Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 210 | ← | Archive 212 | Archive 213 | Archive 214 | Archive 215 | Archive 216 | → | Archive 220 |
Disputed reliability of Calcutta Journal and John Murray (publisher)
| I'm collapsing this train wreck because all the contributing IPs in it (obviously all one person) have been blocked for egregious personal attacks. It's impossible to follow anyway, as the individual won't sign their posts and puts them all over the place. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC). |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Hello, I am currently requesting an assessment of the Calcutta Journal and John Murray (publisher). Recently, an editor took it upon themselves to revert sourced edits, using the justification that "Raj is not reliable". Given that I do not understand what "Raj is not reliable" means, I assume the editor is taking issue with English/Anglo-based publications used to support the claims made in the articlse Phulkian sardars and Phulkian Misl. As a result, User:Bishonen recommended that I post this concern here, and allow the initiated to reach a conclusion about the quality of the source. User:Bishonen also gave me a warning, claiming I was involved in an edit war, but I disagree. I do not dispute that I ran risk of violating the Three revert rule, however the original reverter (editor) was no angel either: he or she violated the rule of "Big edits must be taken to the talk page first". Observing the edit history of both pages, where the claims were originally unsourced, followed by a generous anonymous editor providing rigorous citations (with URLs that anyone can inspect), I am requesting that these quality of these sources be assessed objectively. As User:Bishonen rightfully noted: It seems many edits involving Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are often controversial and invite controversy. Given that many of the Phulkian Misl descendants were undoubtedly beneficiaries of the policies carried out by the British empire (including myself), I am requesting that an impartial third party objectively assess the quality of the sources. Here, given the sanctions noted by User:Bishonen, I would prefer that the objective third party evaluation be carried out by an individual who is neither Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Further, I request this user have no financial involvement with the Rothschild family. I understand these requirements are a lot to ask, but the citations are quite definitive. I cannot envision any objective editor stating they are biased or of poor quality, and that is why I am taking the extreme measure of asking a "white man" who does not have any financial dependence on the credit system or its architects (the Rothschild family) to please assess the source quality. Lastly, I want to take this moment to have a discussion about the controversy that belies this entire conundrum. Clearly the Hindu people look at the time of "British rule" unfavourably; that is their right. However, the role of the Phulkian Misl is especially sensitive, given their reticence, and later: rejection, of Ranjit Singh (who was north of the river). These individuals chose to side with Lord Gerard Lake in hopes that their descendants would be able to appreciate the ability to practice their faith in countries where they would not be oppressed by dominating faiths that currently reside in India. This oppression cannot be understated, and I urge those who assess the quality of these sources to take this into account. As someone who is of a dark skin colour, but not of Hindu or Muslim faith, it is increasingly difficult to live in the first world with the dignity and respect we were once afforded prior to the September 11th attacks. As a child, I could never imagine a situation where "our people" would be confused for a Muslim or Hindu, and consequently harmed either physically or mentally. I urge the individual who takes this case upon themselves to be sensitive to those who are appreciative of the liberties afforded by the Commonwealth Realms, and how the freedom of practicing our faith in the Realms without fear has enabled us to grow as individuals and contribute to the greater goals that do not involve the colour of people's skin. Thank you, Sincerely a concerned Sikh individual who is a legitimate Phulkian Misl descendent that is appreciative of the love, dignity, and space the "white man" has given me to "find myself", and consequently contribute in a way only Sir Arthur Wellesley (and the Irish) envisioned over two hundred years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.26.145 (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I did some looking into this and i remain unclear about that the source is supposed to show. For instance, at Phulkian sardars, the source Calcutta Review, vol. 79 is linked to page 390 which shows only a tiny excerpt about lineage that "Phul is the senior eponym in descent from Siddhu" but that's all i see there. On the one hand, i see no glaring reason why this source would not be reliable about this, but i could see the possibility that this is true if there is some clearer explanation, because history written by the colonial power is not always to be trusted, but we ought to find other sources that make this claim. But... generally, even after looking into this for 1/2 hour, i remain very unclear about what the actual dispute is. SageRad (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a fascinating example of the importance of point of view in relation to NPOV policy. What sources embody what points of view and how can we use them (or refuse to use them perhaps) to maintain the best approximation to NPOV that we can manage? A few real red flags i'd like to point out here about the IP user's behavior, though:
[1] References
|
Uploading photos
Hi. I want to upload a couple of photos and have official permission to use them. Please could you tell me the email address for OTRS so I can send them the details. Thanks. Myosotis Scorpioides 13:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Myosotis Scorpioides:This is off-topic for this page, but the copyright holder (not you) would need to write to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org using the template in WP:CONSENT for the email. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Is Upworthy considered RS?
Greetings all. I've been looking at some edit requests, particularly those stuck in the backlog here. I'm currently working through a number for Math for America. The requester has requested that an edit be made using an Upworthy article. As many will know, Upworthy is one of those social media outlets like Buzzfeed. I was considering declining the edit request, but as I'm uncertain how reliable Upworthy is, I figured I may as well bounce this to RSN to see what others think. I'd welcome the thoughts of those more familiar with this end of WP. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Blackmane (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's doubtful that Upworthy would be considered an RS, but the intended content (factual information about the scope of the charity's operations) can be sourced to the MfA website.Martinlc (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. It's a well-known clickbait outfit, and also mostly a news aggregator to boot. Cite to the original source of the information instead (depending of course on whether the original source is reliable, due weight, etc.). Neutralitytalk 15:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughts. On that basis I'll decline the request. Regards Blackmane (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC on importing Wikidata information into Wikipedia observatory infoboxes
Please see the RfC Template talk:Infobox observatory#Comments on RfC: Satisfy verifiability related RfC? Jc3s5h (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano de literatura, ciencias y artes
An established editor with a track record of productive edits[4] recently created Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano de literatura, ciencias y artes and started putting links to it in various articles.[5]Is it a reliable source, or is this spam? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it's unlikely to spam as the encyclopedia in question was only published during the 1880s and is archived at HathiTrust, so there would not be much point/benefit in "spamming" it. It's also obviously notable, there are two high-quality RS in the article that testify to that. Most of the links appear to be references, so I guess the question is whether its too old a source to be used as a reference in the linked articles, or if there are better sources might be used instead. This is basically akin to using an 1880s Britannica as a reference, which I've seen done but is probably not ideal in most cases. Looking at the links I don't see an obvious or specific problem in how it's been used so far though. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) ?? It was created and then wikilinked from articles that already mentioned it. For the couple instances where it's used as a source, it was already used as a source -- it's just wikilinked now (the article creator looks to have added it to only those articles he/she created, along with many other sources). As whether it's notable is a separate question from whether it's spam or a reliable source, I'm unclear why this raised any red flags. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Self-published paper with government decree
In this paper, a previously unknown government decree from Luxembourg in French (1951) has been scanned and published, on page 17, with a translation to English on pages 18 & 19. The decree contains the full text of a summary published in the Luxembourg Government's gazette here (page 1135).
The decree has been cited in the article Prince Bernadotte as a source on specific information about two different coats of arms issued to certain persons named in it.
This article text and sourcing (besides a lot of personal stuff) is what the discussion on that article's talk page has been about (here). This was added, but the text was removed anyway.
Please help us determine whether or not the decree can be cited in the context it was. I may very well have been wrong it citing it that way, but more neutral input is needed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- The site is obviously not a RS, self-published genealogy-type sites like that are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't used anything that it is written/posted somewhere like that as a reference at all. The gazette source looks like it might be ok though. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! I fully agree with you about self-published genealogical sites and have done a lot work cleaning up that kind of inappropriate sourcing over the years. In this case, though, what is posted there in full is a paper published with a Swedish ISBN number and included in the collections at the Library of Congress and Kungliga biblioteket as well as other reputable libraries. That's why I (wrongly?) felt safe in using it. Could that make a differece?
- The paper has also bee posted here . --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the fact that it's held/catalogued in specific libraries makes it reliable. Libraries buy and catalog all kinds of things, especially stuff relating to local/national history, but that doesn't mean that the sources are high-quality: only that the library thinks it's something people might be interested in reading. In this case, the source appears to be self-published by a club rather than an actual publishing house, and to have been authored by someone who is primarily a film and cabaret director. I will leave it to others to chime in here but I would still not call this a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- That is exactly what we others have said too, as you can see in the discussion in the article (better keep the discussion there so all involved parts can see it). Best regards, Adville (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the fact that it's held/catalogued in specific libraries makes it reliable. Libraries buy and catalog all kinds of things, especially stuff relating to local/national history, but that doesn't mean that the sources are high-quality: only that the library thinks it's something people might be interested in reading. In this case, the source appears to be self-published by a club rather than an actual publishing house, and to have been authored by someone who is primarily a film and cabaret director. I will leave it to others to chime in here but I would still not call this a reliable source. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Added similar view to Fyddlestix as an outside view on the relevant talk page. --Tóraí (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I thank those of you who are neutral for your valuable neutral comments. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
More questions about Andean lakes
Me again. This time, the source in question is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987113000868 which argues that the ancient Lake Minchin in the Altiplano occasionally drained into the Pilcomayo River. Now the issue is that it is not entirely clear what the "Lake Minchin" they refer to is - as I noted on the draft I am considering to use it on, there is quite some disagreement on the timing and naming of the various phases of Altiplano paleolakes - the text of the article However, we intend here to continue its usage and, hence, maintain the homage to the original discoverer of the whole system, which includes the northern Titicaca Basin, the southern Poopó-Coipasa-Uyuni Basin and the connecting Desaguadero River Basin (Fig. 1), based on the notion that these water bodies worked and still work as a system.
sounds like it does apply to southern Altiplano paleolakes in general and not necessarily to one specific lake cycle. And in this case, it would be worth mentioning on the draft as one prevalent view has it that the Tauca phase lake was the highest south Altiplano lake (--->and would thus be capable of draining into the Pilcomayo). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Reliability of Salon Newspaper as a Reference on Wikipedia?
Hello please can a senior editor or administrator check the reliability of a particular Salon online newspaper article reference number 58 in the article about public figure ' Sri Chinmoy'? On the Talk page for the article there was a discussion from October 2015 - February 2016 from various editors about whether the article could be counted as reliable but it does not seem to be decided upon by a senior editor. The discussion ends with no-one really able to decide. The article reads like a tabloid, gossip trashy almost pornographic downgrading to religion type article with no balance or dignity. Can it actually provide as a reference for an International encyclopedia especially for an unproven case that never had any legal deals or court cases at all? Your answer would be most appreciated. I feel there needs to be a final overall proper administrative decision. Thank you. 123.100.82.186 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is a bit problematic. The article in question is not a straight news story; on the other hand, it is a reference for the testimony in question. We don't really have a rule about using a source which justifies a bland statement but which itself is not the least bit neutral. Mangoe (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging Softlavender, who looks to have been engaging with a number of geographically proximal IPs and socks on this article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- More on point, however, I'd ask if Salon's political bias would affect the accuracy of this story? Possibly? Salon has a pretty good reputation for accuracy, as far as I know, but does also have a reputation for left-leaning political bias that makes it unreliable for facts about certain subjects. I frankly don't know if this would be one of them. It does seem odd that a google search for the woman's name doesn't bring up other reliable sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for the above feedback. It sounds as if those of you that have looked at the reference article from Salon are not sure if you would clarify it as a good reference because the actual article lacks neutrality. It qute possibly is an approach to the media from a disgruntled ex-follower of Sri Chinmoy or suchlike. If both of you who have responded to my query are not sure if this reference is a reliable one then can either of you or a higher Wikipedia administrator actually make an overall decision about reference 58 so that the banter that gets nowhere on the Talk page of the 'Sri Chinmoy' page supported only by those who are obviously 'haters' of Sri Chinmoy can actually be resolved in a more dignified way?
- As it stands the people discussing whether this reference is a worthy one or not on the Talk page only appear when this subject matter is in the air and do nothing productive or 'positive' for the article in the meantime, no editing, nothing other than threatening, yes threatening those editors who may question the source or try to do any editing around it, even if they have very good intelligent reasons for the editing. This article needs help from administrators or senior editors who do not have a particular angle on Sri Chinmoy because right now there are two editors who seem to be protecting the 'controversy' paragraph in a negative rude and obnoxious way and sometimes threatening way who neither, of (as mentioned) have any interest in up-rendering the article in any way, let alone adding to or editing in a neutral way, so No the actual Talk page has turned into a ridiculous ineffective place only for new editors and in actuality any editors from what I have experienced to get squashed almost immediately if they 'go near' the controversial paragraph or so called 'critical' paragraph. The controversial line from ref: 58 is always immediately reverted with no reasons given let alone discussion on the Talk page. Who has the right to do that? If I am in the wrong place for help about this then any help in being directed to some editors who are actually neutral, dignified and intelligent enough to see through what is actually happening on the Talk page and indeed with the editing that would be good because otherwise no proper editors can come forward to do proper editing. Thank you very much for now. 123.100.82.186 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't get what you mean by no talk page discussion. There seems to have been decent engagement on the talk page Talk:Sri Chinmoy#Do not revert other editors work without legitimate thought out stated reasons and proper discussions on talk page please. You should continue to discuss on the talk page seeking help via standard means of WP:Dispute resolution where necessary (which RSN can be, but ANI is not). As always in any dispute you don't have a right to demand something remains in or out while discussion is ongoing and it's better to discuss rather than worry so much about whether something should remain in or out which discussion is ongoing. Especially when the material appears sourced, has apparently been there for over 2 years [6], there has apparently been a history of sockpuppetry and BLP concerns don't seem to arise. You should also refrain from making accusations that can't be substantiated like accusations of bigotry [7]. Note that wikipedia doesn't operate by "administrative decision" but by WP:Consensus. No one is going to rule on a content dispute for you, anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, it's hardly surprising that someone would be a disgruntled ex-follower if the allegations of what they were required to do are true. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nil Einne yes thank you for your feedback. My overall question to begin with was simply and only about whether the Salon article is deemed appropriate by Wikipedia as a reference. Now I understand that the answer is neither yes or no. However to so arrogantly say that it is "hardly surprising that someone would be a disgruntled ex-follower if the allegations of what they were required to do are true", is an utterly rude and inappropriate judgement about a subject matter you know absolutely nothing about and does not belong on a noticeboard like this. Why not just comment on the actual quality of the Salon article reference and the way it is being handled? You crossed the line with your ridiculous posted last BTW comment. More care is needed. 118.93.203.232 (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In terms of our policies, I'd say Salon is comparable to Fox News in several respects. Some people might argue about the degree or their reputations, but in very broad strokes:
- It has a clear and generally-accepted political position, which doesn't automatically disqualify it (see WP:BIASED) but which needs to be taken into account, especially when judging WP:DUE weight, and could sometimes require inline citations.
- It maintains a separation between opinion and news reporting. This doesn't mean its reporting is unbiased - what it chooses to report and how it reports it could still be seen as influenced by its political position - but it does mean that...
- Most importantly, regardless of the above, it maintains basic journalistic standards. It has the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy a news source requires; it issues retractions when it needs to issue retractions, and so on.
- The last one means that it generally passes the standard that WP:RS sets, and that the arguments over it will often be ones about whether we're giving it WP:UNDUE weight (especially in situations where eg. it's the only source to cover a story, which might indicate a problem, whereas we could more easily satisfy due weight with a single cite to a more mainstream source like the New York Times.) So generally you want to take complaints about Salon to WP:NPOVN rather than here. It's reputable, but the fact that it covers the news from a clear and specific political position means we have to be careful not to give it too much weight. It might also not be the best source for WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, at least not unless backed up by another source. --Aquillion (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
What Culture as a reliable source in a BLP
There is discussion on David Wolfe (nutritionist) about whether the What Culture article "7 Hilariously Batsh*t Things David "Avocado" Wolfe Believes" would qualify as a reliable source for the information that David Wolfe is a flat-earth theorist. The site has editors for multiple subjects including science, which is the section that this article is in. Does this site have a good reputation for accuracy or otherwise qualify as a reliable source?
