Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
||
Line 567:
::Didn't work for me, and an editor tries to use it as a reference, claiming it was repeatedly moved. The editor never converted the external link to the cite web format when it supposedly did work. Valid as a reference? [[Special:Contributions/68.218.165.238|68.218.165.238]] ([[User talk:68.218.165.238|talk]]) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
::If we can't veiw the link, I would have to say it can't be used to back any claims up as we do not even know what is on that page.--[[User:Gordonrox24|gordonrox24]] ([[User talk:Gordonrox24|talk]]) 11:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
== WP:RS Statements of Opinion ==
WP:RS Statements of Opinion allows ''news'' organization publishing in a "blog" style format to be considered equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic ''news'' story. What about a credible published author who publishes a monograph on his own blog site? Example: '''Witherington, Ben. "The Lazarus Effect," http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/03/lazarus-effect-part-one.html''' I suggest this contemporary 21st-century format should be allowed as a blog exception in addition to news organizations.[[User:Afaprof01|Afaprof01]] ([[User talk:Afaprof01|talk]]) 04:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:There already is a mechanism to allow self-published blogs by recognized experts, if it's for a field they are an expert in. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 04:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
::Where is it, please?[[User:Afaprof01|Afaprof01]] ([[User talk:Afaprof01|talk]]) 05:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::see [[WP:SPS]][[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 07:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. [[User:Afaprof01|Afaprof01]] ([[User talk:Afaprof01|talk]]) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
== Gang Land News ==
[http://www.ganglandnews.com/ Gang Land News] run by [[Jerry Capeci]] is cited quite a bit on organized crimes sites, as seen [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.ganglandnews.com&limit=100&offset=0 here] (mostly it's still a source for mug shot photos). While Capeci is cited and could be an authority, I'm a little disturbed about using a pay-per-view site like this. At [[Joseph Sclafani]], a [[WP:BLP]], it's the only source, naming a lot of other living people, even if they are all members of organized crime. More concerning, at [[Gaspare Mutolo]], it's used for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaspare_Mutolo&oldid=291060469#cite_note-9 this NY Daily News] piece but I cannot find its existence in either Google News or via my LexisNexis subscription. Really not good. Most of those articles are a pure mess in my opinion anyways, especially the [[WP:BLP]]s, since people seem to assume that because they have been called gangsters, anything goes in terms of language and sourcing. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the website must still be used as reference, due to lack of any alternative reliable sources on the Mafia articles. If we discontinue using gangland as a reliable source, then a vast amount of info in a lot of articles will have to be removed. This will invariably depreciate the qualities of these articles and reduce them to stubs. So, here is my solution to the problem. Since Capeci also writes for the NY daily news, replace those gangland links with NY daily news links in the case in which the same articles being found there. The remaining inactive links can simply be converted to offline references.[[User:Joyson Noel|Joyson Noel]] ([[User talk:Joyson Noel|talk]]) 12:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:It sounds like this is a question about convenience links. Most of these articles appear to have been in the Daily News like you say, or in the New York Sun after a little looking around. For a BLP you want to be doing the newpaper citation. The linksearch shows it's only used in a few articles as a document source; almost all the linksearch results are image description pages for mugshots or talk pages. It looks like there's been some edit-warring, and someone may be pushing an overinterpretation of "links to avoid", which I believe only applies to the "external links" section at the bottom of an article. There's nothing that says all sources must be freely available on the web. Another result of the edit-warring is that in some places the specific Gang Land article links have been replaced with links to their main page, which doesn't help anybody with anything. I'd say use the newspaper citation, use links to the Daily News or Sun websites if available, otherwise link to the Gang Land News articles, paywall or no paywall. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Correction to mine: A Gang Land article link wasn't replaced by a link to its main page. There was a sentence which had links to both and the article link was ( IMO mistakenly ) removed. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
::Jerry Capeci is a good source on organized crime, in particular about the New York situation. He has been a crime reporter for the NY Daily News and NY Sun for many years, before he started his own website. Gangland News used to be a free site and only recently has been changed into a pay-per-view site. That is why some of the links that were put there in the past when it was still free, link to the main page now. However, I think once you pay per view it should still link to the original free page. I don't know if all Gangland News articles used to be in the above mentioned newspaper, but Capeci on its own is a very reliable source. I agree that most articles on American gangsters are flawed and unreferenced, but that is not the case with articles about Sicilian Mafiosi, which generally are well referenced. I know, because I have been referencing them. - [[User:Mafia Expert|Mafia Expert]] ([[User talk:Mafia Expert|talk]]) 13:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Gangland News is a gossip site for gangsters.
