SPECIFICO I replied to you re this on my talk page. The info sourced from WP & IMBD is for analytics of fairly uncontroversial information such as box office gross for films. The vast majority of the information on the site is original research or statistical analysis - I don't think it is fair to say the whole body of work is unreliable based only on what is, as far as I can tell, a rare use of IMBD ratings or wikipedia-sourced figures. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a blog partly sourced to WP & IMDB. Not RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed that he at least appears to meet the criteria. But does he? I was not sure about whether this is appropriate. After all, these are all wp:primary sources, and your activity seems a bit wp:SPAish. I hope you don't mind my wondering. - DVdm (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Depauldem: Per this statement that you know Mr. Follows, please disclose the nature of your acquaintance with him and whether you also know User Lars Prestergarde? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here's my take on the source. Definitely an SPS. So is he careful, and is he an expert? If you take him at his word and read the bottom of this post by him, he says he takes pains to fact check things. So that is good. His work has been cited by name in the NY Times here (his work on marketing for the Oscars), in the UK Evening Standard here (his work on gender/age disparity), in the Telegraph here (his work on movies shot in the UK), and in the Guardian here (his work on gender bias in film crews). And lots of other blogs. He seems to be a hustler (I mean that in a good sense) and see this blog from a film club he was part of as a teenager in the 1990s) and a serious person.
- I think this site could be considered reliable.
- btw while this was under discussion I went through and removed all the citations to his site - if you check the link I put at the top of this post you should find nothing, but who knows what has happened since I removed them all.
- All that said, I really don't like him tasking folks to add citations to his site in Wikipedia. Meh to that. But as long as it is done appropriately by posting suggested content and refs on the Talk page of the relevant article, with disclosure... if independent editors working on those articles find the proposals valuable, then no harm. And if that improves articles, that is a good thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help on this @Jytdog:. It is unfortunate that the citations are removed as I had just come on to move the content to talk pages; I gather I can still find old versions of the pages to speed up the process though, so I will look into that. Additionally, I worry that if you have removed ALL citations to the site, you will have removed all the established ones from back through the years - I am by no means the first person to be citing the website. Perhaps that was your intention, but I thought I would highlight this in case it wasn't.
-
- Also while I'm here I'll add for completeness that I have no relation to Depauldem as he said earlier, and similar to him I know Stephen only via an exchange of emails regarding freelance data crunching I do for his company from time to time. Lars Prestegarde (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's unfortunate that any of Lars' edits have been removed. They added insignificant content which appears to have been chosen for the sole purpose of insinuating links to Follows' website. The content needs to be noteworthy and it needs to be verified by the source, not merely mentioned by the source or found on the source from aggregation of other websites. If Lars' future edits are similar to what he's shown so far, he will eventually be blocked. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your perspective on this User:SPECIFICO. If I hadn't found high quality sources like I list above citing his work and found evidence that he does fact check I would have agreed that the source is generally not reliable but I think Follows' analyses are being accepted as useful and important in some ways. I'll add here that I don't edit in film topics and it may be wise to get folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film to weigh in here. I will ping their talk page. I do agree 100% that any time any ref is used, it needs to be because the content supported by it helps flesh out some part of an article and contributes to our mission to provide the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge. We don't cite refs to promote the reference itself. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog, here is an example of using the reference solely to promote Follows, when far better sources are available in the published mainstream media [5]. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point. You are saying again there, what you are saying here. I am hoping that other folks will weigh in on the reliability of the Follows site, since really now it is just me and you. You are very much "no" and I am yes maybe. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm a bit probably no, but indeed some users of the Wikiproject Film should have a look at this. - DVdm (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see why we should be making such an effort to accommodate Lars, who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, who has not been forthright in this matter, and who can easily find sparsely-followed articles with relatively few followers on which to plant numerous links to his boss. Is that a good use of other editors' time and attention? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW, I'm a bit probably no, but indeed some users of the Wikiproject Film should have a look at this. - DVdm (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point. You are saying again there, what you are saying here. I am hoping that other folks will weigh in on the reliability of the Follows site, since really now it is just me and you. You are very much "no" and I am yes maybe. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Jytdog, here is an example of using the reference solely to promote Follows, when far better sources are available in the published mainstream media [5]. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- To be "up front", I just allowed a citation to Follows' website to remain in the Actor article. When I read the web page, and after reading the above discussion, it is obvious that Follows is an expert in the industry. As for the factual reliability of the page, my opinion is "yes and no" – "no" if the cited info comes from the Responses section and the post is from other-than Follows, and yes if the information is obviously authored by Follows. I seldom edit film industry articles and have no affiliation with the industry nor with Follows. He has uncovered some interesting facts about the Academy and its Oscar awards. If the Follows web page resides in a "gray area" of RSdom, then I must lean toward acceptance rather than rejection. Stick to sources! Paine 22:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Encyclopedia Brittanica?