For some background, there are other (primary) sources from Wolfe himself verifying this information, but third-party secondary sources are preferred yet difficult to come by on this person. Adrian[232] 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Does not look like a reliable source by my reckoning. Looks like a polemic attack piece. Even a simple fact-check on the seemingly outlandish claim in the source that Wolfe
once claimed that solar panels are "draining the sun"
is quickly proven to be absolutey wrong by clicking on the link to the tweet and seeing that Wolfe's next tweet in response was "Never even crossed my mind that folks would take the #SolarPower post LITERALLY. Scientism clergy are in an uproar!" So... no, it is most definitely not a reliable source for this kind of claim. SageRad (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fact is, he did claim that solar panels drain the Sun. He quickly retreated from this view but it is exactly true that he once claimed it to be so. For the claim that he is a Flat Earth Theorist, has he ever denied this to be the case? Ewen (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently he did so in jest, so to claim it was not in jest seems an untruth or at least very questionable. SageRad (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fact is, he did claim that solar panels drain the Sun. He quickly retreated from this view but it is exactly true that he once claimed it to be so. For the claim that he is a Flat Earth Theorist, has he ever denied this to be the case? Ewen (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Whatculture.com" is not remotely a "reliable source" nor does it claim to be one. It is an "entertainment" source including a big wrestling site. (Since then we've grown to cover TV, Gaming, Music, History, Science, Technology, Comics, Sport, and Literature, and become the biggest unofficial Wrestling website in the world.) And I suggest any source which says: He’s also Flat Earther because, of course he f*cking is. is pretty much not usable. Sorry - epic fail for that site. Collect (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about some of the reasoning here. A website cannot be a reliable source if it covers WWE wrestling? Or entertainment? The site covers a wide range of topics, including science and technology, and has editors for those specific topics. Also, does the tone of reporting on a topic and use of profanity disqualify a source as being reliable? Adrian[232] 20:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The tone of the "article" appears not to be of a nature as to convince any reasonable person to place credence in its statements. Your mileage may differ, but I rather suspect my opinion is quite rational about this. Collect (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Rational, maybe, but I find interesting the tone you are using here. Adrian[232] 22:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The tone of the "article" appears not to be of a nature as to convince any reasonable person to place credence in its statements. Your mileage may differ, but I rather suspect my opinion is quite rational about this. Collect (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of points: Anything written by Wolfe is going to be highly unreliable. He's a well known peddler of BS who has made many highly ridiculous statements in all seriousness. That being said, if he says he was joking about something, then absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, we need to either take his word for it or work real hard on honing our psychic powers. Because without psychic powers, the only insight we have into Wolfe's (or anyone else's) mind is through his (or her) words. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the specific question: Yes, I'm afraid this site is not reliable. The problem isn't that it covers wrestling or entertainment, it's that it's making an extraordinary claim of fact about a real person, with no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, in a flippant way. The article is fine as a source for the opinion of the author about Wolfe. I wouldn't use it for anything beyond that, though. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with most of those above -- not a reliable site for this purpose. That's the sort of theory that, if he is a proponent to the extent that it would be due WP:WEIGHT to include, would probably be covered in multiple reliable sources. I'm not seeing that -- some blogs, forums, etc. I see there's a recording of him talking about relevant stuff on YouTube. I listened to the first two minutes before my brain threatened to walk out on me. From what I can tell, he's trying to highlight aspects of scientific theories to try to poke holes and/or provoke, err, "scientism clergy" and/or "open people's minds" or somesuch. So in that audio clip he's talking about how the curvature of the earth should make it so you can't see something that's X distance away... but you can! Seems like he's trying to undercut the authority of science more than actually argue that the earth is flat (i.e. the earth may be round, but science says it knows more about it than it actually does). ...eh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem we are having is that he isn't talked about much in reliable sources at all. He is spokesman for the NutriBullet and was a judge and host on a reality TV show; enough to meet WP:N, but not much otherwise. His public criticism comes mainly from his large social media following and the ideas he expresses that spread on social media. He has claimed that "...the Earth really is flat" [8] on his Twitter, and spoke on a flat Earth panel as in the video which was posted on YouTube [9] (which contains plenty of dogwhistles at the very least). He's spoken about it enough that a news site thought it was the second most notable aspect of his social media presence: [10]. When it comes to this specific thing it seems to be non-controversial that he holds it and out of all of his views it is among the highest weight. The specific source here may not be reliable for this info, but it is difficult tracking down a source that someone doesn't have some issue with. Adrian[232] 00:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that just means we shouldn't have much to say about the guy. Don't get me wrong, I think everyone in the English-speaking world should know that Wolfe is full of shit. But I don't think it's WP's job to let them know. So if we can't get much info from reliable sources, we shouldn't have much info. I understand the rationale. "Everyone agrees that he's notable, but it's so hard to find strict RS sources that talk about him, maybe we should relax our RS standards a bit so as to allow us to write about it." It makes sense, except that it presupposes that stub articles are bad articles. They aren't. If all we can write is a stub, then all he gets is a stub. Hell, that'd probably bother him more than an article that calls him a flat-earther. I least I hope it will... ;) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem we are having is that he isn't talked about much in reliable sources at all. He is spokesman for the NutriBullet and was a judge and host on a reality TV show; enough to meet WP:N, but not much otherwise. His public criticism comes mainly from his large social media following and the ideas he expresses that spread on social media. He has claimed that "...the Earth really is flat" [8] on his Twitter, and spoke on a flat Earth panel as in the video which was posted on YouTube [9] (which contains plenty of dogwhistles at the very least). He's spoken about it enough that a news site thought it was the second most notable aspect of his social media presence: [10]. When it comes to this specific thing it seems to be non-controversial that he holds it and out of all of his views it is among the highest weight. The specific source here may not be reliable for this info, but it is difficult tracking down a source that someone doesn't have some issue with. Adrian[232] 00:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to double check this one, because inevitably someone will bring up in AfD that "it's just a fan blog", when the website is now published by Time Inc.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Its disclaimer is what counts. It is a blog site open to posts by fans, " Taking matters into their own hands, they launched Arrowhead Addict, a move that would spawn the creation of FanSided in 2009, a network of over 300+ fan-powered unique sports, entertainment and lifestyle sites dedicated to team-specific, sport-specific, genre-specific, and fanbase-specific coverage." The material is not under editorial control of Time, Inc.
- FanSided editors are given full editorial control of their very own team sites. They’re eligible for our competitive revenue sharing program and a myriad of other perks. Whether you are looking to make a little extra money covering your favorite teams or you want a career in sports, FanSided is where you want to be.
- Sorry - it appears there is no central editorial control, and it is a social media site. Collect (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- According to the about page, it does have an editing team aside from contributors. Perhaps they do have at least some editorial control?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- They have something they call an editorial staff, but it looks like these guys are just frequent volunteer contributors to the site. The actual employees of the site seem to be exclusively involved in site maintenance and marketing. If you can show that a particular writer for the site has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, such as by frequent citations to his work from sources whose reliability is not in doubt, then maybe you can worm something in under WP:SPS. Specifically Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, that does not seem likely to be the case here - these people describe themselves as fans. I'm sure if they were professional journalists (or anything else relevant) they would proudly say so. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- According to the about page, it does have an editing team aside from contributors. Perhaps they do have at least some editorial control?--Prisencolin (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
LIST OF ZOMBIES MOVIES
Santo contra los zombies (Santo vs. the Zombies, 1961) aka Invasion of the Zombies (dubbed in English) appears in WIKIPEDIA: SANTO the famous Mexican wrestler. Is missing in the list of all movies related to ZOMBIES.
- Wrong noticeboard. Take this discussion to the article's talk page here. Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
1971 Bangladesh genocide
The text being added in this edit is being contested by some editors to be sourced to an unreliable source. The text provides an alternative point of view regarding the genocide and provides necessary balance to the article. The author is Bangladeshi himself and his point of view in this book is contrary to mainstream Bangladeshi point of view. The text is being attributed to the book and author specifically and is not being cited as a fact. The feedback from editors not party to the dispute is appreciated.
- Breakdown
- Source:[1]
- Article: 1971 Bangladesh genocide
- Content: According to Bangladeshi author, Dr Abdul Mu'min Chowdhury's book, Behind The Myth of Three Million, some of these student dormitories had been turned into arsenals and insurgency training centres and a number of the university teachers had been involved with the secessionist movement and the secessionists were buying arms years before the Army crackdown.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Chowdhury, Abdul Mu'min (1996). Behind the Myth of Three million. London: Hamidur Rahman AL-HILAL PUBLISHERS LTD. p. 36.
- First, Chowdhury's nationality is irrelevant as to whether the source is reliable or not. Second, describing the content of the source as "providing an alternative point of view regarding the genocide" sort of gives the game away, doesn't it? It's crap, not reliable. Originally, the discussion on the talk page was whether the source should be described as "controversial". But then someone noticed, hey, this isn't reliable at all. That someone was User:Worldbruce here. As Worldbruce points out this appears to be a self-published work or one from a vanity press. Chowdhury has no expertise in the subject. There's only one WorldCat library which actually has the book. So yeah, I removed it. Another editor also agreed [11].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Who is Dr. Chowdhury and why should we care what his opinion is? Furthermore, does Al-Hilal ltd. have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in the publication of history books? I can't seem to really find out anything about the author - everything online just points to this book. And I also can't really find out much of anything about the publisher. Their website is pretty basic and only talks about magazine publications (assuming I even have the right publisher), and there's really not much in Worldcat from any publisher by that name. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. This definitely doesn't seem to be reliable. For controversial historical topics, it is best to use peer reviewed publications or (in cases of books), use only highly cited books. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Millenium
http://www.millenium.org/, French gaming and eSports website.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not able to find the page which contains their editorial policy. But a look around their website seems like it is a community website of gaming enthusiasts. The "news" posts for example do not seem to be conventional bylined articles. I would term this as WP:USERGENERATED. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Forex trading websites
Concerning sourcing at Spotware: much of the article is sourced to these sites:
- fxstreet
.com - cited in many articles - "contact us" lists FXStreet / Portaferrissa 7, 1r 2a / Barcelona 08002 / Catalonia - Spain
cTrader is awarded ‘Best Retail Platform 2013’ at the FX Week e-FX awards in New York.
completed 3402 Type I Audit under the guidance off Deloitte
- financemagnates
.com - cited in many articles - "contacts" lists 7 Jabotinsky St., Ramat Gan, Israel with an office in Cyprus
Spotware becomes the first e-FX technology firm to offer netted accounts and hedged accounts under a single environment.
- dailyforex
.com - cited in nine articles including XM.com - "contact us" lists no physical address - forexcrunch
.com - cited in four articles - "contact us" lists Sant Pere Mes Baix 26, 1o, 4a Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain, 08003 - cTrader Launches Open API
- User:Nagle identified this as a blog here.
- forexbrokerz
.com - Cited in seven articles including XM.com - "contact us" lists no physical address
What is consensus on general reliability on any of these? And specifically, are FX Week e-FX awards notable in this context? - Brianhe (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, any of these Forex trading websites (and I periodically remove them from trading-related articles I monitor) exist to sell stuff. In support of that purpose, they publish information that they think will keep people on their site. They are not sources of news; in fact most of the information they publish can be found in other, more reliable sources. At best, they can be considered trade publications, but really they aren't even that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just noting related issues are being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency and we may get some more comments from editors who saw it there. - Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting these in one place. I looked through all of them, and they seem to exist in a tiny bubble that is never referenced by any outside sources, aside from trivial mentions. Basically, once you clear google search results from self-cites, press releases, and social media, there's nothing left. I looked into the people who run one site, financemagnates, and they appear to be total unknowns. Certainly, if a source is never used by anyone else, there's no way to prove a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and we can't claim the source is penned by experts if the authors are totally unknown. I feel comfortable saying that none of these are reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we be very cautious about sourcing in the "forex" area. In the "binary options" area, which is closely related, we've had some of the hardest COI pushing in the history of Wikipedia. See the history of Banc de Binary at AN/I. The binary options business, which is mostly in Tel Aviv, has been exposed in a 16-part series in the Times of Israel.[12]. A crackdown in Israel seems likely. (The US crackdown happened years ago.) So the hundreds of companies and thousands of people involved are looking for another industry to enter. Forex and binary options are closely associated; they have a joint annual convention and some of the same people are involved in both areas.[13] With the heat on in the binary options business, some firms are moving into the forex area. On Wikipedia, we're now seeing the same tactics on Wikipedia, as Brianhe and Someguy1221 reported. In this area, I'd look for reliable sources at the WSJ/Bloomberg/Fortune/NYT/Economist level. The legit players in foreign exchange are big enough and well known enough to have references at that level. If somebody claims to be a big player and they're not well known in the financial community, it's suspicious. John Nagle (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Useful resource: the National Futures Association FOREX company background check database. [14] If a company isn't in there, they are not authorized to do FOREX transactions in the US. None of the business names from the latest COI case are showing up in that database. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest that we be very cautious about sourcing in the "forex" area. In the "binary options" area, which is closely related, we've had some of the hardest COI pushing in the history of Wikipedia. See the history of Banc de Binary at AN/I. The binary options business, which is mostly in Tel Aviv, has been exposed in a 16-part series in the Times of Israel.[12]. A crackdown in Israel seems likely. (The US crackdown happened years ago.) So the hundreds of companies and thousands of people involved are looking for another industry to enter. Forex and binary options are closely associated; they have a joint annual convention and some of the same people are involved in both areas.[13] With the heat on in the binary options business, some firms are moving into the forex area. On Wikipedia, we're now seeing the same tactics on Wikipedia, as Brianhe and Someguy1221 reported. In this area, I'd look for reliable sources at the WSJ/Bloomberg/Fortune/NYT/Economist level. The legit players in foreign exchange are big enough and well known enough to have references at that level. If somebody claims to be a big player and they're not well known in the financial community, it's suspicious. John Nagle (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting these in one place. I looked through all of them, and they seem to exist in a tiny bubble that is never referenced by any outside sources, aside from trivial mentions. Basically, once you clear google search results from self-cites, press releases, and social media, there's nothing left. I looked into the people who run one site, financemagnates, and they appear to be total unknowns. Certainly, if a source is never used by anyone else, there's no way to prove a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and we can't claim the source is penned by experts if the authors are totally unknown. I feel comfortable saying that none of these are reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just noting related issues are being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Offshore trading companies, regulators and promotion agency and we may get some more comments from editors who saw it there. - Brianhe (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- None of those sources are reliable sources. They tend to lightly redress the news (available on other sites) and post them. I do not see any indication that they independently do a fact checking. This essentially makes them a blog which is a WP:SPS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
starsunfolded.com
Recently I reverted an attempt to fill in a "citation needed" request with a citation to http://starsunfolded.com/ because, when I examined the site,
- It refers to entries as "posts" suggesting it's someone's private blog
- The website doesn't disclose any sources whatsoever about where the bio information comes from
- The website doesn't disclose any information about itself, editors, or editorial policies
- The domain name uses a Domains by Proxy DNS which anonymizes all information about who operates the site
All of the above suggest that the site is someone's personal self-published project.
A link search reveals that this site is cited in several other articles.
I hesitate to remove those links because the site does have useful bio information about notable people, provided it's trustworthy, but as far as I can tell it's no better than IMDB. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the citations I found to starsunfolded. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is patent WP:SPS. Essentially like a wiki, except that only a person (or a few people) are collecting information and posting them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Are American tabloid clickbait websites reliable sources for stating Cleopatra is an example of Hollywood 'Whitewashing'.
The article Whitewashing in film uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.
The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.
First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html
Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra
Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood
Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247 (talk • contribs)
- There are certainly enough reliable sources that state that Cleopatra's ancestry was almost entirely Greek. So I have to agree that the casting of Elizabeth Taylor in the movie is not an example of "whitewashing". I would remove it from the list. Blueboar (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Cleo's lineage is fairly well-established, and she was not especially "Egyptian", so, unless someone manages to find it wrong, she was probably olive-skinned at most, and probably not with violet eyes. Meanwhile - clickbait sites do not meet WP:RS in my opinion for anything. http://www.genealogyintime.com/NewsStories/2009/March/did_cleopatra_have_african_ancestry.html mentions a claim that her sister had mixed features, if one believes that the skull examined was that of her sister. One more case where trying to classify people on the basis of ethnicity, even dead people, is not a great idea, Collect (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor gap in the lineage.
- Cleopatra VII's father was Ptolemy XII Auletes, also known as "Nothos" (Νόθος, Nóthos = the Bastard). He was apparently a bastard son of Ptolemy IX Lathyros by an unknown mother. There is a theory that the mother was actually Cleopatra IV of Egypt, Ptolemy IX's wife, but there is insufficient evidence for it. Basically we have little to no idea who was Cleopatra's paternal grandmother.
- We are not certain who Cleopatra VII's mother was. Possibly Cleopatra V of Egypt (Ptolemy XII's only attested wife), or Cleopatra VI of Egypt (a shadowy figure of disputed identity). In either case, there is no clear attestation of who her mother was.
The idea has been used by various writers and genealogists to question the purity of Cleopatra's lineage. The main problem as Chris Bennett puts it: "Her mother is not named in any of the classical sources. Her date of birth is several months before Cleopatra V was removed from power. Aside from a comment by Strabo 17.1.11 that Berenice IV was Ptolemy XII's only legitimate daughter, there is no suggestion in any ancient source that Cleopatra VII was illegitimate. Given the threat she posed to the Augustan regime in Rome, and the narrowness with which it was averted, it seems generally and reasonably agreed that this silence is positive evidence that she was legitimate, since there is every opportunity for her to be labelled a bastard if she was not the daughter of Cleopatra V, even if she was in fact the child of an officially recognised second queen. For general comments on the question of whether Ptolemy XII had a second wife, see discussion under Ptolemy XII."
In other words we are ignoring Strabo's comment that Cleopatra was not a legitimate daughter of Ptolemy XII to begin with. And he was her contemporary. Clearly there are gaps in our knowledge of Ptolemaic lineage. I do not know where the idea of an "African" Cleopatra comes from, but the pure Greek/Macedonian lineage of the dynasty is not known for certain. Dimadick (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- NOTE - Let's not get sidetracked... The question we need to ask isn't whether the historical Cleopatra was primarily of Greek ancestry, but whether it is appropriate to include the Liz Taylor movie in our list of movies that are accused of engaging in "Whitewashing". Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, well, real sources, even real pop sources like Smithsonian, will tell you that it's not at all clear what Cleopatra VII looked like to this level of detail, but she was (from the images we have) not a stunner, and definitely not black. In any case the line here between white and non-white is all too often blurry and arguable.
