Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions

 

== Soundbuzz (www.soundbuzz.com) ==

--[[User:Bureaucracy|Bureaucracy]] ([[User talk:Bureaucracy|talk]]) 02:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 

 

 

--[[User:Bureaucracy|Bureaucracy]] ([[User talk:Bureaucracy|talk]]) 03:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 

 

:It is not "available in its entirety". It is availible in limited preview. However, there is no point in "footnoting" a summary of the contents of a book, since it by definition epitomises the whole text. There's nothing 'shady' about that at all. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow|talk]]) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Winner of the 2000 Kemper and Leila Williams Prize in Louisiana History, Louisiana Historical Association

:*A 2000 Booklist Holocaust Literature Best of the Year Selection

 

Protonk,

 

 

--[[User:Bureaucracy|Bureaucracy]] ([[User talk:Bureaucracy|talk]]) 05:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

*Well, I think that we can roughly say that the Powell book is reliable (assuming that list of rewards is accurate and given our policy on reliable sources). We are down to the assertion that Powell didn't read the book in question. I don't think we can make that accusation without some evidence. the omission of the book in the bibliography may be telling or it may be benign. I don't think that the books being out of print is sufficient to support your accusation, especially because one of the principal subjects of the book is Duke. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 06:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 

:But is this notable, or is this just some fans joking around? [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 14:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

:::Unless a newspaper or magazine mentions it, we shouldn't - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 19:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 

:::as this includes an assessment by a non-censored "free" scholar. But unassessed Communist era sources used to back up statements in wikipedia? Given the abundant use of such sources, it is impossible to properly in-text attribute them without turning the narrative into a complete mess. [[User:Skäpperöd|Skäpperöd]] ([[User talk:Skäpperöd|talk]]) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 

 

::Of course, when dealing with this particular topic, the alternative to Communist sources may well be ''Nazi'' sources... which I think we would all agree have their own bias problems. I do disagree with saying that any soviet era scholarship is suspect until independently proven otherwise. I would say we should lean slightly the other way... Cautiously accept it ''unless'' proven otherwise by post-Communist sources. That said, I think the problem here is one of neutral wording of the text, not of reliability. Instead of focusing on criticizing the source, we should simply edit the text so that it is phrased from a historiographical/opinon perspective. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

:There is no requirement for unbiasedness in [[WP:RS]]. The requirement is on editorial procedure. The reason for this is that most sources can be assumed to be somewhat biased. So the fact that communist publications operate under censorship does not in itself mean that they are unreliable. The issue of proper fact checking might come into play, but will depend on specific sources. In addition, when dealing with biased sources, we should use proper attribution, so that readers are aware that bias might exist. Finally, and perhaps most importantly we should adhere to [[WP:Undue]] which is problematic if an article or section of article is based entirely on communistic writing. [[User:Taemyr|Taemyr]] ([[User talk:Taemyr|talk]]) 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

 

 

It is true that totalitarian countries' sources tend to lie. However, they don't ''always'' lie, which means that they can be used, with caution. In general, it is best to back up claims derived from a totalitarian source with other, more independent sources. Also, matching the claims against two basic criteria: ''Does this make sense?'' and ''What reasons would these propagandists have had to lie about this topic?'' is useful. For example, should Stalin have said that the sky is blue, it should not be discounted in a swift knee-jerk motion merely because he was Stalin. But if Stalin were to claim that the Red Army has painted the sky blue, any reasonably calibrated [[bullshit]] meter should take notice. [[User:Digwuren|Διγουρεν]]_{[[User talk:Digwuren|Εμπρος!]]} 13:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

: I am disputing this source as weak on a page that is a biography of a living person and the information it is adding is nothing or next to nothing and can easily be found and a stronger source. Is the article available to access on line? I notice by reading wikipedia article [[Chicago Sun]] that the tabloid has a controversial history and is currently in bankruptcy . ([[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC))'

:: Let me get this straight: You are claiming that the Chicago Sun-Times is not a reliable source? Why not? It seems like a pretty ludicrous claim, but if you want to make your case, this would be the place to do so. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 21:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

 

:::: The bankruptcy is a reflection on the paper..and reading the wikipedia article the paper does have a controversial history, with some history of article falsification . I would say someone who was bankrupt would have less trust at least in my eyes . I have asked where the article is available for viewing and as yet got no reply. We have a responsibility with BLP to find the best sources available. I feel the source is weak and would prefer a stronger one. The information that the cite supposedly supports is next to nothing. I just explained my action and removed the cite , no information was disputed or removed from the article. ([[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 21:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