Can we use source information from it as references within articles? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- yes it is a fine WP:TERTIARY source. We prefer secondary sources but this one is fine. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
George N.M. Tyrrell
Can this be used for a credible source? http://parapedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_N._M._Tyrrell
- In general no as it is a wiki. See WP:SPS. Almost every source is good for something but wikis are good for nothing, with some very few exceptions. Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Erowid as a reliable source
Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Erowid_as_a_reliable_source Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Google maps
An editor is insisting that Google maps is a reliable source for the statement in the Lead of the Iran article that the modern country Iran is "also known as Persia". I disagree with that statement as well, but this is RSN, so we'll stick to the source.
If one types "Persia" into Google Maps, it displays the map of Iran. It doesn't call it Persia, but it does outline the modern state. Here's the result; you can type in Persia yourself to confirm. The editor claims that this indicates that Google Maps is therefore support for the statement, in the Lead, that Iran is also known as Persia.
I maintain that it's not, and that the maps search engine is just clever enough to figure out what you want. C.f. Albion and Loegria leading to maps displaying modern England. Again, this is purely to do with the Lead, and the situation has come up because the article is really short on support for Persia being a common alternative name for the modern country of Iran. It seems obvious to me, I've explained it to him, but he doesn't get it. Or maybe it's me that doesn't get it. Anyway, opinions? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- The problem here is in defining context... while the area is almost always referred to as "Iran" in a modern political context, it is sometimes referred to as "Persia" in a geographical context... And frequently so when discussing the region in a historical context. In other words... The article isn't wrong in saying it is "also known as Persia"... But it needs to expand on that fact, and better explain the contexts in which it is called by these different names. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Blueboar. The first sentence of the Lead of country articles only deals with common names of the country, rather than geographical regions, etc; I think I should have been clear about that. So it's used in this context:
- Iran (/aɪˈræn/ or Listeni/ɪˈrɑːn/;[11] Persian: Irān – ایران [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] ( listen)), also known as Persia (/ˈpɜːrʒə/ or /ˈpɜːrʃə/), [12][13][14][15][16] officially the Islamic Republic of Iran (جمهوری اسلامی ایران – Jomhuri ye Eslāmi ye Irān [d͡ʒomhuːˌɾije eslɒːˌmije ʔiːˈɾɒːn])
- And the question here is about the validity of Google Maps as a citation when it doesn't actually say Persia anywhere, it merely returns modern Iran if you search for Persia. Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- If the "also known as..." is correct, I'm certain that we can find a better source than Google maps. If we can't, that should tell us something. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Although, this matter has been discussed in Iran talk page, but because it has been also mentioned here I prefer to say my reason such that Google Map says "Iran known as Persia" or "Persia known as Iran". Using Google Map, when you are looking for Persia Geographical Region, it shows you Current Iran Map which means where you're looking for as "Persia" is the same country of Iran which means Persia = Iran. Although, other related references have been mentioned in Iran talk page about this matter. Meanwhile it has been expanded in etymology section of current Iran article. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Bromley86: To add to this debate, in the past it used to be possible for any user to edit a location on Google maps. This has changed in recent times, and this link between Persia/Iran may be a legacy of that change. I have since notified Google regarding the error, so hopefully they will respond and change that. It is still not worthy of Wikipedia to use google maps to decide what a country is called, and what it isn't. Vormeph (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I just can say that speaking without reference means nothing. Personally, I always rely on references for my claim and avoid misleading to achieve my purposes. Anyway, as I mentioned previously, "Google Map is not included in 5 current references in Iran article." since there are better than Google Map, generally it's possible to ignore this one. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Aidepikiwnirotide: Good, then I suggest you start looking for other sources to back-up your claims. :-) Vormeph (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
They have been mentioned previously (at least five references) just they need an open eye. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Google Maps isn't a suitable source for the claim here, not least as it marks its (Australian version at least) map of the search result for "Persia" with a very prominent "Iran" only. It actually supports a claim that modern Iran is not called Persia in current English language maps. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)