- The real issue here is in that phrase "that have been subject to criticism," because most criticism is irrelevant. The fact that this list is sourced almost entirely from newspaper, TV, and online journalism is a big problem: it presents the impression that they are the only ones who care about this and that anyone who isn't just chasing publicity for its own sake doesn't care that much. There's also no sense of how egregious the various cases may or may not be; Breakfast at Tiffany's is painful even to the unenlightened, but fussing about race in Roman/biblical costume dramas, considering the historical/textual liberties taken, is hard to defend. It would be more accurate to say that "of late the media have made a fuss over this, citing as examples" and then quickly bulleting out a list. I got reverted for demanding an academic source, but when it comes down to it, the problem here is notability, not so much reliability. When the popular media are the primary source for accusations, is the controversy real or manufactured? Surely there are better sources than this clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fringe theory that she was black can be referenced directyly to Africentric scholars, no need to use bad websites. Another way is to cite it to F. Royster who describes the theory and attributes it to the afrocentric movement.[15] - Lefkowits also describes and critiques the theory in her book on Afrocentrism. The theory is notable and is mentioned (and rejected) by scholars of Cleopatra as well as scholars of afrocentrism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"? The title of this section begs the conclusion. I don't see how that's ok. What i read in a brief survey of sources says that Cleopatra's race is not known well but there are indications she was not a white European. What qualifies something to be described as a "fringe theory" and then a question asked about it in that light? Anyway, the question here was whether a specific source is a RS, not what race Cleopatra was, but the way of asking it predetermines a specific conclusion. SageRad (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- We are not trying to reference whether the historical Cleopatra was white or black... We are trying to find a quality reference for the claim that the movie is an example of "whitewashing". Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- But why's the section title currently "Are American tabloid clickbait websites reliable sources for the fringe theory that Cleopatra was black"? SageRad (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- We are not trying to reference whether the historical Cleopatra was white or black... We are trying to find a quality reference for the claim that the movie is an example of "whitewashing". Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"?
Anything that you believe. Just kidding. But seriously, I know for a fact that you've been linked to an expansive and complete answer to that question many, many times. Perhaps you should click on links your are offered, if -as your question indicates- you have no idea what they say. So go ahead and click on that link now, and read the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)- What makes this particular theory a "fringe theory"? Do not condescend to me. My question is not about the guideline called "fringe" but rather what determines whether something in particular -- like this idea that Cleopatra may have been black or otherwise not white -- is "fringe" and who determined this to be true, and where and when was that determination made? My question is full import and relevance here, MjolnirPants, and your dismissiveness and condescension do nothing to answer my question. We cannot just have anyone declare something to be "fringe" and then call special rules about how it's treated within Wikipedia. That's a recipe for chaos and degradation of content. SageRad (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sage, given our history, I'm afraid you're SOL if you want me to not condescend to you. You pretty much guaranteed that I'm going to have to talk down every time we engage each other, because you say things like you just said above. This isn't something I do because I want to, it's just that you seem to be marginally more capable of understanding what I'm saying when I condescend.
- You see, the answer to your second question is, actually, the answer I provided to your first question. Any questions you have about the nature of fringe theories can be answered by a thorough reading of that page. Normally, I would not advise anyone to use WP as a direct source of information (although it's a great place to start finding information), but in this case, I've vetted the article for you. It's pretty good. So try reading it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Once again your comment is rude and uncivil. And you still have not ansewered my completely valid question about where and when is it determined that this particular concept is a "fringe" concept and therefore subject to "special rules of evidence"? Because there is not a good reason. It's more like editors saying "I know it when i see it" and that is not acceptable in the world of Wikipedia. You say that i guarantee you to condescend to me by "things like you just said above" -- meaning what exactly? What of what i said makes you need to condescend to me? I call your bluff and i declare your behavior uncivil here. Do not speak to me if you cannot be civil. That is a policy of Wikipedia in case you don't know about it: WP:CIVILITY. SageRad (talk) 05:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- What makes this particular theory a "fringe theory"? Do not condescend to me. My question is not about the guideline called "fringe" but rather what determines whether something in particular -- like this idea that Cleopatra may have been black or otherwise not white -- is "fringe" and who determined this to be true, and where and when was that determination made? My question is full import and relevance here, MjolnirPants, and your dismissiveness and condescension do nothing to answer my question. We cannot just have anyone declare something to be "fringe" and then call special rules about how it's treated within Wikipedia. That's a recipe for chaos and degradation of content. SageRad (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- To drag this back on target. 'Whitewashing' is the act of casting white actors as ethnicities other than their own - usually minorities. Black, hispanic etc. Taylor was white, portraying a Greek Egyptian. She was certainly portraying an ethnicity other than her own, but was it whitewashing? Taylor could certainly pass for modern Greek, historical Egyptian-Greek? Who knows given the uncertain knowledge of Cleo's exact looks. The afrocentric Cleo theory is completely fringe and the article is 'Whitewashing in Film' not 'Accusations of Whitewashing in Film', so absent a better source (preferably scholarly) indication it is an example of whitewashing, I'm with Blueboar and it should probably be removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The question was whether a source was reliable or not. I do not think it's established what race or appearance Cleopatra was from this here discussion, nor was that the topic. But the title of this section implies that the questioning of the established idea is "fringe" and therefore i asked whether this is acceptable and where did that conversation happen? We cannot allow assumptions like this to creep in. SageRad (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well since the title seems to bother you and Blueboar has clarified what the actual issue is, I have altered the title to reflect the actual question he wants answered. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Only in death.... glad to say those words for a change. I appreciate that, because the title of the section indeed was troubling to me due to the assumption that it implied. SageRad (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. They're not RS and secondly they're never original, thus there is a better source somewhere behind them. That source might be usable.
- Also, I do wish that Americans, from the nation of Fox News and USA Today, would stop describing the Daily Mail, as "a notorious British tabloid". It's bad, but it's not that bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Its not limited to the US. You can dislike the Daily Fail from the UK too. About the only thing you can say these days is that at least they didnt hack people's phones. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
BAM! Y'all could have saved a lot of time by doing a properly constructed search on google books, this literally took me a minute to find. Anyway: you don't need the clickbait articles because there are numerous reliable sources that describe Taylor-as-Cleopatra as whitewashing. Here is another example, which states that "It is not the first time that Hollywood has been accused of "whitewashing" historical figures in ancient history. Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra in 1963...." Fyddlestix (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thats kind of the problem. 'Whitewashing in film' is a list of 'whitewashing in film'. There is no end of sources that indicate Taylor portraying Cleopatra is whitewashing. The book ref you posted is indicative of the issue - Cleopatra is often depicted by non-scholars as 'of colour'. So a combination of Black/African Egyptian. When she was actually pretty damn Greek (so Olive-skinned at the darkest). So while its easy to say 'yes these sources say this is whitewashing' the reality is they are based on a faulty premise. It could be solved I suppose if some reliable sources can be found disputing that it was whitewashing and insert that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument appears to be WP:OR. If a large number of reliable sources call it whitewashing, then it can and should be listed in the article, period. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- To add: a lot of you seem to be under the impression that Cleopatra needs to have been black for this to have been a case of whitewashing, but I don't think that's a valid assumption: the term has a much broader meaning than that (covering, for example, white actors playing Mexicans or Native Americans, or people of any other ethnicity). Cleo doesn't have to have been black or even dark-skinned for this to be a case of whitewashing, just of markedly different ethnicity than Taylor (which she was). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would have to agree with this that if the list inclusion metric is "Below is a list of films that have had their casting criticized as "whitewashing":", and we have RSes (eg books, not clickbait) that state it, despite the fact that separately we know differently, its hard to invalidate its inclusion. What we should be doing, as its OR otherwise, is to find sources that counter the whitewashing statement wrt Cleopatra that points out the arguments above raised about her primarily Greek ancestory and that those calling it "whitewashing" are likely not as well versed on the known history of her. (I note that in trying to search for this counter-source, "liz-taylor-as-cleopatra" seems to be the go-to example of how Hollywood has "consistently" whitewashed Egyptian-based films, so to remove it would go against popular opinion, even if that popular opinion is malformed). --MASEM (t) 14:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Possible better text and sources
I agree that most or all of the popular-media sources cited are either unreliable or, if reliable, of inferior quality to other sources that exist. Fyddlestix is right: there are a bunch of good academic works/works of film criticism that address the topic, and we should cite to those. Because there is pushback on the "white washing" claim, this too should be noted. An example text that I think would read better, and would reflect the high-quality sources, would be:
- Some scholars characterize Elizabeth Taylor's depiction of the film's title character, an ancient Egyptian queen, as a form of Hollywood "brown face"[1] or "racial ventriloquism."[2] Other scholars, however, note that the historical Cleopatra was part of the Macedonian Greek dynasty that then ruled Egypt, and that "no surviving ancient portrait of Cleopatra gives any indication of her skin color."[3]
References
- ^ Dale Hudson, "Vampires of Color and the Performance of Multicultural Whiteness" in The Persistence of Whiteness: Race and Contemporary Hollywood Cinema (ed. Daniel Bernardi: Routledge, 2008), p. 148.
- ^ Katheryn Russell-Brown, The Color of Crime (New York University Press, 2009), p. 18.
- ^ Mary R. Lefkowitz, History Lesson: A Race Odyssey (Yale University Press, 2008), p. 29.
--Neutralitytalk 14:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually original research for us to prompt the counter-argument based on what scholars have said about her lineage. We actually need something like a scholarly source to point out that the whitewashing claims are wrong. Again, the way the list appears set up, its to list films accused of whitewashing, which doesn't mean that the claims of whitewashing are right or wrong. If we have sources that specifically call out the claims as wrong they absolutely should be included, but we have to watch the OR/SYNTH here. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, certainly, on the need for caution. However, the Lefkowitz source (and others, such as one by the same author here) is a direct respond to the whitewashing claim with respect to the specific film at issue. She doesn't use the specific phrase "white washing," but I don't think that's a problem here. (Hudson doesn't use the phrase, either; he calls it "brown face" but it doesn't require any interpretative step to connect this to the whitewashing phenomenon). Neutralitytalk 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- And maybe... just maybe... the whitewashing claims are more right than wrong. This is of course an interpretive question, and it ought to be that we read the universe of available sources and evaluate the lay of the land of opinions by reliable sources on this matter and then report that lay of the land. I find it odd but i feel a "pushing" here to find that it's not whitewashing, as if that's an outcome that many here would love to avoid having written in Wikipedia. I get this sense and i find this odd. Note that i still have a question open as to why it's assumed in the title of this section that the idea that Cleopatra was not white is a "fringe theory". I don't see where that's established as a fact either. SageRad (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would agree with that. (The whole issue is really not one that's capable of having some sort of "objective Truth" ascertained). I agree that we should briefly survey the lay of the land on the subject and cite to the academics/scholars who have directly commented. This includes both those who characterize the film as being whitewashed and those who have contested this assertion. Neutralitytalk 15:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unless we have a preponderance of reliable sources claiming that Cleopatra was black, we shouldn't be saying she was black. If there are sufficient RSes documenting that some people think she was black, then we can say that, making sure we don't give it any WP:UNDUE weight. (Considering the subject of the article, any mention at all might actually be undue, but let's deal with that later, if we have to.) But if the scholarly consensus among historians was that she was Greek, we should absolutely say that (albeit concisely, as that's not the subject of this article). Regardless of what historians say, if the scholarly consensus among cultural anthropologists or film critics is that this film is an example of white-washing, then we should say that. If some notable CAs/critics say that this is not whitewashing, then we should say that some disagree (possible with a "such as so-and-so, who said "blah blah," to illustrate). If it's a hotly debate thing whether this fil represents white-washing, then that's what we should say. As someone else pointed out above (sorry, but I forgot who), there is such a thing as "brownface", "redface" and "yellowface", in addition to blackface. There may be good arguments to be made that Greek people aren't different enough from British-American actresses to consider that in the same category as a blackface performance, but that's not for us to make. We should simply be reporting what the RSes say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- On the point If some notable CAs/critics say that this is not whitewashing, then we should say that some disagree (possible with a "such as so-and-so, who said "blah blah," to illustrate). I have found for WP that when we say a work is notable for subjective measure X (like whitewashing) (and where it's more than one random person), this implicitly sets out this does not have to be universal opinion that everyone agrees that X applies, and we don't need on this list to include the counter-points. That's on the list page: on the work's page, however, UNDUE should apply, and we should include both arguments for and against X in the proper portion. But further, specifically on the issue of Taylor's Cleopatra, when looking through sources, I see that it often discussed at the key example of whitewashing of Egyptian peoples, so here, outside of the list but in the prose, more discussion is warranted, and there again, like for the work's page, it should include both arguments. In other words, the list doesn't need to flesh out everything but I would expect either on the prose leading the list or on the article on the work a more UNDUE-weighted discussion is presented on whether the work is or isn't whitewashing. --MASEM (t) 02:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unless we have a preponderance of reliable sources claiming that Cleopatra was black, we shouldn't be saying she was black. If there are sufficient RSes documenting that some people think she was black, then we can say that, making sure we don't give it any WP:UNDUE weight. (Considering the subject of the article, any mention at all might actually be undue, but let's deal with that later, if we have to.) But if the scholarly consensus among historians was that she was Greek, we should absolutely say that (albeit concisely, as that's not the subject of this article). Regardless of what historians say, if the scholarly consensus among cultural anthropologists or film critics is that this film is an example of white-washing, then we should say that. If some notable CAs/critics say that this is not whitewashing, then we should say that some disagree (possible with a "such as so-and-so, who said "blah blah," to illustrate). If it's a hotly debate thing whether this fil represents white-washing, then that's what we should say. As someone else pointed out above (sorry, but I forgot who), there is such a thing as "brownface", "redface" and "yellowface", in addition to blackface. There may be good arguments to be made that Greek people aren't different enough from British-American actresses to consider that in the same category as a blackface performance, but that's not for us to make. We should simply be reporting what the RSes say. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that better coverage should be given to the article on the film, rather than the list, one of your phrases caught my attention: "whitewashing of Egyptian peoples". Is it possible that the debate is not about Cleopatra VII or the Ptolemaic dynasty in general, but concerns the Ancient Egyptian race controversy which covers the racial classification of all ancient Egyptians? And while there is a lot of debate about that, the main problem is the assumption that Egyptians all looked alike and could easily fit in modern categorization schemes. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am sure there's elements of that too; I think from just my quick scan of sources that there could be a reasonable section on this Whitewashing article specifically talking about Taylor's casting as Cleopatra and how that has some different opinions if it is true whitewashing or an expectation spread by myth and/or lack of in-depth knowledge. To the point at hand, the number of reliable sources is rather large that there's no need to resort to "clickbait" sites. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
...implicitly sets out this does not have to be universal opinion that everyone agrees that X applies, and we don't need on this list to include the counter-points. That's on the list page:...
That's fine by me, unless it's very contentious. If it's very contentious (if we can find about as many sources saying it's not whitewashing as saying it is), then we should mention that. Otherwise, just mentioning that "many" have called it whitewashing is enough. If it's a matter of just including it on the list: if there's any significant number of RSes calling it whitewashing, that's enough to include it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that better coverage should be given to the article on the film, rather than the list, one of your phrases caught my attention: "whitewashing of Egyptian peoples". Is it possible that the debate is not about Cleopatra VII or the Ptolemaic dynasty in general, but concerns the Ancient Egyptian race controversy which covers the racial classification of all ancient Egyptians? And while there is a lot of debate about that, the main problem is the assumption that Egyptians all looked alike and could easily fit in modern categorization schemes. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm raising this in advance of editing as I'm anticipating controversy. According to this German weekly, Edward Snowden is a "Russian agent" and Wikileaks, which arranged for Snowden's travel to Russia, works for Russian intelligence with Putin being informed "in detail" about every forthcoming WikiLeaks publication in advance. Wikileaks has responded by claiming that Focus is a tool of German intelligence. Anyone have any examples of where Focus has reported contradicted claims before (and failed to issue a correction if required)?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- We need the exact use - Focus is a major publication, and claims of fact made by it are generally accepted as being from a "reliable source." The "agent" claim, if made in an opinion column, is only usable as an opinion and cited as such. More to the point, the precise use of "agent" in German has several meanings, and is not always "paid operative" in the "US spy" sense. As so much depends on the exact wording in the source, no one here can make a definitive answer about it being a reliable source as a claim of fact. Collect (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The labelled as an "agent" claim is actually made by RT English: "Focus had already made similar claims about the former NSA contractor, whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom the magazine labeled a 'Russian agent.'" I'm aware of RT's reliability issues but in this case took the "Russian agent" "label[ing]" at face value given RT's use of quotes. I now think it's more likely that Focus reported Hans-Georg Maaßen's comments about Snowden and RT is mis-attributing the views of Focus' source to Focus. As for Wikileaks, Focus states "Die Whistleblower-Organisation sei seit Jahren von Moskaus Agententruppe unterwandert, heißt es in dem Berliner Regierungsdossier. Analytiker französischer und britischer Nachrichtendienste kämen zum selben Ergebnis. Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin und Ministerpräsident Dmitri Medwedew seien detailliert über bevorstehende Veröffentlichungen..." which I'd translate as "The whistleblower organization has been infiltrated by agents of Moscow for years, according to the Berlin government dossier. Analysts with French and British intelligence services have come to the same conclusion. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive detailed information before publication..."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Which means you might be able to say that:
- According to Focus, the Berlin government dossier says that WikiLeaks has been infiltrated by Russian agents.
- at most, and not that:
- Edward Snowden is a "Russian agent" and Wikileaks, which arranged for Snowden's travel to Russia, works for Russian intelligence with Putin being informed "in detail" about every forthcoming WikiLeaks publication in advance.
- Do you see the difference? Collect (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you think Focus should only be used with attribution then why not say so plainly instead of presuming that perhaps I don't understand the difference between using attribution and not using attribution? I've already acknowledged that the text "Edward Snowden is a 'Russian agent'" would not be appropriate given what I've found. Here's the edit: "In September 2016, the German weekly Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion and said Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive details about what WikiLeaks publishes before publication. The Focus report followed a New York Times story that suggested that WikiLeaks may be a laundering machine for compromising material about Western countries gathered by Russian spies."
