Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 6 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
||
Line 451:
:'''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)
::Ok. Gracias. [[User:AgnosticPreachersKid|<b><font color="#000080">'''APK'''</font></b>]] [[User talk:AgnosticPreachersKid|<font color="#99BADD">'''straight up now tell me'''</font>]] 04:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
== Validity of Youtube References ==
Need verification of something. Assume a wiki uses a nightclub's Myspace page as a particular reference. On that Myspace page, there is an embedded video hosted on Youtube. The Youtube video was not filmed, uploaded nor owned by the nightclub. There's no way of confirming how the video has been edited, or where it was shot. Is the video thus a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article? [[Special:Contributions/74.248.89.150|74.248.89.150]] ([[User talk:74.248.89.150|talk]]) 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
:: No [[User:Wikireader41|Wikireader41]] ([[User talk:Wikireader41|talk]]) 02:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
::Youtube videos are never reliable sources. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] ([[User talk:Edward321|talk]]) 13:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Not ''quite'' true... for example, the BBC has its own YouTube page where it posts news clips from it's broadcast. These can be used as sources because they are verifiably posted to YouTube by a reliable media outlet, who has released them to the public Domain, and we can be assured that they have not manipulated them from the original. So... while the ''vast'' majority of YouTube videos (definitely including the one under discussion) are not reliable sources... there are ''some'' exceptions. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 16:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Blueboar - you are correct that a video uploaded by the official BBC account is a valid reference. But when a video is uploaded by a random Youtube member, it's irrelevant as to whether some blog or Myspace page embeds the video into their page, it's not a valid reference. An example of precedence is the removal of all of the Youtube videos related to the Michael Richards "Kramer Incident", and only TMZ's video was a valid reference. [[Special:Contributions/74.248.89.150|74.248.89.150]] ([[User talk:74.248.89.150|talk]]) 07:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
===Reply to above===
Unregistered user [[74.248.89.150]] has abandoned his original claim that the linked video on the [[Jägerbomb]] article is a copyright violation and now attempts to claim that the video is an unreliable source.
A second link to the video in question has since been supplied; this one goes to the website of KETV channel 7 in Omaha. This website provides additional information about the event recorded in the video.
Full information about the ownership and production of the video is found on the video at its end.
The video is a legitimate and reliable source, and furthermore it provides [[WP:Verifiability|verification]] for the world-record claim that is made in the Jägerbomb article.
Are we all expected to believe that the management of a trendy bar, KETV of Omaha, and everybody else were completely suckered and taken in by a fake video that was made about an event that never actually happened? The video appears on the bar's own MySpace page!
Whatever happened to common sense in editing? [[User:Wahrmund|Wahrmund]] ([[User talk:Wahrmund|talk]]) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:To which Wikipedia article are we referring? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 10:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The two links appear in the [[Jägerbomb]] article at the bottom of the subsection titled "Jäger-trains." [[User:Wahrmund|Wahrmund]] ([[User talk:Wahrmund|talk]]) 22:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
== nxtbook.com ==
I don't know anything about nxtbook, except it seems to be just some way for print material to get posted onto the web. Is it a reliable source for [[Awake (Skillet album)]]? I'm thinking not... [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:Can you post a link? Also, what statement are we trying to source? [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
::They're probably referring to [http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/salem/ccm_200904/#/4 this]. It's the only cite in the article. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Right. Sorry I wasn't clear. [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody has said whether or not this source is reliable. [[User:Who then was a gentleman?|Who then was a gentleman?]] ([[User talk:Who then was a gentleman?|talk]]) 05:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
:It doesn't look great. The writer and editor are the same person, Lindsay Williams. If she's and expert, then it may be reliable as a self-published source. The format of the page makes it kinda confusing. It looks like a real magazine, but I think it's basically a fancy website. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS319US319&q="lindsay+williams"+christian&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= A search] for info on the author turn up a lot of hits, but it would take more time than I want to spend to see if she's considered a real journalist or academic or whatever. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 17:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
== [[ARA Rivadavia|An Argentine battleship]] ==
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.
There's a very good Spanish source for ''Rivadavia'' on this site, http://www.histarmar.com.ar/, but I'm not sure if it is a reliable source. Can anyone here help me out? ([http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.histarmar.com.ar%2F&sl=es&tl=en&history_state0= Google Translate link]) —<font face="Baskerville Old Face">[[User:the_ed17|<font color="800000">Ed]] <small>[[User talk:the_ed17|<font color="800000">(Talk</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/the_ed17|<font color="800000">Contribs)]]</small></font> 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
: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 [[Full Armor of God Broadcast]] ==
This article was deleted on the grounds of insuffient reliable sources in the refernces. In respect to the closing admin and the Wikipedia users who have opposed this article, there were also many who wholeheartedly disagreed with this decision. However the closing admin has stated that if even 2 of this articles references can be established as reliabe sourses this article will be un-deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xymmax. Many of the refernces listed are Low Power FM, College & [[SHOUTcast]] listed Internet Radio Stations. Definately not the "Cream of the Crop" in corporate radio, but listed on Wikipedia, Radio Locator http://www.radio-locator.com/ and [[SHOUTcast]]. The deletion consensus was that a mere listing on a radio station's program schedule did not constitute a reliable source, however this article displayed more references than other syndicated [[Christian Radio]] programs on wikipedia. So is it possible that there has been an oversight in the deletion of this page? Is it possible that there are sufficient refernces for this article to stand? If not, specifically how would the references need to be better to qualify?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ivanhoe610fa/sandbox/The_Full_Armor_of_God#References
[[User:Ivanhoe610fa|Ivanhoe610fa]] ([[User talk:Ivanhoe610fa|talk]]) 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:Your question is kinda beyond the scope of this page, but it doesn't look good. I don't know much about Christian internet radio, but the refs used don't appear (without looking closely) to have high editorial standards. From ref 10 on the refs seem to be from the shows website (again without looking closely), so they are reliable (for info about the show), but don't help with notability. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
== Is this a valid WP:SELFPUB source? ==
Is the following source admissible for this statement, per [[WP:SELFPUB]]?
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}})
Any advice is welcome! <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">[[User talk:Cs32en|<font style="color:#000085;"> '''Cs32en''' </font>]]</span> 21:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
: 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)
== FindArticles ==
is [[FindArticles]] a reliable source? [[User:Showtime2009|Showtime2009]] ([[User talk:Showtime2009|talk]]) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
:It depends. It is almost certainly a reliable source on which article appeared where and when, and I would also accept the articles they point to as faithful to the original work. But if a publication found via FindArticles is a reliable source is a separate question - the [[Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine]] or [[21st Century Science and Technology]] do not become more reliable if they are accessed indirectly. --[[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] ([[User talk:Stephan Schulz|talk]]) 15:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||