:::::Bankruptcy reflects on the financial climate for all newspapers currently, and does not reflect one whit on the RS-ness of a newspaper. The material does not appear contentious to anyone, and thus unless consensus oposes nclusion, it likely would be fine with the CST as a source. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]])

 

 

::::::{EC}Of course the Chicago Sun-Time is a [[WP:RS]]. Bankruptcy is a reflection of its finances only. Wait a second. This dispute is about whether someone lived in Highland Park? Are you honestly trying to tell us that they can't figure out where someone lived? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 22:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== [[Mike Easley]] ==

 

:'''Comment:''' It is an editorial/opinion piece, and if used, should only be used as such and attributed as such. The latter part of your comment seems more something for [[WP:BLPN]] than here. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 03:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

== Validity of Youtube References ==

 

Hi all. I asked this [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_33#ARA_Rivadavia|a little bit ago]] and didn't get an answer on whether it qualified as an RS or not. So, here it is again. :) It's the only really good source I have found online.

 

 

:It's hard to say, since I don't know Spanish, but it looks like a self published source. That means its reliability is dependant on whether Carlos Mey, Martinez is an expert on the subject. If you find that he's published books or scholarly papers on the subject, or is used by some reliable media outlet as an expert on the subject, then it's a reliable source. Otherwise, probably not. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 16:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The organization claims to have received the support of [[Edward Asner]], the actor and political activist, in a letter dated Oct. 6, 2008. ({{cite web|last=Gage|first=Richard|date=Nov. 18, 2008|publisher=Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth|title=Ed Asner is an AE911Truth Supporter|url=http://www.ae911truth.org/info/43|accessdate=May 23, 2008}})

 

 

: Not a reliable source. The only evidence he wrote it was an unreliable source, not him publishing it. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Stephan's translation of ''Wahnprophet'' as "delusional prophet" instead of "insane and arrogant prophet" is an improvement, no question about that. However, I have not researched whether it would be appropriate to use it instead of, or in addition to, the Vatican's translation.<br />As it happens, I was involved in a dispute about Primary Source vs. Secondary Source only recently at [[Richard Williamson (bishop)]]. An IP made an edit which initially I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Williamson_%28bishop%29&diff=288773002&oldid=288770964 reverted as vandalism]. The IP editor then edit warred with myself and a number of editors on that point. (Click on the "History" tab of the article). However, I then examined the primary source – the interview with Swedish television conducted in English and available on a variety of websites including [[youtube]] – and found that the subject of this [[WP:BLP]] article had been misquoted in some of the media articles reporting on the interview.<br />Next I explained my change of mind on the [[Talk:Richard_Williamson_(bishop)#Six_million_Jews|Talk page]] and tried to gain consensus for implementing a change in the article to better reflect the evident truth and stay clear of WP:BLP [[Libel]] violations.<br />The discussion, mostly between myself and two editors, went on and on and despite my best efforts seemed to make no headway. They kept quoting policy at me in a robotic manner ("verifiability not truth") and refused to acknowledge that once the misquote had been pointed out to us (by the IP editor on May 9) we were obligated to stop republishing it as fact.<br />I believe that, as a minimum, changes should be made in the appropriate places in WP's Policy pages to make it clear that Wikipedia does not republish demonstrably false claims about living persons. Editors more conversant in the policy pages of WP than I are hereby requested to make these changes. More generally, I believe the mantra "verifiability before truth" should be modified to accommodate ''all'' cases in which the truth – the facts as evidenced by a Primary Source – require no translation or interpretation and are clear as daylight, as in the case of the TV interview with Williamson.--[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 

::Interesting but I do not see the connection to my posting above. --[[User:Goodmorningworld|Goodmorningworld]] ([[User talk:Goodmorningworld|talk]]) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 