- I had rather thought I made that clear in my very first post. The "fact" is about what the dossier appears to state according to Focus, not what RT said Focus said etc. The material about what intelligence services though is opinion at best, not concrete fact, and the NYT article appears to be essentially opinion about WikiLeaks at best. And Focus can not know "as a fact" what Putin knows. Collect (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I thought I made it clear in my second post that what RT said can be dismissed. Why does the NYT present its article as news if its mere opinion? Is the Gray Lady not a RS here, in your view? How do you know that the intelligence services are drawing conclusions that are unsupported by facts?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where something is an opinion, the fact the NYT publishes the opinion does not use Hogwarts magic to turn the opinion a claim of fact. And might some intelligence organizations spread information which is not simple fact? Really? Collect (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I asked you a simple Q, Collect: why is the NYT mispresenting an opinion piece as news? Or are you not alleging that? Who's using "Hogwarts magic" here, anyway? Is that what the use of attribution involves? As for intel orgs, sure they might spread info that is not "simple fact". But if German intelligence is engaging in a disinformation campaign, why is an otherwise reliable source like Focus volunteering to act as the campaign soapbox? Should we never report what intelligence services have to say?--Brian Dell (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where something is an opinion, the fact the NYT publishes the opinion does not use Hogwarts magic to turn the opinion a claim of fact. And might some intelligence organizations spread information which is not simple fact? Really? Collect (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- And I thought I made it clear in my second post that what RT said can be dismissed. Why does the NYT present its article as news if its mere opinion? Is the Gray Lady not a RS here, in your view? How do you know that the intelligence services are drawing conclusions that are unsupported by facts?--Brian Dell (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I had rather thought I made that clear in my very first post. The "fact" is about what the dossier appears to state according to Focus, not what RT said Focus said etc. The material about what intelligence services though is opinion at best, not concrete fact, and the NYT article appears to be essentially opinion about WikiLeaks at best. And Focus can not know "as a fact" what Putin knows. Collect (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you think Focus should only be used with attribution then why not say so plainly instead of presuming that perhaps I don't understand the difference between using attribution and not using attribution? I've already acknowledged that the text "Edward Snowden is a 'Russian agent'" would not be appropriate given what I've found. Here's the edit: "In September 2016, the German weekly Focus reported that according to a confidential German government dossier, WikiLeaks had long since been infiltrated by Russian agents aiming to discredit NATO governments. The magazine added that French and British intelligence services had come to the same conclusion and said Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive details about what WikiLeaks publishes before publication. The Focus report followed a New York Times story that suggested that WikiLeaks may be a laundering machine for compromising material about Western countries gathered by Russian spies."
- Which means you might be able to say that:
- The labelled as an "agent" claim is actually made by RT English: "Focus had already made similar claims about the former NSA contractor, whistleblower Edward Snowden, whom the magazine labeled a 'Russian agent.'" I'm aware of RT's reliability issues but in this case took the "Russian agent" "label[ing]" at face value given RT's use of quotes. I now think it's more likely that Focus reported Hans-Georg Maaßen's comments about Snowden and RT is mis-attributing the views of Focus' source to Focus. As for Wikileaks, Focus states "Die Whistleblower-Organisation sei seit Jahren von Moskaus Agententruppe unterwandert, heißt es in dem Berliner Regierungsdossier. Analytiker französischer und britischer Nachrichtendienste kämen zum selben Ergebnis. Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin und Ministerpräsident Dmitri Medwedew seien detailliert über bevorstehende Veröffentlichungen..." which I'd translate as "The whistleblower organization has been infiltrated by agents of Moscow for years, according to the Berlin government dossier. Analysts with French and British intelligence services have come to the same conclusion. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev receive detailed information before publication..."--Brian Dell (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This appears to be a bit of a red herring. Maybe I've missed something, but I have scoured the Internet and I could find no Focus article labeling Snowden a "Russian agent." The actual source cited by Brian was published by RT, which has been described as "the Kremlin's propaganda outlet" by the Columbia Journalism Review and part of Russia's anti-Western disinformation program by The New York Times. Not reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Is this source reliable?
I have talked about whether the source is reliable for Burma campaign's infobox. Is this source reliable? www
- Looks like an undergraduate essay from the note at the bottom of the first page: "Georgetown University, GOVT451, Professor Karber." So not at all, at a glance. But it's pretty well footnoted, so if you can verify the sources they might be suitable. Also, we should try to recruit the author to Wikipedia :-D - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this article acceptable for a report on an obscure Israeli village?
Skylar Lindsay, 'Palestinian fishermen struggle to survive next door to Netanyahu’s palatial suburb,'
It strikes me as a non-controversial piece of reportage by a travel writer mainly quoting local people in the Israeli village of Jisr az-Zarqa. It was published by the Mondoweiss web site.
The argument is, Mondoweiss is a blog and can never be used on Wikipedia, a position which has not been confirmed in the past by third parties examining what had developed into a modern web based news organization, under editorial control, and reflecting a wide variety of reportage and opinion.
On 2 occasions, the objecting editor replaced the source with sources he approves of, without altering the content. I argue that this itself testifies to the impression that the article has reliably reported what the people he interviewed remarked, and therefore can be used for things like villagers commuting for work in Haifa and Tel Aviv, a rather innocuous fact, but, in my view, not likely to be mentioned in multiple sources, given the obscurity of the village. Nishidani (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss is a blog that has been accused by reliable (as wikipedia defines it) sources of publishing anti-semitic material as well as being anti-semitic. And you want to use a piece titled "Palestinian fishermen struggle to survive next door to Netanyahu’s palatial suburb" as a source from a blog with that pedigree? If there are other sources to support the same material in the article from more reliable and less obviously partisan origins, they should be used instead. Failing that, I would remove the material added entirely due to lack of a reliable source. [ninja edit] Hilariously the quite sensible filter at my current location blocks Mondoweiss as a 'political/social advocacy'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I asked for outside comment, not a reflex, for the nth time, 'no, Nishidani'. For any newspaper, article, or website commenting critically on some aspect of Israeli policy you will get a storm of accusations about anti-Semitism, anti-Israel advocacy, etc.etc., that any editor with a mission can then drop onto the newspaper or website's wikipage. Use this criterion and half the historical works issued by Tel Aviv University press would be antisemitic. In normal democracies, opinions are refreshingly diverse, even antagonistic, as is reportage itself etc. Most of the mainstream newspapers we use for the I/P area are partisan. I haven't edited the Mondoweiss page to balance the coatrack of negative comments on it, -I expect an average reader can detect hot air -so I'm requesting outside editors to read the article, compare it to other articles cited on the page, to tell us whether this is informative and uncontroversial. Nishidani (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- What kind of location and what kind of filter blocks "political/social advocacy"? Sounds Orwellian. We do not want Wikipedia to be subject to such filters, for certain. A strive for NPOV but this does not mean blinders. SageRad (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- The reason it matters at all whether something is a "blog" is because its sometimes an indicator of a WP:SPS. Mondoweiss is not an SPS, so its pointless to press that line any further. Anyone who conspicuously criticizes the state of Israel will be called anti-Semitic sooner or later, so that's neither here nor there. What you need to look at is WP:BIASED, because Mondoweiss certainly is that. They obviously care about this fishing village only as an avenue to scold Netanyahu. Including that angle would be WP:COATRACK on the village's page and undue on Netanyahu's page. Bias is not unreliability, so there's no reason to exclude their information about the village itself. Rhoark (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- The fact they are anti-Israel is not what makes them anti-Semitic. Many people are anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic and using your post as an excuse for anti-Semitism to just allow any anti-Israel piece is wrong. Mondoweiss should not be allowed because they have no credibility, and that is on top of their bias. They are a blog, and should not be allowed. Then again, Nishidani thinks Ma'an News is a reputable source so please take this with a heap of salt. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course it is slef-publsihed. Who do you think publishes it ? It list some unknown "Scott Rot" with a twiiter hande as a "publisher". Epson Salts (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know who that is, but it's not the author, Skylar Lindsey. The pieces there have to get by the editors, who seem to have solid credentials, so its not self-published. Now, there's the question of whether they have "no credibility". It seems they have quite a lot of credibility with some people, and make some other people very angry. This is what's known as bias. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- You wrote "Mondoweiss is not an SPS" - so presumably you know who the publisher is. Who is it? Epson Salts (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know who that is, but it's not the author, Skylar Lindsey. The pieces there have to get by the editors, who seem to have solid credentials, so its not self-published. Now, there's the question of whether they have "no credibility". It seems they have quite a lot of credibility with some people, and make some other people very angry. This is what's known as bias. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sources are not required to be *neutral* by policy but they are required to be reliable. The relevant part of WP:V would be WP:BLOGS (as this is not a WP:NEWSBLOG) and so yes, it does qualify as a SPS. I cant see the author of the piece is an expert on either economics or pollution that would allow a group blog to be useable except for very basic information. The core of reliability is 'Is this source reliable for the material cited?' Given the author is a writer who lists 'social justice' amongst their topics, who writes for a known activist blog with a dubious history of anti-semitism, and the tone of the article is clearly anti-Israel, I have zero confidence they are portraying an accurate reflection of the situation in the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mondoweiss seems like a good source, with a point of view. As long as its POV is taken into account -- as with any source on such controversial topics -- it seems to not be a junk or worthless source. SageRad (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly makes it seem like a good source? Epson Salts (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits to the page answer that. On three occasions (here here and here) you retained the content added from this article, but replaced the source each time with articles you regard as acceptable. Therefore, you do not regard the content of the article you object to as problematical, indeed you corroborate its accuracy by finding alternative sourcing that says the same things.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Do I really have to explain the logical fallacy you are committing there? Alternatively, would you accept Arutz 7 as a source, if I present you with a dozen or so of its reports that were also reported by other relaible sources? Epson Salts (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- If there are uncontested sources for the same information, it should make no difference to anybody. There is no precedent to be made here that would carry into a truly disputed claim. Rhoark (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- That it seems to be written by journalists and edited decently, and well-regarded by many other sources that speak about it. It also appears to have a POV that is not liked by a good many other sources but that doesn't disqualify its use. Many sources can be found who think the New York Times is horribly liberally biased, etc. Allegations of bias are everywhere about so many sources but do not automatically disqualify a source. A source's POV must be taken into account in determining whether it a a very good source or a poor source for any particular claim. Sometimes a claim is about a POV and is attributed as such and then it could be a great source about that. SageRad (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- the author is this particular article is not a journalist , and being "edited decently" is not, as far as I can tell, one of the criteria for determining reliability of a source. Epson Salts (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits to the page answer that. On three occasions (here here and here) you retained the content added from this article, but replaced the source each time with articles you regard as acceptable. Therefore, you do not regard the content of the article you object to as problematical, indeed you corroborate its accuracy by finding alternative sourcing that says the same things.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- What exactly makes it seem like a good source? Epson Salts (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Reliable source for a section on Sati?
1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [16] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.
2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).
3. The content using the source are in the section about sati under the rule of the Delhi sultanate and the mughals. These are the passages using the source.
Under the Delhi Sultanate, permission had to be sought from the widow before any practice of sati as a check against compulsion. However, this later became more of a formality.
Mughal emperor Humayun (1508-1556) tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar (1542–1605) was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his chief police officers. The chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts, and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice.
Can article titles be used as sources?
At Whole30, this diet is being described as a "fad diet" in the first sentence based on two sources: a listicle in Health, and an article in Business Insider. Neither source refers to the Whole30 as a fad diet in the article itself. The subtitle of the Health listicle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements." The title of the Business Insider article is "Millennials are obsessed with Whole 30, the ‘cultish’ fad diet taking over Instagram and Pinterest." Is there any precedent for using article titles in this way? Safehaven86 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- This mispresents the situation.. The OP who created the article - see this piece of PROMO editing and compare with current version after i fleshed out the article from the sources that were already there (with one exception that i added) - and actually has the chutzpah to even raise the issue of "NPOV" - is
- a) claiming this is not a fad diet when every source used describes its marketing "package" and its kooky food exclusions that are not good for you (the definition of fad diet) and
- b) is demanding the exact phrase "fad diet" be used in a source.
- Well, even with that demand (which is not supportable by policy) the phrase is used in the title of one article (that goes on at some length describing how it is a fad diet) and it is used in the subtitle of another - the one that calls this one of the worst diets of 2013. This is some pretty serious wikilawyering going on here
- here is another ref, that is by a nutritionist and stronger than this bloggy ref used by the OP already. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the source you've added, which appears to be a nutritionist's personal Word Press site, meets WP:RS standards either. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- another from U Penn's Health and Wellness blog. comes out and calls it a "fad diet" too. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note that WP:PARITY is at play here. There are zero mentions of this in standard sources about health. no mentions at NHS Choices. No mentions at the NIH, anywhere. no mentions at pubmed. We are out in fringe-y land, so things like a blog from University of Pennsylvania's med school and the blog from the dietician are very much at play here. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- That source says "Develop a weight loss plan that works for you. Make an appointment with one of our primary care physicians and get the support you need for success." It is an advertisement for the University of Pennsylvania medical center. It mentions Whole30 once, here: "It seems like every month, there’s a new 'AMAZING' diet plan. Whole30, The 21 Day Fix, Teatox—the list goes on and on." That's a highly WP:TRIVIALMENTION that doesn't go into any depth about whether or not the Whole30 is a fad diet. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- User:Safehaven86 as I mentioned both the dietician blog and the UPenn blog are much stronger than this bloggy ref that you used. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note that WP:PARITY is at play here. There are zero mentions of this in standard sources about health. no mentions at NHS Choices. No mentions at the NIH, anywhere. no mentions at pubmed. We are out in fringe-y land, so things like a blog from University of Pennsylvania's med school and the blog from the dietician are very much at play here. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- note, cross posted at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Whole30 Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously a fad diet and there are sources that point this obvious fact out. Wikipedia needs to say so too per WP:PSCI. Fringe stuff must be clearly identified as such. Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I've started this thread--to try to establish the appropriate sourcing in this circumstance. Could you please share with me the sourcing you think is strongest? Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since it's obvious, pretty much anything will do. What's in the article currently is more than adequate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- This whole obvious thing is a problem. It's very I know it when I see it. I don't think "it's obvious" makes the cut in Wikipedia policy because editors are explicitly not experts and our opinions don't matter, and in fact are prohibited by WP:OR. We need sources to ascertain facts and judgments. Personal reckonings about content are not admissible. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Since it's obvious, pretty much anything will do. What's in the article currently is more than adequate. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's why I've started this thread--to try to establish the appropriate sourcing in this circumstance. Could you please share with me the sourcing you think is strongest? Safehaven86 (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- To the general case, never assume the title or subtitles of an article are reliable regardless of source. They are usually written by different editors trying to capture a reader's attention and may skew the truth. If the fact in a title is not repeated in the source, it shouldn't be included on WP in the prose (though obviously within the reference text its needed). --MASEM (t) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course not, Massem. The framing of this as "supported only by the title" is false. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, in this case, plenty of RS prose sources support the fact of "fad diet". Just that the general line that article titles alone should not be considered a reliable piece of information. --MASEM (t) 04:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Of course not, Massem. The framing of this as "supported only by the title" is false. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
On the specific question made at the start - no, they cannot. I recall this issue being discussed a while ago (sorry, can't provide the actual link). It was pointed out that article titles and book titles, and especially tagline subtitles below the main title, are often not decided on by the author of the article, but are derived from an editorial or layout decision and are designed to be eye catching. If there is no actual content in the article or book reproducing the terms or claims used in the title, then these sources should not be cited as sources using those terms or containing those claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- But isn't it verifiable - which WP supports above the truth? DrChrissy (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The question is about verifiability, and it's whether if a category or label is used only in a title or subtitle, is that enough to be a strong source for that label or category? I think it would depend on specifics, and on a clear and unbiased reading, but generally if a source really means to categorize something, it will do so in the main text as well as in the title. If that's lacking, that is an indication that the source is not very strong for the claim and seems more like grasping at straws or running on fumes, not a solid sourcing. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that, SageRad. Since everyone here seems to be in agreement that article titles and subtitles aren't WP:RS, I was confused by this edit summary, which says "it is in the freaking title of one of the sources, for pete's sake." My point is that if the Whole30 has been reliably classified as a "fad diet", we should be able to come by better sources than a nutritionist's personal blog, an advertising blog post from a medical clinic, and subtitles of articles. Also agree that the whole "it's obvious because it's obvious" argument isn't helpful. It's clearly not obvious to everyone, hence the discussion. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I also agree. My question above was rather tongue-in-cheek. I think the problem comes when science articles/subjects are reported by popular-science magazines. In my experience, editors do not change the titles of primary research articles, but they may do for journals such as Science or Nature where printing space is more of a concern. DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Do you see sources that you think meet the WP:RS criteria for describing this diet as a fad diet? Safehaven86 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- If that question is directed at me, I'm afraid I am unable to answer this. Others might be able to help. DrChrissy (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Gotcha. Do you see sources that you think meet the WP:RS criteria for describing this diet as a fad diet? Safehaven86 (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I also agree. My question above was rather tongue-in-cheek. I think the problem comes when science articles/subjects are reported by popular-science magazines. In my experience, editors do not change the titles of primary research articles, but they may do for journals such as Science or Nature where printing space is more of a concern. DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that, SageRad. Since everyone here seems to be in agreement that article titles and subtitles aren't WP:RS, I was confused by this edit summary, which says "it is in the freaking title of one of the sources, for pete's sake." My point is that if the Whole30 has been reliably classified as a "fad diet", we should be able to come by better sources than a nutritionist's personal blog, an advertising blog post from a medical clinic, and subtitles of articles. Also agree that the whole "it's obvious because it's obvious" argument isn't helpful. It's clearly not obvious to everyone, hence the discussion. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- The question is about verifiability, and it's whether if a category or label is used only in a title or subtitle, is that enough to be a strong source for that label or category? I think it would depend on specifics, and on a clear and unbiased reading, but generally if a source really means to categorize something, it will do so in the main text as well as in the title. If that's lacking, that is an indication that the source is not very strong for the claim and seems more like grasping at straws or running on fumes, not a solid sourcing. SageRad (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like there may well be an emerging consensus to classify the Whole 30 as a fad diet, and if so, that's fine. But removing the dispute tag seems premature. An ongoing discussion is currently taking place. There is no deadline. It's frankly a bit disconcerting that editors who don't apparently immediately fall into line behind the self-apppointed Guardians of The Science are assumed to be promotional, unserious, etc. There should certainly be room for discussion among good-faith editors. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. There should be space and time for good-faith discussion. SageRad (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Fad diet. Next. But to answer the question in the title, a source title *by itself* would not necessarily be used to source a statement of fact. When the source title states 'Its a fad diet' and the source goes on to explain why its a fad diet. Its a fad diet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- That argument actually makes sense, though it wasn't the one made to me when I was sworn at in an edit summary. That argument was that "fad" was in the article title, so it was sourced. I think the old adage goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with douchebaggery." Safehaven86 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- The first thing I wrote to you on the Talk page, here, was "The content in the body of that article fully supports the label in the title. One doesn't need a quotation for support; we summarize sources in WP." Glad you are finally hearing that. Jytdog (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Headlines in newspapers are written by headline writers whose primary task is to hook readers, As a result, headlines tend to overstate the "interesting bits" of any article, as readers of the Daily Mail can attest, or even readers of The Guardian. Better to find how the "interesting bit" is actually worded in the article than to give credence to the puffed headline. If "fad diet" is in the body of an article as fact, fine. If not, not. Collect (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Is UsaNews a reliable source?