It uses a lot of words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" And "according to anonymous sources"
As Joyson Noel states there are no "alternative reliable sources on the Mafia articles"
This proves that most of the information on Gangland News is simply not noteworthy nor to be used as a reliable source.
[[User:Persistent Organic Pollutants|Persistent Organic Pollutants]]
Using words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" and even "according to anonymous sources" do not necessarily make a source uncredible. You claim that since there are no alternative sources on the Mafia articles, most of the information by the site automatically becomes un-notable and unreliable. How does that happen? What possible relation exists between the lack of alternative reliable links to the reliability of content provided by ganglandnews? Moreover, how does the research by a notable recognized expert on the field become insignificant, simply because the website became pay-per-view? Please elaborate. [[User:Joyson Noel|Joyson Noel]] ([[User talk:Joyson Noel|talk]]) 16:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to add that Gangland news is not a gossip site or forum, but a credible news source. In fact, Mafioso's and law enforcement themselves use it for reference and daily updates. In one interesting incident, the New York Daily falsely reported that a Mafia Capo Ralph Galione (who was in jail at that time) had become an informant. Shortly after, his mother phoned Jerry Capeci and informed him that this was false and requested him to state that it was false in his website, since she knew that it was frequently visited by law enforcement and mobsters alike. [[User:Joyson Noel|Joyson Noel]] ([[User talk:Joyson Noel|talk]]) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
: If a source says that something is alleged to have happened, then they are claiming that something was alleged, not that something happened. So obviously the reporting of allegations has nothing to do with whether a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
:: And I think for [[WP:BLP]], we really should require more than a single source that alleges things like serious criminal behavior. Just because they have been convicted for one crime doesn't give us free reign. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 23:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
::: That is assuming that such alternative sources exist. Ricky. Plus, it's not compulsory that such things be referenced by two sources, albeit recommended. Please correct me if i am wrong. I agree with Mafia Expert that Capeci on his own itself is a very reliable authority. So, i suggest that the solutions i put forward be implemented. Also, none of these mafioso's are habitual offenders. They are career criminals. So obviously all of them without exception have been convicted of more than one crimes. [[User:Joyson Noel|Joyson Noel]] ([[User talk:Joyson Noel|talk]]) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry i did not get you, Dlabtot. Are you stating that the use of words like "reputed", "reportedly", "alleged" and even "according to anonymous sources" diminishes it's reliability or not? [[User:Joyson Noel|Joyson Noel]] ([[User talk:Joyson Noel|talk]]) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: We don't look at the content of a source and judge reliability based on our opinion of the content. Rather, we look to a source's reputation. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Oh, all right! Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:Joyson Noel|Joyson Noel]] ([[User talk:Joyson Noel|talk]]) 04:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::: If there isn't a reliable source, I say take it out. For living people, we need a source that's reliable in accordance with policy. Period. [[Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material|Policy is completely different for living people]]. The fact that you consider them career criminals doesn't mean we can ignore all our policies and just say what we want. You say they have been convicted of more than one crime but all we have for [[Joseph Sclafani]], again a BLP, is a guilty plea for loansharking and extortion, "reportedly" (great). The rest is unsourced or sourced to a paywalled site which nobody can verify now (which is why we generally don't use those as references): bodyguard work, loansharking elsewhere, contract killing, conspiracy to commit murder, everything. I'm debating whether to stub it and make a note at the BLP noticeboard about these articles. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 09:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::You guys are missing the point. The articles we are debating, AFAIK, were all published in either the New York Daily News or the New York Sun. If there's any essays that are unique to Gang Land, then we can restart the debate. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 12:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::If they're all published elsewhere and just [[WP:CONV|convenience links]] on the gangland news page, the citation is to the original news article, and linking is with care (better to link to the original source if possible). [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Probably the best solution, taking [[WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT]] into account, is to do a news cite to the newspaper, then the word "via", and then a cite to Gang Land News. This would provide the best traceability as far as where the source material came from, as well as allowing two convenience links, to the newspaper as well as GLN, paywall or no paywall. Furthermore the GLN cite could contain a wikilink to our article on Capeci so readers understand why GLN is important. [[User:Squidfryerchef|Squidfryerchef]] ([[User talk:Squidfryerchef|talk]]) 03:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