:::::Autobiographies are considered to be different from self-published sources here. See [[Wikipedia:Blp#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source]] ". . . subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."[[User:John Z|John Z]] ([[User talk:John Z|talk]]) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Please note that, in this case, we're dealing with ''authorized'' autobiography. [[User:TheFourFreedoms|TheFourFreedoms]] ([[User talk:TheFourFreedoms|talk]]) 09:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Hmmm... what is ''unauthorized'' ''auto''biography? too much acid? Police coercion? [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|talk]]) 10:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::Eh, authorized, in publishing sense (and with regards to this particular autobiography), would mean that the subject of biography did not wrote it himself, third party did it, while subject has read and gave consent to its contents. To keep the discussion pinpointed (we can work on improvement of policies elsewhere), do you think we should accept autobiographies outside the scope of biographical articles? That is, can this particular book serve as sole reference for the purpose/agenda of Bilderberg Group, if further details are needed, please see article in question. [[User:TheFourFreedoms|TheFourFreedoms]] ([[User talk:TheFourFreedoms|talk]]) 10:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(out) Simplified works (biographies written for children) may well not be RS - the concept of RS is that material must be a secondary source -- that is, it must have a source itself, and which validates the claims. Once a book has one "fiction" in it, it ceases to be reliable, and, in this case, since no apparent source cited in the book backs the claim, it must be regarded as unsourced. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:I agree with you that the claim here is unsourced -- because the book has apparently altered the meaning of the original sources listed in its bibliography, as demonstrated by Hans. The point I was making is that one should not assume a book is unreliable only because it is written in simplified English. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#CC5500">Writer |</span>]] [[User_talk:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#008000">^needles</span>]]</span> 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:::When you want to use the letter in this way based on Miller, you are committing a misquotation because Miller uses it not as illustration for any psychological problems of Hubbard but as illustration for his characterisation of him as a malingerer for monetary profit. As I said above, he agrees in this with Atack. Voltz doesn't explain the letter in this way, but uses it exclusively to prove that there were inconsistent versions about Hubbard's past. Only the Globe and Mail article is an entirely different matter and puts the same fact into a completely different light.

:::Finally, the balanced conclusion by Lamont seems to be very similar to what we should do here: "Whether or not the letter is a sick attempt to con the Veterans' Administration into upping his disability pension is not clear." But with so many sources discussing it, it probably belongs in the article. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 15:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight ==

 

:::''This looks like a real problem.'' I'm sorry to say that I looked at this a few months ago, sensed these links might be undesirable but did not invest time to push the issue. Now it looks a lot worse.

 

 

::::A. B. wrote "for starters, I suggest we try to see how many of these links were spammed and how many were simply bad choices made by innocent, well-meaning editors." I don't think it matters for purposes of deciding that it isn't a reliable source. No matter how many well-meaning editors cite an unreliable source, it's still unreliable. However, it might matter if we are trying to get it black-listed; I don't remember the blacklist criteria off-hand. --[[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 05:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 

The fact that a source takes something from WP doesn't mean it doesn't have a proper fact-checking procedure. After all, ''some'' statements on WP ''are'' factually correct. [[User:Peter jackson|Peter jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter jackson|talk]]) 10:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:It is also possible that the wikipedia entry was written by the author of the paper after submitting it for publication but prrior to its appearnace in print. There is no reason to doubt that the source is an RS as academically edited and published by an established institution, even if if were shown that some parts of the content were not very well researched.[[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 

 

As far as the author of the paper having earlier edited the WP article - rather unlikely. The following sentence was inserted by [[User:Piotrus]], who edits under his own name, in December 2004: "Over the 16 years following the battle (the so-called [[Great Turkish war]]), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polish%E2%80%93Lithuanian_Commonwealth&diff=next&oldid=8091856] Compare to the paper's "Over the next 16 years (during the "Great Turkish War"), the Turks would be permanently driven south of the Danube River, never to threaten central Europe again." in [http://www.sze.hu/blszk/CEIC2008vol.pdf], p.242. And now the article is using this paper as a reference for the sentence...[[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

 

The paper also contains several sentences taken verbatim from the WP [[Międzymorze]] article - see its talk page. These sentences were inserted by [[User:Logologist]] in September 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mi%C4%99dzymorze&diff=23973306&oldid=23769902]. Logo has been inactive since November 2007 and his/her email is not enabled, so it could be hard to find out whether he/she is actually the paper's author. [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:::It's not the first time that an author who is not fluent in English has found text he agreed with, liked the English wording, and borrowed it. This author probably approved of Dziewanowski's article but likely did not have access to the Polish-language original. But it would have been well if she had put the text in quotes and credited Dziewanowski indirectly, and Wikipedia directly. Wikipedia may be developing into a respectable encyclopedia—as did the 18th-century French ''[[Encyclopédie]]''. This incident, however, may also serve as a caution about academic and other authorities. [[User:Nihil novi|Nihil novi]] ([[User talk:Nihil novi|talk]]) 23:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

 

:Link to this thread posted at [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=294247913&oldid=294210228]). [[User:Novickas|Novickas]] ([[User talk:Novickas|talk]]) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)