I want to know if UsaNews is considered a reliable source...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorbeluzzo (talk • contribs)
- Do you mean http://www.usnews.com/ ? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wait... I get it: USA Today. Seems ok to me for ordinary events and entertainment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
tournamentsoftware.com
Does anyone know if bwf.tournamentsoftware.com is a reliable source? There are enarly 900 links, including things like this abomination: Claudia Rivero (how many links to one site can you get in an article?). Guy (Help!) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell from their website, they provide literally no information about where they get their information, or how it is vetted for accuracy. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Chinese studies
Interesting commentary from Prof. Ernst on the problem with Chinese studies: http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/data-fabrication-in-china-is-an-open-secret/
A recent survey of clinical trials in China has revealed fraudulent practice on a massive scale, according to a government investigation.
China's food and drug regulator recently carried out a one-year review of clinical trials, concluding that more than 80 percent of clinical data is "fabricated," state media reported.
That was for reality-based drugs, the problem is worse for quackery. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Luckily, the Wikipedia community has been wisely skeptical of such sources - and in general that skepticism is properly reflected in our headline TCM articles - I wonder though how much of this research is lurking, cited, in our content mode widely. Alexbrn (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is Courthouse News Service reliable?
Is Courthouse News Service a reliable source to cite regarding the lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein? I would like to get a consensus before making any more edits. 173.67.106.134 (talk) 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd say it is a reliable source for what it produces (legal news in the U.S. state and federal courts). It bears the hallmarks of reliability: a track record (history dates back to the 1990s); editorial control, a professional staff, a separation between news and opinion. The about us page for the service is useful and reflects how it is described by others (the New York Times described it 11 years ago as "a national news wire for lawyers"). A published opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit describes it as "a national news organization that publishes daily reports for its subscribers about civil litigation, including the filing of new lawsuits." I would say that this source is a peer source to Bloomberg BNA — a reliable niche source for legal and professional news.
- The use by other sources is pretty extensive, with citations by the AP, the New York Times (about ~15 or so unique citations, see example, example, example), and the Washington Post (about ~25 or 30 unique citations, see example, example, example).
- Whether it's reliable, of course, is a separate question from whether a particular bit should be included or excluded as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. Neutralitytalk 04:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Uh, it's reliable, but I'd take it to the article talk page first. IIRC that lawsuit was previously rejected from inclusion in Trump's page due to WP:WEIGHT. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on the content you want to support with it and the specific piece from the news service you want to use - no one here can judge whether a source is reliable for any given statement until we see the statement with its source. (i don't know for example if they ever put out opinion pieces). As others have noted, UNDUE will come into play based on whether what it reports has been covered by more mainstream sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone written up something referenceable on the problem with Forbes blogs?
I can't find anything handily linkable on the problem with sourcing to Forbes - specifically, that they decided to trash their brand by running third-party blogs written by any old blogger under the "Forbes" brandname - they check the blogger is lucid first, but once they're in the stuff is just blog posts. People still can't quite believe that they actually do this and these are just blogs, not editorially-reviewed RSes, and I keep having to point this out. It really doesn't help that they put staff and print articles under forbes.com/blogs too.
(I can't find it now, but I remember an enlightening article from a freelancer who used to contribute to Forbes under her own name, but now makes ten times that ghosting corporate puff pieces that run on a Forbes blog URL.)
The approach I've tended to take is that anything under forbes.com/sites is just a blog, unless it specifically says "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" (in which case it's Forbes as RS), and if the blogger is notable in the subject area it may be an RS blog.
Am I off base here? How do others approach the Forbes problem? - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Great question. I think it really depends on the individual writer, which means it takes some user discretion on our part. There is obviously some less-than-quality Forbes writing on their current platform, but there is also some stuff that would qualify at the level of print journalism. Perhaps just taking a case-by-case approach is best, and this absolutely requires appropriate community discussion of any problem sources. Delta13C (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- The problem I find is when people bring up a blatantly promotional blog post as an RS or evidence of notability, and trying to get across that really, Forbes really is mixing in unedited blogs with its RS coveraage - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- There's a few Forbes "contributors" that we at the VG project recognize as reasonably authoritative for their opinion when they post via Forbes, but that we avoid for facts because the pieces are not guaranteed to be reviewed and checked by an editor. Its not that they necessary include bad info, just that usually we can find this from sources we know do have fact checking. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NEWSORG covers this. Even reputable organisations publish opinion pieces, which is what these 'blogs' essentially are, and these are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinion of the author. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. There's a Columbia Journalism Review article about the issue here. Pertinent quote:
Around 250 to 300 stories go up on the forbes site each day. ... No matter their background or compensation, all contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit.
So as long as you have a contributor account, you can write whatever you want in your Forbes blog and it doesn't get edited or fact-checked before publication, which means it pretty clearly fails WP:RS standards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC) - The Poynter Institute has written about it as well. It's a content farm and should be treated as WP:UGC. Usable only if the the writer is a recognised expert in the field, or for the authors opinion (assuming it's not giving it undue weight.) — Strongjam (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do not completely agree with your characterization. According to the link you posted describing how the Forbes system works, it is clear that there still is a editorial system--one that is not traditionally implemented. Contributors are vetted: “We look at their experience, we look at their credentials and what they’ve done. And we turn many people away.” Also, Forbes editors will review and check content after it is published, and especially if it has been getting more attention, and readers have been known to facilitate fact-checking. Delta13C (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just because they screen their freelancers doesn't mean they're exercising editorial control, and there is no indication on their criteria and how stringent they are. We can't rely on post-hoc fact checking of only articles that get attention, there is no indication that any particular article has actually been fact-checked, and it doesn't instil confidence that readers are the ones finding the errors. — Strongjam (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Per Strongjam and Masem. There are many good writers there who are experts in their field and have been published previously by other organisations, but apart from the base vetting, Forbes does not fact-check or exercise editorial control over content. Its not a newsblog, its essentially a content farm where the writes undergo an initial check. Its entirely down to the writer concerned. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
it depends. Matt Herper is one of the most informed and smartest commentators on biotech in the world. His Forbes pieces are very solid for facts and his opinion about things is relevant. (see here for example - he is up there with Andrew Pollack of the NYT) He is a senior editor there; maybe we can draw a distinction based on their title at Forbes. Per the CJR piece linked above, Forbest has 125 editorial staff, 1,400 contributors. and 250‑300 posts per day Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2016 (UTC)(stupid me Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC))- He's staff, and Forbes' staff writings, unless specifically called out as editorial, should be taken as RSes as their print magazine would. I believe we're focused on this section on Forbes contributors (eg labelled as such: [17] ) which do not enjoy editorial oversight per what CJR has reported. --MASEM (t) 23:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- You don't seem to have read my post at the start of this section, answering these precise issues: he's "Forbes Staff", therefore not just another Forbes blogger, that being the issue at hand - David Gerard (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are both correct. My apologies for not reading carefully and wasting your time. Struck and issuing a new comment below. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- support exact proposal by OP - articles by Forbes staff are RS; blog postings by contributors must be treated as WP:SPS. Dead on. Jytdog (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Forbes/sites is patent WP:SPS stuff. Even if the article is by a "Forbes staff" it is essentially content without any editorial control. These sources should never be used for notability regardless of who the writer is. For verification purposes, I will still be sceptical, unless the author is an indisputable expert in the field. Actually, the model they rely on is "publish first, retract/correct later if required". Quite a few of these Forbes contributions actually do contain mistakes which are not corrected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Wehrmacht reenactment web site used as source
I would appreciate additional attention to the article, where I was reverted twice due to the editor's insistence on using a Wehrmacht reenactment web site as a source for a citation. Please see: Talk:11th_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#11thpanzer.com. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
A master thesis
The reliability of this source is doubted on the talk page of Talk:Battle of Karbala. Can it be used?
- Elbadri, Rachid (March 2009). Shia Rituals: The Impact Of Shia Rituals On Shia Socio-Political Character (PDF) (Thesis). Naval Postgraduate School.
Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on what its for. Per the instructions at the top of this page, please provide the content you want to source from it. It would be helpful to understand why you want to use a weak source like this too. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:The source is used to say that
"the Battle of Karbala took place within the crisis environment resulting from the succession of Yazid I,"
a saying which is in accordance with stronger sources such as this one. --Mhhossein talk 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)- Thanks for providing the detail and the link to the Talk discussion. It seems that you are trying to make an argument that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. If the Second Fitna article is accurate and mainstream historians are indeed divided as to when the Second Fitna started, then Wikipedia has to reflect that. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge. As editors, we find accepted knowledge in strong sources. If strong sources say different things, then Wikipedia has to reflect that. Please don't try to make things more certain in Wikipedia than they are in strong sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog: Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I think there's a consensus among the sources that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. However, my emphasis was on the word "crisis". This world is used by the strong source, too. Can we use the thesis along with the stronger source while we know they're saying almost the same thing? --Mhhossein talk 04:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- i get it that by using "crisis" you want to claim that the second fitna started with the succession. that is far too much weight on one word, based on one source. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog: No, this is what the brill source says. According to the strong source
"Yazīd’s caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna."
So, this is not just my "claim". --Mhhossein talk 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)- Using stronger sources helps generate consensus; using weak sources generates arguments. The thesis is a weak source; there is no reason to use it if there is support in stronger sources. That's my view; others may think differently. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog: No, this is what the brill source says. According to the strong source
- i get it that by using "crisis" you want to claim that the second fitna started with the succession. that is far too much weight on one word, based on one source. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jytdog: Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. I think there's a consensus among the sources that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. However, my emphasis was on the word "crisis". This world is used by the strong source, too. Can we use the thesis along with the stronger source while we know they're saying almost the same thing? --Mhhossein talk 04:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for providing the detail and the link to the Talk discussion. It seems that you are trying to make an argument that the Second Fitna started with the succession of Yazid. If the Second Fitna article is accurate and mainstream historians are indeed divided as to when the Second Fitna started, then Wikipedia has to reflect that. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge. As editors, we find accepted knowledge in strong sources. If strong sources say different things, then Wikipedia has to reflect that. Please don't try to make things more certain in Wikipedia than they are in strong sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jytdog:The source is used to say that
Michael Savage shutdown
Is the following content reliably sourced? Other issues under policy?
On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease. [1][2][3][4]
References
- ^ "EXCLUSIVE – Michael Savage Reacts to Being Pulled From Radio Following Hillary Health Segment: 'Pure Sabotage'". Breitbart. Retrieved 28 September 2018.
- ^ "Michael Savage Cut From Airwaves For Controversial Hillary Statements'". Western Journalism. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
- ^ "Michael Savage is censored during LIVE show after questioning Hillary's health. Censorship is alive and well in America'". Catholic Online. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
- ^ "Michael Savage Shut Down From Radio Nationwide For Discussing Hillary Clinton Health'". Morning News USA. Retrieved 29 September 2018.
-- Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Individual stations may have pulled the plug, but that is not the same as a "nationwide shutdown" at all. Collect (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think any of those are very reliable. Breitbart ran the story first, and all the rest are just re-writes citing that, except for the Catholic Online one, which claims to be news (according to the URL), but rants about censorship and includes such blatantly obvious opinion statements as "Obviously, Savage was sabotaged." MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- No. None of these are reliable in the slightest. Neutralitytalk 19:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- No - Rewriting Breitbart doesn't make Breitbart-sourced content reliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- No - See Snopes. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Luftwaffe.cz (fan site) used as source
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Newspaper revelations and denials
This news article[1] in Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports on a high-level meeting between civilian and military authorities. Then it adds a denial by the government, titled "Clarification". Do I understand the WP:RS correctly that we still go by the newspaper report, despite the denial? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- It depends on context. What material is it being used to source? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article contains a lot of important revelations that will affect several articles. For the time being, I was planning to use the content
Addressing Gen Akhtar, the younger Sharif complained that whenever action has been taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment has worked behind the scenes to set the arrested free.
This would support a claim already made in the Jaish-e-Mohammed article (and contested) where an "unnamed official" was reported to have said similar things. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article contains a lot of important revelations that will affect several articles. For the time being, I was planning to use the content
References
- ^ Cyril Almeida (7 October 2016), "Exclusive: Act against militants or face international isolation, civilians tell military", Dawn, retrieved 7 October 2016
Including sources when they are not actually used to source anything
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask because it's not about the veracity of the source, but rather about whether a source should be used in a particular way.
- Article: James Herbert
- Source: Daily Express 5th Sept 2012: James Herbert: My new thriller about Princess Diana's secret son http://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/344077/James-Herbert-My-new-thriller-about-Princess-Diana-s-secret-son
- Edit: [18]
- Discussion:Talk:James_Herbert#Ash_citation
The question is about whether an individual book entry on a list should be accompanied by a citation on the basis "it is the last known interview with the world-renowned author and gives his own opinion on this, his final work." Well, fair enough, I don't have a problem with incorporating significant information into the article and citing the source (and this is indeed done at another place in the article with the same source) but that isn't what it is being used for here. Using the source in this particular way just supports the existence of the book, which is self-citing anyway and the author's entire ouvre is now supported by a citation to the British library. So the question is a very simple one: does the citation benefit the article in the way it is used in the linked edit above? Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sourcing for books in a list is a separate matter than third-party documentation on the existence of those books. I have to agree here that citing the source in question when mentioning the book in question is not necessary, adds nothing to the article, and is potentially confusing to the reader. The publication data of the book itself are all the sourcing required. If the cited interview has information not presented elsewhere in the text, the editor who wishes to include that cite ought to consider whether that information (apart from that this was Herbert's last book, which is something you ought to get from the list of his books) meets the WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE guidelines. Also, see WP:Potentially unreliable sources for strong cautions about the particular publication in which this source appeared loupgarous (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Online Business News Sources which use PR:Newswire - WP:PROMOTION concerns
In examining what seem to be extraordinary claims in a News of Science article cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination):
"2016 FEB 7 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at News of Science -- Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.
"This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they're completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope," stated Dr. …"
I found that almost identical reports of this extraordinary claim could be found on Business Television, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and YourNewsWire.com, among others. Should we consider these news outlets and the online business press reliable secondary sources of information after this? I ask because only the extraordinary nature of the claim made in these articles drew my attention to this issue. It's plausible that these and other business news outlets routinely add their bylines to whatever comes through PR Newswire and other online conduits for business press releases. This makes them potentially a routine WP:PRIMARY source of information.
is it plausible that an editor at CNN Money or Yahoo! Finance looked at that copy and decided to put their firm's byline on it? Either a "yes" or "no" answer to that points to a major problem with them and other business news sources that routinely use PR Newswire or other online conduits for corporate press releases as sources for information which they they byline locally to have it appear as though this is copy that's been written by a staff writer and reviewed by an editor. If there was editorial review on this story, it failed in what we'd think was a primary journalistic duty to report accurately, and pursue alternate sources of information on extraordinary or implausible claims made by companies on which they report.
I think there ought to be general guidance to editors in WP:RS to scrutinize claims made in the business press closely, or simply not to regard the online business press as an independent secondary source of information unless there is evidence that the specific article being cited differs enough from other articles on the same subject to show active authorship and editorial review at the site where the article is found. loupgarous (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- PR Newswire is by definition not reliable; and a regurgitation of content coming from PR Newswire echoed on some other website does not thus become reliable. These websites do not actually put their firms' byline on the content, but merely pass it on as interesting or amusing. You have to distinguish between the internet echo chamber function of websites, and the editorial content to which they lend their name and their prestige. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Press releases, however published, fall under the rules listed at WP:SELFPUBLISH. Self-published sources may be reliable under certain circumstances for information about the entity itself (see WP:ABOUTSELF) - usually for basic information (i.e., personnel changes, headquarters changes, the date that a new product came to market, etc.). One of the WP:ABOUTSELF limits is that the self-published source may not be used to support an "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional claim." Neutralitytalk 01:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Has anyone noticed what all those websites have in common? They're all business news. This 'story' is a press release by Thunder Energies, a publicly traded company, and as such, it is reproduced without commentary or editing as a service to those seeking business news. In that sense, it is absolutely true that potential investors have every right to know what Thunder Energies claims to be about.
