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 4 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. |
||
Line 723:
I have edited the entry to reflect the fact that the Fort Mifflin official website supports (to some extent) the paranormal angle; a secondary if not reliable source. [[User:Martinlc|Martinlc]] ([[User talk:Martinlc|talk]]) 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
== [[Talk:Fascism]] ==
An article by [[Bill White (neo-nazi)]] about neo-fascism originally published in [[Pravda Online]] was included in an anthology of writings about neo-fascism, ''Fascism: Post-war fascisms'' (2004) edited by [[Roger Griffin]] and [[Matthew Feldman]].[http://books.google.com/books?id=kne26UnE1wQC&pg=PA365#PPA365,M1]. Does this make it a reliable secondary source because "A book edited and assembled by historians is a valid secondary source." or should it be considered only as a primary source for neo-fascism? See: [[Talk:Fascism#OED]]. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:An odd misstatement of the issue at hand. One editor asserted that the OED is a secondary source and should be used to define Fascism as being "right wing." An earlier sentence, with 12 cites (not just the one being mentioned here) stated that, basically, ''historians differ on the position of fascism in the political spectrum.'' The issue now is that one editor says a source whoch quotes Mussolini can not be used because ''Mussolini was a "primary source"'' (of all things). The cite here questioned, which actually is an article ''within a book on fascism edited by noted historians,'' was written while Bill White was a Communist, of all things. Thus the issue at RSN now. Thanks! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]])
::It is incorrect to state that "Bill White was a Communist" both from the WP article and from reading his article, but in any case is irrelevant to his article's use as a secondary source. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Try NPA. The fact is that Bill white was working for Pravda and was a Communist. "White says that in 1997-8 he became briefly involved with the Revolutionary Communist Party's (RCP) Refuse and Resist and Coalition against Police Brutality, as well as the International Socialist Organization (ISO).[1]" seems rather to say as much. In 2000 he briefly supported Perot, but there is ''no'' indication he ever dropped his faith in communism while he was an employee of Pravda Online. SPL does not link him personally to anything "right wing" until after he left PO. So saying he was a communist at the time is supported by SPL. Seems enough for me. And since I read the articles and cites I give, I fear your comments are not precisely helpful in this discussion. Thank you most kindly. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And please indicate when you emend your post - someone might not realize you added to it after my reply. Thanks! [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:I am not as experienced as you are in this and do not know how this should be done - please post a message on my talk page explaining how to indicate emends (a term with which I am unfamiliar) and I shall do this in future. [[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::If you wish to change your position on something, usually people use "strikeout" on the deleted text, and a note clearly identifying the added text. Fixing typos is not generally important unless a "sic patroller" comments. Spelling perfection in a post is rather unimportant. And be sure to sign the change so that people know when it was done. Alternatively, just reply with your new opinion and don't touch the old post. That way, there is no chance of confusion about when the post was made. Hope this helps! And since this is a matter of continuing interest, I posted here. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
== ARAcontent ==
I came upon several articles by these people recently and have become suspicious that they may be PR in disguise. Take a look at [http://www.sunjournal.com/index.php?t=8&storyid=244058&subpub=89 this one], for instance. There were several articles by this group, and they didn't strike me as particularly critical. They also were contradictory to some more routine newspaper publications. Anybody familiar with them? Have they been discussed before? (For more on them, see [http://www.aracontent.com/printsite/AboutUS.aspx]) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:Definitely a PR firm, and not really in much disguise. Here's [http://www.mnprblog.com/2008/12/aracontent-responds-to-industry-trend.html a press release] they put on a blog for press releases. Their website http://www.aranetonline.com/ lets clients "Access reports to measure your results". And everything I've seen written by them on a quick glance through maybe 15 articles elsewhere all have a promotional/advertising tone instead of balanced and informative. As press releases of course they wouldn't be reliable sources for much of anything, and I'd be hard pressed to even come up with a hypothetical example of what they could be used as reliable sources for. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] ([[User talk:DreamGuy|talk]]) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you very much. I thought they smelled fishy. :/ --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 20:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
== IBDB ==
Perhaps this has been brought up before, but the archive search didn't turn up anything: is the [[Internet Broadway Database]] a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], particularly for [[WP:BLP|BLP]] information (DOBs, etc)? — '''[[User:pd_THOR|<span style="color:#CC0000;">pd_THOR</span>]]''' <sup>|''' [[User_talk:pd_THOR|=/\=]]'''</sup> | 02:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:Per [http://www.ibdb.com/contact.php this], they appear to collect primary sources, and not accept direct user contributions like IMDB. I'd say they'd be ok for non-controversial BLP data like DOBs unless proven otherwise. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
== Vator.tv ==
Is this a reliable source? Seems like little more than a collection of self-published promotional material. [[User:NoCal100|NoCal100]] ([[User talk:NoCal100|talk]]) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:Definitely not. It looks like Twitter for businesses with added video (talks about getting people to follow you). The front page clearly says "The place for emerging companies to showcase and market themselves, and share their news", so yes, self-published. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 15:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
| |||