== Comics review/news prove notability for said comic? ==
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashbacks (comics)]]
In both these AFDs on Spider-Man comics, a user has pulled out reviews and news articles from sites like comicbookresources as to prove the subject's notability. I was wondering if someone well-versed in this area could tell me if these count as reliable sources that alone prove notability. Thanks.--[[User:Sandor Clegane|Sandor Clegane]] ([[User talk:Sandor Clegane|talk]]) 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:Looking at the site, it appears to have a genre-specific focus. I'd call it an RS for comic-book discussions. The issue would remain, however, whether that mention was sufficient coverage, which should be evaluated by looking at the totality of the coverage found. That is, it likely meets [[WP:V]], but [[WP:N]] is a separate issue. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::They're reliable, but you need two of them that cover the topic in significant way to easily pass NOTE. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
== The Huffington Post Again ==
Could this [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcelrath-renna/is-rick-warren-a-vampire_b_152993.html] be a RS for [[Rick Warren]]? [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
: No. I don't see that author as generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
: Absolutely a reliable source with respect to the opinion of Leah McElrath Renna. If there is any argument to the contrary, I'd like to hear it.
: Is the opinion of Leah McElrath Renna appropriate for inclusion in the [[Rick Warren]] article? That's a different question that is outside the scope of this noticeboard. [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 18:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::Actually what I think about adding into Warren's own article is Warren's own words in an interview. See: [[Talk:Rick_Warren#Civil_Unions]]. Source: [http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2008/12/Rick-Warren-Transcript.aspx?p=7]
::An editor is claiming that this doesnt reach the treshold of notability. In this context, do this Huffington Post article help? [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 19:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Also note that Leah Mcelrath Renna was in [[Newsweek]] with respect to Rick Warren. [http://www.newsweek.com/id/176269] [[User:Phoenix of9|Phoenix of9]] ([[User talk:Phoenix of9|talk]]) 19:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
::::It helps, but it's still an editorial decision. - [[User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] ([[User talk:Peregrine Fisher|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Peregrine_Fisher|contribs]]) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
== Trying to add a site as a reliable source for music reviews ==
I keep trying to add Stereo Subversion (http://www.stereosubversion.com) as a reliable source for album reviews, due to the fact that: 1) the site has a staff of writers who are the only people to post content; 2) the site is edited -- all reviews go through editors and are posted BY editors, so nothing gets posted without total approval. But every time I post anything regarding the site, it tends to eventually get deleted, often quite quickly. Can I get a consensus as to whether I've followed the rules? Because it would seem I have, and the quick deletions without explanation have served to confuse, violating the idea of not biting newcomers.
I was told on the WikiChat program to post here. I certainly appreciate responses. ([[User:Kroessman|Kroessman]] ([[User talk:Kroessman|talk]]) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC))
:Well, they have a 'staff' of 113 editors, none of them with a job description.[http://www.stereosubversion.com/about-us/] Google Maps tells me this is where their office is.[http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=415+W.+11th+St.+Anderson+IN+46016&sll=37.09024,-95.712891&sspn=36.231745,78.75&ie=UTF8&ll=40.105485,-85.685399&spn=0.008551,0.019226&z=16&iwloc=A&layer=c&cbll=40.105041,-85.685427&panoid=vq9Q0Rv6BgPFX24DxRHsYg&cbp=12,124.07,,0,5]. Also, I couldn't find any other [[WP:RS]] that even mentions this web site. Not reliable. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
:I have to agree... this seems to be little more than a fan site. I does not seem reliable. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||