- This is why it doesn't appear in any science news outlets. It's also worth noting that the purported publisher of the 'paper' making the claims outlined in this press release is a three-year-old journal owned by deceptive and predatory publisher. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- phys.org is infamous for doing this with science-based press releases. a bad bad thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, everyone, for your comments. The reason I brought this up is that there's an ongoing controversy at WP:CHURNALISM over the legitimacy of denying news sources full credence as independent secondary sources because they're churnalism, and the editor who framed the objection to that asked for an essay on the subject (which I supplied, using the Thunder Energies announcement that they can see antimatter galaxies and "Invisible Terrestrial Entities", which was picked up by many online business news outlets - including, to their shame, CNN Money and Yahoo! Finance. I categorized this as 'laundering press releases' in that essay.
- When a prima facie extraordinary or implausible claim can be made in a press release, then repeated in what look like independent secondary sources with bylines and statements (as in the original News of Science report I cited here) that a staff writer and/or editor was responsible for the article - then that source needs to be impeached for systematic dishonesty and placed on WP:Potentially unreliable sources.
- I did that for PR Newswire and online news sources like it which reprint press releases verbatim. Editors should be alert in using sources in the business press, online or not, to the likelihood they're looking at a cut-and-paste from a press release, and treat the source accordingly. This shows that investors are probably routinely being sold stock in companies through the business press based on claims just as diaphanous as those made by Thunder Energies for their telescope. It might be worth a change to WP:RS as the reliability of the business press isn't specifically mentioned there. loupgarous (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I call these recycled press releases or lightly edited press releases and agree 100%. The key differentiator is whether the news agency does any independent reporting - brings something new to the table - or just, well, lightly edits the press release. Yes absolutely. We should consider adding something to RS about this. It is really a question of independence. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, made a bold edit to RS and started a discussion at WT:RS here. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did that for PR Newswire and online news sources like it which reprint press releases verbatim. Editors should be alert in using sources in the business press, online or not, to the likelihood they're looking at a cut-and-paste from a press release, and treat the source accordingly. This shows that investors are probably routinely being sold stock in companies through the business press based on claims just as diaphanous as those made by Thunder Energies for their telescope. It might be worth a change to WP:RS as the reliability of the business press isn't specifically mentioned there. loupgarous (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Can National Review be considered a RS in the following context re Hillary Clinton's cattle trading?
Is the conservative magazine National Review a RS in context for the following quote be included in the article Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy?
On July 17, 1979, she had 115 contracts outstanding with a market value of $3.2 million. A 4 or 5 per cent adverse fluctuation, as occurred once or twice a month, in Clinton’s position would have constituted five times her annual income and five times her net worth.[1]
WP:BLPSOURCES does not require magazines with identifiable political leanings to be removed. WP:BIASED "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.” One of the co-authors of the article is a former professor of finance at UC Berkeley, so expertise. This isn't highly contentious material, also, just a simple calculation from publicly available material: Hillary’s trading records, the cattle futures market at the time, the Clintons’ salary and net worth from pubic released information. There are lots of RSs saying similar things about the size of her exposure relative to the Clintons net wort at the time. The NR quote that I want to include is only the most detailed and would illustrate the facts best. Newsweek: The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Yet Mrs. Clinton took surprisingly large positions in cattle futures, earning one-day profits as high as $30,000. Had the market moved the other way, she could have lost huge amounts virtually overnight, according to market specialists. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-31/news/mn-40520_1_hillary-clinton another RS talking about the size of hillary’s risk https://books.google.com/books?id=NIIVeirctosC&pg=PA218 She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm NPalgan2 (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Baum, Caroline; Niederhoffer, Victor (20 February 1995). "Herd Instincts". National Review. Retrieved 30 September 2016.
- First, I think it should be noted/acknowledged that in general there are few publications out there that could be expected to be more biased against the Clintons than the National Review. This also appears to be editorial content, which is never a good source for facts in a BLP - especially when printed in a WP:BIASED source, and about a contentious topic like this. Finally, you hold up the fact that Victor Niederhoffer is a "former professor of finance at UC Berkeley" as if that made him an expert - but Niederhoffer left Berkeley more than 3 decades ago, and also has a personal stake/bias in this controversy - he lost at least 35 million dollars in 1997 when Refco called in his margin and liquidated his portfolio.[19][20] Refco also features very prominently [21] in the Clinton cattle futures controversy - for allegedly allowing Clinton to hold positions where she had insufficient margin. In other words, Niederhoffer likely has a pretty major axe to grind on this subject. So no, personally I would not use this source in the article at all - and anything that does get used would need to be clearly attributed as Niederhoffer and Baum's personal opinion, possibly while noting Niederhoffer's potential bias about Refco & futures trading more generally. If there are, as you say, other, less-biased sources that say similar things, then you can use them to put that content in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I didn't know that about Niederhoffer. But the article was writen in 1995. Niederhoffer's margin was liquidated in 1997 after he made huge losses that same year. Refco was one of the very largest brokers in the country and many of the people with expert knowledge of the futures markets would have dealt with it in some way. The allegations of favorable treatment were confined to the Springvale office run by Bone. NPalgan2 (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hm touche on the article predating his losses, should have noticed that! I still don't think there's any good need or reason to use such a biased source though - and it should def be attributed if it does get used. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
link
I need clarification on some issues. The article Iru Sagodharigal has link to google drive. Can such link consider as a reliable link/source? If the owner delete the file, it might be dead link. The link is for scan document of book that has songs of a film. It was published by a press that has no authority with film production and copyright. Similar such song books are publish in India and Sri Lanka. I feel it not fit with WP:RS. If anyone of you take action of article and inform user, I could do in future patrol. BTW, please share any link or discussion that could satisfy my question. Thanks. --AntanO 07:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The scan is likely copyvio so the link should be removed and replaced with the title & publication info of the book itself. As to whether the book itself is a reliable source - that's hard to evaluate. We'd need some basic info about who wrote and published it, which is hard to get from a scan of a non-english source. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
PUCL a reliable source for Sati?
1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [22] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.
2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).
3. The content using the source are in the section about sati during the rule of the Delhi sultanate and the mughals. These are the passages that are citing the source.
Under the Delhi Sultanate, permission had to be sought from the widow before any practice of sati as a check against compulsion. However, this later became more of a formality.
Mughal emperor Humayun (1508-1556) tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar (1542–1605) was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his chief police officers. The chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts, and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice.
JustBeCool (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Bringing this up again since I am still waiting for a reply. JustBeCool (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Microwave volumetric heating using related press releases
The references in the article on Microwave volumetric heating seem to exist mostly of press releases by organizations and universities involved in the commercial development of the technique and the company that offers it, AMT. Also, the article tells a lot about why this technique is supposed to be so great, supported by these references, but offers little encyclopaedic content on how it actually works, as I noted on the article's talk page. I am wondering whether the article should be tagged with {{Advert}} or {{External links}} and subsequently rewritten. (Current revision) --IByte (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Another possibility would be to merge it to Dielectric heating#Microwave heating. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Matthew Paris as a source to contemporary events
Not an academic source this time, but I wonder if Matthew Paris is a reliable source for contemporary events in the 1250s, specifically the ones he's quoted for in User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1257 Samalas eruption - Iridescent did give a cautionary note on this on his (User talk:Iridescent) user talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Impressive work on the draft article.To avoid being WP:OR you need to have RSs that cite Paris' description of the weather disruption and consequences when discussing the famine or the 1257 eruption. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see that the original team that in 2013 claimed they'd identified the 1257 just had a paper published in nature 10 hours ago. Has their work been accepted in the rest of the research community enough for it to be the subject of an article? NPalgan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- In order:
- The sources in question (which quote Paris) do explicitly cite the 1257 eruption at Samalas/Rinjani. That's why I included them actually.
- Given how widely cited their discovery is in a number of separate sources, journals and the like, and that I haven't seen any rebuttal or criticism so far, I'd say yes.
- As an aside, I wonder if that newest paper (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep34868) should be included as well. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Then there's no issue - you aren't even citing Paris as an RS per se, you're citing RSs who cite Paris, and then maybe quoting Paris in a bit more detail than they do. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- In order:
- I see that the original team that in 2013 claimed they'd identified the 1257 just had a paper published in nature 10 hours ago. Has their work been accepted in the rest of the research community enough for it to be the subject of an article? NPalgan2 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Soundtrack.net
I was editing the Charlie Clouser article when I noticed that, aside from the cited claim I added, there were only three citations in the article. I removed one of them because it came from IMDB, which certainly isn't reliable. The other two citations (which are still in the article) come from a website called SoundtrackNet. Is this site reliable in any way? Because judging from the layout of the site, it appears very amateurish to me. Should the citations be removed? DarkKnight2149 23:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- They seem to have a Wikipedia article at Soundtrack.Net (which is a bit promotional). It's hard to say how reliable the site is. Is the information contributed by other users? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I usually let it go if it's trivial. Interviews and track lists are alright, I would think. The site is prominent enough that there'd be an outcry if they faked an interview. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Blanket ban on all lulu.com sources?
Is there a policy reason why all lulu.com sources should be deleted on sight? Without per source, or per-use review? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have examples? Are you talking about books published through Lulu or links starting with lulu.com (like their blog)? clpo13(talk) 23:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- SPS through Lulu.
- As an example, edits like this [23] and this. This is a crusade against Lulu getting totally out of hand. In one case a far from contentious statement, with an additional source, was removed (Of course this should not have been removed - a {{cn}} at most, even without the other source). The book in question is written by a competent professional person in the field, even if not personally WP:BLPN, and has been well received outside WP. Through any other publisher, this would never have been challenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- The removal looks totally appropriate. That entire book series (exclusively published on-demand) looks to be cited by literally no one, and its author appears to have no peer-reviewed publications of any kind. I don't see any way you could argue it is a reliable source for any statement on any article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which removal? The removal of the ref (which stands if all lulu sources are implicitly blacklisted), or the removal of the whole statement and the second source? Unsurprisingly this removal was then edit-warred to repeat it, without discussion, and the bizarre justification "The statement [...] does not even need stating, let alone sourcing". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice at first that a second ref was removed. It seems like neither did Guy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nor did he "notice" that the template was only "unused" because he'd just gone through and removed all the uses of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- That was obviously deliberate. Would you have rather he delete all links to this unreliable source, then leave the template untouched? It's really irrelevant. Putting aside your specific beef with Guy, do you have any substantive objections to the assumption that Lulu books are unreliable? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it was obviously deliberate. As was the message at the TfD equally obviously deliberately misleading to other editors. That is not an acceptable way to phrase a deletion request, and Guy ought to know better. I don't have any specific beef with Guy, merely the regular disgust as bad-faith behaviour like this, especially when it comes from an admin.
- As to Lulu, then I have yet to see anything good come from blanket editing campaigns. There is no blanket ban on Lulu and I have no reason to consider this specific book to be unreliable. In their absence, I see no reason to start using false nominations to get things deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- The template was used exactly eight times. That is extremely low for a supposed universal authority on railway articles (there are many thousands of articles in this area). Good things do come from blanket editing campaigns. For example, we now no longer have any citations to journals published by OMICS Group or Science Research Publishing. Links to inappropriate sources creep in over time, and while it would be nice if people noticed them at the time and removed them, that doesn't happen nearly enough. The result is that we have large numbers of statements sourced to unreliable sources, and when I find one of these sources that is widely used, I will sometimes set about fixing that. Bog standard Wikignoming. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- That was obviously deliberate. Would you have rather he delete all links to this unreliable source, then leave the template untouched? It's really irrelevant. Putting aside your specific beef with Guy, do you have any substantive objections to the assumption that Lulu books are unreliable? Someguy1221 (talk) 00:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nor did he "notice" that the template was only "unused" because he'd just gone through and removed all the uses of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't even notice at first that a second ref was removed. It seems like neither did Guy. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which removal? The removal of the ref (which stands if all lulu sources are implicitly blacklisted), or the removal of the whole statement and the second source? Unsurprisingly this removal was then edit-warred to repeat it, without discussion, and the bizarre justification "The statement [...] does not even need stating, let alone sourcing". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- The removal looks totally appropriate. That entire book series (exclusively published on-demand) looks to be cited by literally no one, and its author appears to have no peer-reviewed publications of any kind. I don't see any way you could argue it is a reliable source for any statement on any article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Lulu is not "blanket banned", but all Lulu sources are assumed unreliable per WP:SPS and WP:RSSELF, until proven otherwise, through the exceptions given at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Exceptions and WP:ABOUTSELF. Alphabet soup aside, anyone can publish anything through Lulu, so we treat it like every other publisher that does that. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Lulu is not banned and can't be. I think it should be treated like a personal blog. If the person is a recognized expert, with a reputation for veracity, it should be considered as a possible source; if not, not. BTW this is true of all books: books from reputable publishers are also not (usually) fact-checked, at least not very rigorously. We have a tendency to be distracted by the shiny object: "Oh, Harper Collins published it, it must be accurate". Not true.
- It IS true is the Harper Collins, unlike Lulu, will mostly only publish you if you're an expert in the subject. (Because otherwise the book is less likely to be profitable.) And being an expert is correlated -- but far from perfectly -- with veracity. But being published by Lulu (that is, self-published) may just mean there's not enough interest in the material to make it profitable to a commercial publisher, which is not necessarily a reflection on the author's expertise, reputation, and veracity. That has to be examined independently -- as should be for ALL books. Herostratus (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is very true. The case which sparked Andy Dingley's obvious apoplexy is an encyclopaedia of railway terminology. I have a not insgificant collection of railway books, there are several publishers who do little else (Ian Allan, for example, is prominently associated with railways, and especially the railway preservation movement). This is a very strange case of a template created to facilitate links to a self-published book. Not it might be that this is reaosnable, but it looks bloody suspicious. In any case most lulu.com books are unlikely to meet WP:RS for rpecisely the reasons you state: an author who is a known authority, rarely has trouble getting a book published by a real publisher. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- yes lulu.com sources should be challenged on sight and only restored if they are indeed by an expert and are indeed doing something useful; the ref that was that was the subject of the little edit war between Andy and Guy in the posts above was obviously spammed into WP. Self-published books are spammed into WP all the time, and need a very good reason to be used in WP, and like forbes blogs they are used way to prevalently. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you would agree that Lulu sources should be challenged, implying the application of some critical thought, not merely bulk blanked on sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- A miniscule amount of critical thought is required to realise that Lulu.com sources are not, and will never be reliable for statements of fact. Properly attributed opinions per self-published guidelines maybe. Lulu sources where used as references for anything other than the opinion of the author may be removed on sight. The material they are being used to reference may be left behind unsourced (if uncontentious), but it is not required. Unless there is a credible argument that the use of Lulu published material is valid, then there is really little critical thought required. The onus is on the person wishing to include the material with dubious sourcing to provide a valid policy based justification for using it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So would you support this sort of edit?
- The crazed campaign to eradicate Lulu at all costs is now spreading to other sources, not from Lulu, just for being nearby. This is why editing crusades are such a bad thing: they become blinkered and careless. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Was that a trick question? It was an unreliable self published source being used to reference a (well two) statements of fact. Its subject to removal. While you *could* leave the material if you were certain it was uncontentious, personally I would certainly hesitate to leave in material which was unreliably sourced when the statement of fact contains 'it is commonly...'. But there is no policy requirement to do so when removing unreliably sourced material. There is a policy requirement that including information is sourced to a reliable source (or shortly going to be). Which Lulu is not. In that section you have a physical description of something mostly verifiable by going and looking at it, followed by a statement on the usage of it, which would require some sort of research to qualify. Although since I am about to mention Guy directly, I will have to notify him - there is a section on his talkpage currently where he removed a citation due to it being unreliable and left the content it was referencing because he felt it was uncontroversial. This is a judgement call by the editor involved which resulted in someone complaining that it was unsourced. So swings and roundabouts.Ah I see the difference in diffs/sources now. I was referring to the original lulu one above but the second is to another source. I would probably put that down to error - since they have self-reverted I dont think its a major issue. Personally I cant see any major issue with the removal of that particular tidbit. It seems rather pointless and obvious in context. Railcruft. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)- [ec] I asked whether you would support a particular edit, with a cited diff. Where's the trick?
- That is not a Lulu or self-published source. It is a source supporting a simple statement, which is "obvious" to those already skilled in the art but our usual policy for a general readership is that we should still source it. Yet Guy is now so keen to get rid of anything smelling of Lulu that the ref must go, the content must go, and other refs that supported it must go too! That is a dogmatic crusade, not plausible editorial judgement. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- In your zeal to burn the witch you failed to notice that I immediately checked myself, noticed my error and self-reverted. Long before you opened this thread. And someone up there even pointed it out to you. You're coming across as a bit hysterical here, which I hope is not the actual case. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So is "Yeah, it's on Lulu.com. That's self-publishing." a good edit or a bad edit? It's certainly not a truthful edit. Are you deleting this content because you're so blinkered to get rid of Lulu that you don't care about collateral damage, or was a it a deliberate third removal (and 3RR is seemingly just something for the little people) as it "does not even need stating,"? Thankyou though for making it plain that you are not someone to take at their word. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is, and I hesitate to labour this point by repetition, a rapidly self-reverted edit. Clearly if I thought it was a good edit I would not have self-reverted it. The rhest of your question is rhetorical, and not actually a question at all, merely a personal attack. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you agree, it's a bad edit. Collateral damage from letting an obsession to hunt down a publishing channel blind you to confuse you with which refs you're even removing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your behaviour is utterly bizarre. I made an error, quickly fixed it, and yet you still conduct this discussion as if that never happened. Meanwhile, back in the real world, everyone understands that vanity presses are unlikely to make for good sources. You appear to want to decide the appropriateness of all links to lulu.com based on the assumption that one speedily corrected error is representative, when it very obviously is not. We are done here. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you agree, it's a bad edit. Collateral damage from letting an obsession to hunt down a publishing channel blind you to confuse you with which refs you're even removing. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is, and I hesitate to labour this point by repetition, a rapidly self-reverted edit. Clearly if I thought it was a good edit I would not have self-reverted it. The rhest of your question is rhetorical, and not actually a question at all, merely a personal attack. Guy (Help!) 16:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So is "Yeah, it's on Lulu.com. That's self-publishing." a good edit or a bad edit? It's certainly not a truthful edit. Are you deleting this content because you're so blinkered to get rid of Lulu that you don't care about collateral damage, or was a it a deliberate third removal (and 3RR is seemingly just something for the little people) as it "does not even need stating,"? Thankyou though for making it plain that you are not someone to take at their word. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- In your zeal to burn the witch you failed to notice that I immediately checked myself, noticed my error and self-reverted. Long before you opened this thread. And someone up there even pointed it out to you. You're coming across as a bit hysterical here, which I hope is not the actual case. Guy (Help!) 15:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- A miniscule amount of critical thought is required to realise that Lulu.com sources are not, and will never be reliable for statements of fact. Properly attributed opinions per self-published guidelines maybe. Lulu sources where used as references for anything other than the opinion of the author may be removed on sight. The material they are being used to reference may be left behind unsourced (if uncontentious), but it is not required. Unless there is a credible argument that the use of Lulu published material is valid, then there is really little critical thought required. The onus is on the person wishing to include the material with dubious sourcing to provide a valid policy based justification for using it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- So you would agree that Lulu sources should be challenged, implying the application of some critical thought, not merely bulk blanked on sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
There are currently in excess of 2,000 links to lulu.com in Wikipedia articles. Lulu is a vanity press, a self-publishing outfit, and has no editorial oversight. The majority of links I find to lulu.com seem to me to be clearly inapporpriate: opinions by non-notable individuals, claims made without the benefit of independent fact-checking and so on. The links are often, but far from always, redundant.
- I have never said that lulu.com is never an appropriate source, but being a vanity press it's pretty clear that the burden of proof lies with those wanting to include it, and it's unlikely that any significant number will be. Especially when the citations often carry a sales link.
- Removing crap sources always brings out a bit of drama, and sometimes the occasional sea lion, but it needs to be done. We have way too much material sourced to random crappy websites, vanity press books, predatory open access journals and other places where the only barrier to publication is cost. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Lulu is a self-publishing company, therefore "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" applies. Mostly its publications would not be reliable sources, but there are a few exceptions. TFD (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A more representative example
- Smith, Simon R. (1 January 2007). Diana: The Lying Game. Lulu.com. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-4276-1734-7. Retrieved 20 May 2011.
Blurb: "Ten years after the death of Princess Diana, the cover-up of the century is blown apart. Thoroughly researched by a private detective and investigative journalist. The full shocking truth of the involvement of British intelligence in the 'accidental' death of one of the 20th Century's leading icons. The Lying Game is exposed!". So: Self-published conspiracist nutjobbery. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- And its relevance to Ellis is just what?
- This is the problem. No one is claiming that Lulu isn't populated by poor SPS, or even that it's an indicator that such a source would be likely to be a problem. It's the assumption that all Lulu sources are bad, that no further checks need to be made and that a blanket deletion of all is required that's the problem. Why otherwise would you equate this source to Ellis? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- You generalised this from one discussion to inflated rhetoric about my purported jihad against lulu.com. I am sure you'd rather the entire discussion were dominated by the source you like, but as the discussion above shows most people are well aware that books published on lulu are unlikely to be reliable. Your entire thesis appears to be: how dare I even question this self-evidently peerless source and the template used to reference it in exactly eight places? In reality, that is just one of a very large number of quesitonable sources I have removed in recent months, and if the debate goes against me I will not lose any sleep over it. Contrary to your apparent belief, I am not lying away at night worrying that there might be one link to a lulu book left on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Procedure: delete all WP:SPS, ask questions later?
It seems there is little expressed disagreement on policy - both Andy and Guy recognize that Lulu publications are WP:SPS and therefore may be used in some contexts, but not others - and so the real issue here is procedure. Should all Lulu sources now be removed, and in the few cases where those sources were merited, they can be brought back by concerned editors? Or should editors removing Lulu sources check each source before deleting?
While obviously procedure will follow some kind of middle course, I would tend towards the second option. This proposed template deletion and the comments therein are a good example of why: blindly bulldozing references without consulting their merits disrupts the hard work that others have put into properly sourcing some articles. It is no more appropriate to delete all Lulu books than it is to delete every WP:SPS on the encyclopedia and hope that other editors reinstate the (tens, hundreds of thousands of) good sources.
Guy, if you want to find bad sources by following Lulu links, that's great, but it's fair to ask you to look at what you're deleting. -Darouet (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have not been on this page for a long time, so please bare with me. I am asking the communities opinion of a online source found here. Its original source, in printed format, does not appear to be clearly stated, and was added with this edit to the article Asian American movement. Is this a reliable source, or is it user generated content?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and have an interesting article published on Dan Abrams's site LawNewz that would be great to use. Specifically, the information that is helpful is that there is no federal statute of limitations on the Jane Doe case - and other points about the viability of the case.
Based on his background as an attorney and legal analyst / journalist, I thought he might be a reliable source, but want to check here. I did a search of RSN and did not find a previous posting for LawNewz. Its editorial staff is mentioned here. Would you consider LawNewz a reliable source?
Because of sensitive NPOV and BLP issues, we want to ensure that we're verifying that our sources are reliable sources. Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- No. Even disregarding the questionable status of LawNewz, that source says it's an opinion piece right at the bottom. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Boxofficedetail.com
boxofficedetail
- Unreliable per "Numbers Provided Here Are Unofficial and unconfirmed". Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- But is that reliable? ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Is SourceWatch a reliable source under the Exceptions section of UGC?
- Source
- 1) Does SourceWatch fall under the Exceptions Section of WP:UGC which states: "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." For background on SourceWatch, please see this page from the Center for Media and Democracy, the organization which publishes it.
- 2) Is the Center for Media and Democracy a reliable source? For background, please see this section on its website.
The findings of CMD's investigative journalism are regularly cited by the leading national and state newspapers in the U.S., including the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. CMD's reporting is credited by news shows on major broadcast stations including HBO, Showtime, PBS, NBC, CBS, and others, and has also been featured on in-depth news programs, such as Moyers & Company, Democracy Now, and the Thom Hartmann Show, as well as NPR and other public broadcasting agencies, such as the BBC and CBC.
- 3) Is Bob Burton, the editor of SourceWatch, a reliable source?
- Article
- The article where this source is/was being used is: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.
- Content
- The content in question is found here.
- 4) On a similar note, because of the questions raised about Martin Morse Wooster, I'm also wondering whether a RSN on the reliability of Wooster is also appropriate. Or if presenting SourceWatch, or even another source, should appropriately included with Wooster, to comply with BALANCE and UNDUE.
- Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sourcewatch is not a reliable source per WP:UGC, which says "most wikis" are unreliable. Sourcewatch says themselves: "SourceWatch is a wiki, meaning that anybody can easily edit any article and have those changes posted immediately." The exception to UGC says "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." The Sourcewatch article in question is not credited to anyone. There is a wiki edit history which lists five different contributors over the article's history. A wiki edit history is not attribution. Further, there is no evidence that any of the five contributors listed in the article's edit history are "credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." The editor of the page that you've singled out, Bob Burton, has a bio on the site which says he is a "freelance journalist in Australia." It says nothing about any journalistic credentials, or about being a member of the Sourcewatch staff. One of the many reasons why this isn't a reliable source is because the article is a living, breathing thing. Anyone can edit it at any time, making the content dynamic. If you added it as a source today, the article content could change tomorrow, and it could fail to verify whatever it was meant to verify. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- I asked four separate questions. You only addressed the first one, where you simply repeated the same claims you made at the talk page. But you didn't answer the question(s) asked here. The first was: Does SourceWatch fall under the Exceptions Section of WP:UGC which states: "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." It seems you also didn't read the 3rd question, which answers the very objections you made about Bob Burton. Please review it. Burton is the managing editor of SourceWatch and a published author and journalist in his own right. X4n6 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it's not a reliable source. There is no evidence that it fits many (any?) of RS requirements. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- See other discussions on RS/N. SourceWatch is not only a Wiki, it has "pseudonymous" writers, and one can readily find horrid misstatements therein. "Reliable sources" do not allow random readers to edit articles. Collect (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sourcewatch is not a reliable source per WP:UGC, which says "most wikis" are unreliable. Sourcewatch says themselves: "SourceWatch is a wiki, meaning that anybody can easily edit any article and have those changes posted immediately." The exception to UGC says "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." The Sourcewatch article in question is not credited to anyone. There is a wiki edit history which lists five different contributors over the article's history. A wiki edit history is not attribution. Further, there is no evidence that any of the five contributors listed in the article's edit history are "credentialed members of the site's editorial staff." The editor of the page that you've singled out, Bob Burton, has a bio on the site which says he is a "freelance journalist in Australia." It says nothing about any journalistic credentials, or about being a member of the Sourcewatch staff. One of the many reasons why this isn't a reliable source is because the article is a living, breathing thing. Anyone can edit it at any time, making the content dynamic. If you added it as a source today, the article content could change tomorrow, and it could fail to verify whatever it was meant to verify. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not a reliable source, like any open-access wiki. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes to all four questions. But certainly yes to Bob Burton as a reliable source. He is a published author and journalist. Especially yes, if we accept Wooster on the same basis. Because he is published. So is Burton. X4n6 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, No, Maybe but likely no, No. Burton *may* be useable if the following criteria were met: 1. He has been published and cited by reliable sources on the subject, 2. It can be proven that this was his work rather than the usual wiki-mash. I have done a brief look and while he appears to be a journalist, I cant find reliable independant sources using him, and being a wiki, it does not look to be conclusively his work. So the site (and him personally) would fail the RS criteria for SPS/Wiki for me. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- In response to your question, did you see this X4n6 (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No its not reliable source.It doesn't meet WP:RS criteria in any form--Shrike (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Online database
Is this a reliable source for the death year of Trần Văn Đôn? The site seems to be similar to Sports Reference, which is usually an accepted source for biographical information of athletes. EternalNomad (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Findagrave redux
The Findagrave guide says not to use it as a reference if "it is a circular reference to Wikipedia". However, a user is deleting all references to Findagrave and even deleting the cemetery information from the text because it is derived from Findagrave, even when the information comes from a photograph of the tombstone. See this change for example, and then see their user contributions where they have done the same to over 100 biographies. Should this be occurring? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate to remove the citation if Findagrave has a photo of a famous, elaborate tomb such as you would find inside a cathedral. I'm not sure about ordinary tombstones in ordinary cemeteries. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why would one from a cathedral be accurate and one from an ordinary graveyard be inaccurate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- In that case an external link might be appropriate, but not a citation. This has been discussed here on many occasions and consensus has been that it's not a reliable source. The page linked above explains some of the issues at play, which are not limited to only WP:CIRCULAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- This removal is perfectly acceptable and Nikkimaria should be thanked for this actually. Findagrave should never be used as a source. It consists of a large amount of WP:USERGENERATED content and there is no indication that the content is reliable or that it has been carefully vetted by an authority. It is pretty easy to hoax Findagrave and image manipulation tools can do wonders. I may be acceptable with it as an external link, but never as a source of information. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- The same can be said for every photo stored at Wikimedia Commons, they all can be manipulated with Photoshop, the images can be reversed, turning a right handed person into a left handed person. I can also migrate all my tombstone images to Wikimedia Commons and then use the image there as a source, the image is still the same. The New York Times is unreliable because they have to print a paragraph of corrections everyday about the previous day's edition. They printed this correction on July 18, 2009: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
"An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International."
- An image of a tombstone is a primary source, and they are allowed, with the usual cautions. The actual guide says not to use Findagrave: "if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do we even have a basis for assuming Findagrave consistently has the right tombstone at all? I mean, sure, only so many people with a given name die at a certain time (and that can be confined further based on where the person is buried), but that seems like a shaky evidentiary basis. Especially if some of that information, particularly place of burial, is actually being sourced from the tombstone itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- We already have rules about using primary documents, use with caution. How do we know we have the right obituary for someone who died in the 1800s. We use the best data possible, and explain inconsistencies and doubts in a footnote. As pointed out above with the New York Times, secondary sources are riddled with errors, and there are over 10,000 Wikipedia reference citations using the New York Times. Perfection is an abstract goal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- An obituary is very different. An obituary provides more background about a person than name, birth year, and death year. Usually enough information to unambiguously determine whom the obituary belongs to. In the case of findagrave, the connection between the tombstone and the person seems to be "some guy on the internet said so". Dragging in the fact that secondary sources make mistakes is a distraction. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- We already have rules about using primary documents, use with caution. How do we know we have the right obituary for someone who died in the 1800s. We use the best data possible, and explain inconsistencies and doubts in a footnote. As pointed out above with the New York Times, secondary sources are riddled with errors, and there are over 10,000 Wikipedia reference citations using the New York Times. Perfection is an abstract goal. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do we even have a basis for assuming Findagrave consistently has the right tombstone at all? I mean, sure, only so many people with a given name die at a certain time (and that can be confined further based on where the person is buried), but that seems like a shaky evidentiary basis. Especially if some of that information, particularly place of burial, is actually being sourced from the tombstone itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- In terms of the edits by Nikkimaria that are in question, and the query "Should this be occurring?", the answer is yes, this should be occurring and the edits are all perfectly in order. Softlavender (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is a good thing, and I usually strip out citations to Find A Grave, too. Find A Grave is not a reliable source, and its data should not be trusted. People upload hoaxes to these kinds of sites just because they can. For example: this story, though it's about the IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
The question regarding photographs is a bit more interesting than y'all are making it out to be though, IMO. Let's think about this.
We use countless thousands of photographs (most of them hosted on Commons, FWIW) where the photograph provides information about the subject and the only -- the only -- verification for this is some random (usually anonymous!) person's say-so: "Photograph of St Basil's Cathedral in Novgorod. Own Work. Uploaded by photographer".
On one level, this is ridiculous. Why can we present an image as "own work" and not a paragraph of text? They are very similar things. We don't publish a paragraph of text "St Basil's Cathedral is a large white building, three stories, with seven gold-covered domes, etc. etc." sourced to <ref>I was there and I saw it myself</ref>, right? Yet we publish a photo with the same info and essentially the same level of sourcing.
On another level, it's not ridiculous at all. It works -- vandalism via faking a photo is rare I believe -- and even though it doesn't follow our theory it works in practice. So as a matter of de facto practice, photographs are specially privileged here and always have been (and there are various good reasons for this. For one thing, it takes much more effort and skill to fake a photo, more time and skill than the average vandal cares to apply.)
So here's a question: I can take and upload a photo of St Basil's Cathedral, and put it in an article. We all agree I can, it's common practice. So can I not take and upload a photo of St Basil's Cathedral and (if for some reason I preferred to) use it to ref a text description of the entity instead putting the photo in the article? (Assume the text description limited itself to blue-sky facts clearly seen in the photo, so that interpretation is not an issue.) It's an interesting question! I can't see why not.
So how is my taking a photo of gravestone different? Yes in theory I could have the wrong gravestone (just as, in theory, I could have mistaken St Basil's Cathedral for a different one). Yes in theory I could be deliberately vandalizing by taking a photo of a wrong gravestone on purpose, or photoshopping it (just as, in theory, I could do the same with St Basil's Cathedral). But in practice, this is vanishingly unlikely, as recognized by the fact that I can do this per our common practice.
So... how is a photo at FindAGrave different -- and worse -- than one I take myself? Yes the person could be wrong. Yes the person could be a photoshopping troll. Either is vanishingly unlikely, and if we eliminate sources that are vanishingly unlikely to be wrong, we must eliminate the New York Times and every other source and be left with nothing.
It's perfectly reasonable to use photographs (and just photographs) from FindAGrave as references. Herostratus (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is simple - FaG is WP:USERGENERATED, thus, it cannot be used as a reference. MarnetteD|Talk 19:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is not simple. It's complicated. A large percentage of our images in articles are editor generated. "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable" applies to Commons in large part. Yet WP:USERGENERATED is not used to prevent our use of Commons' editor-uploaded photos because WP:USERGENERATED is about text, it does not address photographs and is not applied to photographs. How do I know? Because it is not used to prevent our use of Commons' editor-uploaded photos. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- It is simple as this thread is about using FaG as a reference. If you want to start a separate thread about images please feel free to do so at the appropriate spot. MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK. Since it is simple I will describe the situation using small words and short sentences. OK?
- Photographs (and only photographs) at FindAGrave -- such as photographs of gravestones showing vital dates -- are acceptable as references.
- I've demonstrated above why this is so. No one has successfully refuted this. Probably no one can.
- Editors should therefore not remove material ref'd to photographs at FindAGrave, as a general rule.
- To the extent that photographs at FindAGrave are not good references, the fault lies in the subject itself (the gravestone) rather than the photograph. Gravestones are mediocre references (they are not usually fact checked I believe) but they are valid data points. Anyway that question is about gravestones in general, not photographs of them, whether from FindAGrave or any other source. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The problem I have with it is that often FindAGrave is the only source stating that this is, in fact, the gravestone of the individual being referenced. You can believe there really is a gravestone of one John Smith b. 1900 d. 2000, buried in FakeTown, USA, based on a photograph. We can take that at good faith, sure. But is this John Smith, the master widget maker and subject of a Wikipedia article? Or some other John Smith? For many biographies we have secondary sources confirming the place of burial, which helps. But what I see a lot is someone claiming a place of burial based on a FindaGrave posting. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Photoshop. The chances that someone will do something dodgy on a reliable independant secondary source are next to zero compared to a user-generated one. Which is one of the reasons we dont use material on user-generated sites. Plus the aforementioned John Smith widget etc etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- A photo of a gravestone cannot be used as a reference ever. We use reliable secondary sources that have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. In this sense "Find a grave" is not reliable: it has no proper fact checking mechanism. Using FindAGrave as a reference is akin to using Wikipedia as a reference. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK. Since it is simple I will describe the situation using small words and short sentences. OK?
- It is simple as this thread is about using FaG as a reference. If you want to start a separate thread about images please feel free to do so at the appropriate spot. MarnetteD|Talk 19:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Billboard.biz
Hello reliable sources experts. I came across an article which had a reference to billboard.biz (this one). I tried to look up billboard.biz in Wikipedia, but it redirects to Billboard, which makes no mention of it. Often .biz sites are full of press releases and profiles written by closely connected sources. Can anyone tell me if billboard.biz is a reliable independent source? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. Billboard.biz was launched in 1996 as billboard-online.com, a name which was changed to billboard.biz to reflect its subsequent focus on the business side of the music industry. Billboard writes it is "the online extension of Billboard magazine, www.billboard.com/biz is the essential online destination for the music business." The .biz site uses the same writers as billboard.com and has the same editorial oversight. JSFarman (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
David Dye book
User Ghinozzi-nissim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently added a very large number of entries to "further reading", all using the same edit summary, all tot he same book, Dye, David. Child and Youth Actors: Filmography of Their Entire Careers, 1914-1985. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 1988. This is suspicious, IMO, but is this a RS? Guy (Help!) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- According to this review from the American Library Association,
The emphasis rests on acting credits; the scant biographical information is inconsistent and inadequately researched. Unfortunately, the filmographies suffer the same problem. Many credits are missing... There are some photos but no references to them are found in the entries... Dye's work has too many holes to stand on its own.
I'd say it would be useful only with caution, if at all. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)- That's a misrepresentation of my contribution. I am not using ONLY the book by David Dye. I am using several books dealing with child and young actors/actresses to indicate in which of them they have an entry. I am using: Dixie Willson, Little Hollywood Stars (1935); Norman J. Zierold's The Child Stars (1965); Marc Best's Those Endearing Young Charms (1971); James Robert Parish's Great Child Stars (1976); David Dye's Child and Youth Actors (1988); John Holmstrom's The Moving Picture Boy (1996); Tom & Jim Goldrup's Growing Up on the Set (2002); and a few other collections of biographies. In some case, the actor/actress have an entry only in one book; in many cases, in several of them.--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Aside from the question of whether the book is a reliable source, a general reference work with separate entries on individual actors is not normally a good "further reading" item for our articles on said actors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, Ghinozzi-nissim, you will be self-reverting these, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand in details. I am receiving conflicting messages. I have received several messages that thank me for including the reference to "further reading". Personally, I thought it could be useful to our readers to know where further information could be found. Maybe what I have done was superfluous, but certainly not harmful. I understand however that the case of David Dye's book is different from the other books I mentioned above. They are collections of biographies and devote long articles to the actors/actresses with detailed information, that cannot be found elsewhere, while Dye's book presents little more than a list of films with short biographical data. If I understand correctly, do you think that I should then erase the references to that book, when it is not particularly relevant and stands alone in "Further reading", mentioning it only in note if used to add some biographical data not provided by other sources? I will do it. ----Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- People who create articles routinely thank anyone who makes an edit. It doesn't mean anything. What matters is that this book is (a) inaccurate and (b) not the kind of book we'd add to Further Reading anyway. Please remove the edits. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Now I think everything is clear. We already agreed on Dye's book. I am already delating all superfluous references.--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand in details. I am receiving conflicting messages. I have received several messages that thank me for including the reference to "further reading". Personally, I thought it could be useful to our readers to know where further information could be found. Maybe what I have done was superfluous, but certainly not harmful. I understand however that the case of David Dye's book is different from the other books I mentioned above. They are collections of biographies and devote long articles to the actors/actresses with detailed information, that cannot be found elsewhere, while Dye's book presents little more than a list of films with short biographical data. If I understand correctly, do you think that I should then erase the references to that book, when it is not particularly relevant and stands alone in "Further reading", mentioning it only in note if used to add some biographical data not provided by other sources? I will do it. ----Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, Ghinozzi-nissim, you will be self-reverting these, yes? Guy (Help!) 21:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Aside from the question of whether the book is a reliable source, a general reference work with separate entries on individual actors is not normally a good "further reading" item for our articles on said actors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's a misrepresentation of my contribution. I am not using ONLY the book by David Dye. I am using several books dealing with child and young actors/actresses to indicate in which of them they have an entry. I am using: Dixie Willson, Little Hollywood Stars (1935); Norman J. Zierold's The Child Stars (1965); Marc Best's Those Endearing Young Charms (1971); James Robert Parish's Great Child Stars (1976); David Dye's Child and Youth Actors (1988); John Holmstrom's The Moving Picture Boy (1996); Tom & Jim Goldrup's Growing Up on the Set (2002); and a few other collections of biographies. In some case, the actor/actress have an entry only in one book; in many cases, in several of them.--Ghinozzi-nissim (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Neutral Accurate Sources - Hillary Clinton
Under Policies for Hillary Clinton her point of view is different. A cited source is not accurate or credible when It is from a SuperPAC. Source 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 464, 469, 475. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8452
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5928
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
- This doesn't appear to be a coherent question about a source. Care to explain what you're asking? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you're asking about the leaks, they're clearly WP:PRIMARY sources. For anything controversial, we would want to cite a secondary source covering them instead rather than citing them directly, especially in a case like this where almost any usage is going to involve some interpretation (which we need a secondary source to draw from to avoid WP:OR.) So, for example, we can't say (or imply) "here is what Hillary Clinton REALLY thinks about this issue" and use the leaks as a source, since that would be original research; but we can cite a secondary source that says that, if a reliable one exists. (Additionally, WP:DUE weight would require balancing that against other coverage, what she'd said elsewhere, etc; but the main thing is that we generally need secondary sources to say anything nontrivial at all when it comes to situations like this.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
IGI Global
Interesting article here: [24] - references IGI Global as a vanity press, pretty much as expected. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Something to source material from for Predatory open access publishing, probably. Jeffrey Beall may also be interested. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
TMZ on NBC's role in Bush/Trump controversy
- Article: Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording controversy
- Source: TMZ
- Content: Suggestion that NBC timed the release of the video to influence the presidential debate.
- The celebrity news website TMZ reports a different chronology: when top executives at NBC learned about the video, they thought it was too early in the presidential campaign season to release it with maximum effect, and (according to TMZ) those executives publicly said they learned of the video long after they actually learned about it.[1][2]
References
- ^ "NBC Planned to Use Trump Audio to Influence Debate, Election", TMZ (October 12, 2016): "Multiple sources connected with NBC tell us ... top network execs knew about the video long before they publicly said they did, but wanted to hold it because it was too early in the election. The sources say many NBC execs have open disdain for Trump and their plan was to roll out the tape 48 hours before the debate so it would dominate the news cycle leading up to the face-off."
- ^ Brucculieri, Julia. "NBC Execs Reportedly Knew About Billy Bush’s ‘Locker Room Talk’ For Years And Did Nothing", Huffington Post (October 12, 2016).
Relevant discussion on the article's talk page TMZ -- does this belong? Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. HuffPost is widely treated as a reliable source at Wikipedia. The HuffPost writer is Julia Brucculieri, one of The Huffington Post's entertainment writers, based in NYC. She previously covered fashion and style for HuffPost Canada. TMZ "is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies."[25]. TMZ has recently been nominated for an Emmy as an "Outstanding Entertainment News Program". They have broken many major stories. Combining these two sources is especially respectable, and we provide in-text attribution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- On TMZ, it seems like they are relying on several second-hand information sources, I wonder what these are. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Vote Smart
I know this has been discussed in the past [26] but wanted to revisit the reliability of Vote Smart, specifically in regards to politicians' voting records. The site claims to provide "free, factual, unbiased information on candidates and elected officials". The source is currently being discussed on Joe Heck's talk page. Thanks! Meatsgains (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Its reliable for the record of 'what this person voted for' but its hardly ever going to be useable due to UNDUE and synth issues. It makes no comment or opinion itself, so any edits that make judgements ("So and so has been a supporter of the war on terror") cannot be sourced to it absent a reliable secondary source making that connection - as votesmart does not impart motive for the subject voting. For all we know politician X voted yes on war on terror bills not because they support it, but because they obey the party line. Or the flying monkeys told them to. And if we have a reliable secondary source making that connection, we dont need votesmart (except as a corroborator). If say an article on a particular bill listed all the support/opposers for some reason, thats about the only time it would really be useful as a source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. It can be used as a source to verify votes, bills, etc. but not politicians political positions as that would be WP:SYN. Meatsgains (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think so, but even thats going to be arguable depending on context. A politician who has voted consistantly against allowing abortion over a number of years can by any reasonable standard be 'sky is blue' said to be opposed to allowing abortion. But that 'sky is blue' obviousness is wildly variable depending on which editor applies it. It might be they are not opposed to abortion under strict criteria, but have yet to have a bill go before them that met those criteria, and so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, each position should be taken by a case-by-case basis on the talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. My issue was that a couple of editors (including a newbie) laid waste to a ton of my additions, b/c they were allegedly unverified. I objected that a House member's votes listed on VoteSmart are a perfectly legit reference in the interest of documenting a politician's voting record. I understand that a vote in and of itself does not necessarily indicate a belief (as Only In Death rightly observes). Then too, as Meatgains indicates, it can be quite uncontroversial to observe a Congressperson's consistent voting; particularly when this possible indication of a belief is corroborated, as in statements on her/his webpage, etc. I think one can make a pretty darn reasonable and uncontroversial case about certain political stances. In the case of Joe Heck for example, it's not hard to list conservative Republican positions that he himself is proud of, and which neatly match his voting record and public statements. I just want to be careful that we don't set the standard too high: it's one thing to mindread a politician's voting record, it's another to find a clear and deliberate voting pattern that s/he herself embraces.Smilo Don (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- As an example. The following was struck down: "In 2011 Heck voted to terminate the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program." I provided the following citation: https://votesmart.org/bill/12886/33927/44082/terminating-the-emergency-mortgage-relief-program#.WAVIxfkrKHs. To me, that's a rather well-referenced, fact-based statement. In and of itself, it doesn't tell us much, except how he voted. But, of course, it may or may not make sense in the context of Mr. Heck's other votes (e.g. he's very much opposed to welfare and food stamps). So I believe that this statement, and others like it should remain in place. Smilo Don (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. My issue was that a couple of editors (including a newbie) laid waste to a ton of my additions, b/c they were allegedly unverified. I objected that a House member's votes listed on VoteSmart are a perfectly legit reference in the interest of documenting a politician's voting record. I understand that a vote in and of itself does not necessarily indicate a belief (as Only In Death rightly observes). Then too, as Meatgains indicates, it can be quite uncontroversial to observe a Congressperson's consistent voting; particularly when this possible indication of a belief is corroborated, as in statements on her/his webpage, etc. I think one can make a pretty darn reasonable and uncontroversial case about certain political stances. In the case of Joe Heck for example, it's not hard to list conservative Republican positions that he himself is proud of, and which neatly match his voting record and public statements. I just want to be careful that we don't set the standard too high: it's one thing to mindread a politician's voting record, it's another to find a clear and deliberate voting pattern that s/he herself embraces.Smilo Don (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- So, each position should be taken by a case-by-case basis on the talk page. Meatsgains (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think so, but even thats going to be arguable depending on context. A politician who has voted consistantly against allowing abortion over a number of years can by any reasonable standard be 'sky is blue' said to be opposed to allowing abortion. But that 'sky is blue' obviousness is wildly variable depending on which editor applies it. It might be they are not opposed to abortion under strict criteria, but have yet to have a bill go before them that met those criteria, and so on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. It can be used as a source to verify votes, bills, etc. but not politicians political positions as that would be WP:SYN. Meatsgains (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ghanaian websites
I'm having difficulty determining whether http://pulse.com.gh and http://ghanaweb.com are mainstream news sources with professional journalistic standards, particularly in respect of "celebrity news". These two websites are the only sources cited in a new BLP draft at AFC - Draft:Elaine Attoh. If these websites are ok it solves a significant potential issue for the draft. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Pulse - Reliable for non-controversial statements of fact. Can't seem to find any editors on its webpage, only one writer.
- Ghanaweb - Also reliable. From its website: "we publish news from Ghana in a completely independent and neutral manner... The news on the portal is updated by a team of editors" Meatsgains (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I am currently editing an article about the new Doom to make it reach the GA-class, but GA reviewer Cognissonance is not sure about the reliability of Tom's Hardware as used in this passage in the article:
"The CEO of id Software, Todd Hollenshead, suggested that, like Doom II: Hell on Earth, it would take place on Earth..."
Is it a reliable source, or should it be removed? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Its a well known tech-based jounalism site with staff, editors etc. The information being sourced is uncontentious although the general tone of the article is speculative. The author of the article is using the leaked screenshots to back up a statement previously made by Todd H regarding the setting of Doom. There is no reason to suspect that the author would be incorrect about Todd H indicating it would be set on Earth. I dont really see a problem with it. If they have a serious problem with that particular piece of info being sourced to T's Hardware, you could find the original place where Todd H made the implication it was set on Earth and use that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Cool. Then I'm not that concerned if it cannot be replaced. Cognissonance (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The Messiah Abd-ru-shin
This is about [27], wherein Emmisgood has reverted my edit claiming that a book published by the University of California Press would be unreliable. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So, there are two reliable sources making the same claim:
- Bryan R. Wilson (1975). The Noble Savages: The Primitive Origins of Charisma and Its Contemporary Survival. University of California Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-520-02815-9.
- Massimo Introvigne (1 March 2004). Peter Clarke (ed.). Encyclopedia of New Religious Movements. Routledge. p. 244. ISBN 978-1-134-49970-0.
I have reverted his/her edit based upon verifying the information to both sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles about the authors: Bryan R. Wilson, Peter Clarke (historian) and Massimo Introvigne. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So:
- notable academics: check;
- reputable publishing houses: check.
- authors are discussing subjects which pertain to their area of expertise: check. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why these two sources would be unreliable to make the claim, certainly there is no Wikipedia requirement of peer-review for books. I certainly find that "- Edit of Tgeorgescu from 22-Oct-16 Undone as it expresses an undocumented personal opinion and/or interpretation of both the editor and the referenced publication. The referenced publication notes no validated or peer reviewed sources for the authors statement, which again reflects an opinion and/or personal perception" is a spurious reason and it is contrary to WP:PAG. Also, that editor may have a conflict of interest in respect to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the sources mentioned above are the only independent sources from the whole article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Background information: the Message of the Grail claims that Jesus Christ has spread the Word of God in cryptic parables and just before the Final Judgment Abd-ru-shin has brought the Word of God in plaintext, in order to save human souls. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Just taking at face value that Peter Clarke was the editor of that encyclopedia, it does have editorial control. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, Emmisgood has displayed particularly bad editorial judgment at [28], falling for a source contrary to both WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Let me start by saying: Way too many posts from a single user for opening a thread here. It looks more like you're telling us what to say than asking us what we have to say. Also, you're casting negative judgement on another user, which is walking the line of personal attacks. I think perhaps, you should take a step back for a bit. You seem to be agitated. And I'm not saying that to be mean, I really mean it as helpful advice.
- That being said, I can understand why. The user in question is an SPA, and the edit in your first comment was a particularly bad one. I'm further concerned by the incredibly opaque references from the world public library: Without going through a paywall, we can't even see who the author is, or what the name of the work is with that citation style. Given that the WPL hasn't even merited a wikipedia page, I'm more than a little concerned about the nature of those references. I think, perhaps, this should be brought up at the FTN as well (though I would advise you to do so in a much less verbose manner), given the subject matter. There may be some editors there who have some experience with it. I'd also like some more attention here. Perhaps another editor has a membership with the WPL and can check those articles. I'm personally loathe to give my credit card information to an organization I only heard about a few minutes earlier, and about whom I can't find any WP-level reliable sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sources for WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR: see Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org. See for details http://www.ipad-library.net/article/whebn0002666422/abd-ru-shin and Id: http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/abd-ru-shin (no login required in order to see that it is an Web 2.0 article). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- My intention was not to cast aspersions, but to state objectively assessable facts about those edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason why I used WP:RSN: WP:SEEKHELP, if I were to start an edit war, I would get myself blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Primary source and spinal manipulation
The question: Is this primary source reliable enough to state that "As of 2012, 99% of physical therapy programs were teaching spine manipulation in the United States." at the spinal manipulation article. Thanks 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:10CE:C4B8:714A:FA5 (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The source being discussed is this 2015 survey study; which is a follow-up study to this 2004 survey study.
- The article where the source is being discussed is spinal manipulation, the specific discussion is here.
- The text that was added with the source under question is: "As of 2012, 99% of physical therapy programs were teaching spine manipulation in the United States."
- The source and text was suggested for addition in the section entitled current providers.
- Any comments would be welcome.
2001:56A:75B7:9B00:5126:F27E:3621:D9FC (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)