This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 135

←

Archive 137

Archive 138

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

→

Archive 145

Source: iClarified.com and ihackintosh.com

Discussion: Cydia Talk about use of iClarified.com in Cydia. I'm also wondering if these sources are appropriate anywhere else surrounding topics of Apple devices.

Content: "In addition to offering software to install, in September 2009 Cydia was improved to help users have the option to downgrade (or upgrade) their device to versions of iOS not currently allowed by Apple"

ihackintosh is a blog by a group of three students. iClarified.com does not even have an about page, but WHOIS page indicates its a personal website. Another editor argues that these sources should be admissible, because a few authors of books published through O'Reilley Media suggested these as good sources in their opinion.

It was just that "here are some good sources to check out" and the like. According to WP:SPS, it reads that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Evidence presented me is that possibly reliable sources simply issued opinions as they're "good places" to visit, but the persons behind the sites or the sites themselves have not met the criteria above. So far, it looks like they fall under personal webpage and personal blog category. I'm looking for interpretation on if these sources could generally mean more than such.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this for more opinions! Just to note, I'm only interested in using iClarified, not iHackintosh; iHackintosh just happened to be mentioned along with iClarified in one of the books I was looking at. I also don't think that iClarified would be a reliable source for Apple information in general, just useful as a secondary source for a piece of uncontroversial technical material about jailbreaking when only a self-published primary source is otherwise available. (This feature wasn't immediately notable when it was released; it became more important later, so there are better sources available for later details but not much for the initial release.) Also, for transparency: I work for the company that makes this software, although I'm not paid to edit. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread is to evaluate what these sources are suitable for, if at all in general. iClarified, a site that does not provide an about page, a proper business mailing address or the author and its WHOIS inquiry appears to support my evaluation of this source as a glorified personal website. Though it has sourced information, it looks like an aggregation site with one-man job editorial. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's my belief that parts of the ResearchGate Criticisms section do not meet WP:RS and other Wiki guidelines. Specifically, I am referring to the following statements:

Invitation policy ResearchGate has been criticised for sending spam. If a user signs up to ResearchGate, it automatically sends emails to the coauthors of his publications inviting them to join. These emails have a fake sender name and give the misleading impression that they are a personal invitation triggered by the user.

User numbers The claimed user numbers (1.9 Million as of August 12, 2012) contrast to the number of followers for the top topics such as "Science, Engineering and Technology" that have less than 50,000 followers. The official ResearchGate Twitter profile has less than 4000 followers. The number of active users (20% active at least once a month) reported by company founder Ijad Madisch approximately equal the growth rate.

RG Score An experiment conducted by journalist Beatrice Lugger showed that with just a few interactions on ResearchGate, her "RG score" would grow to the top 5% percentile, indicating that the score as of now is barely indicative of scientific impact, and that the majority of users does interact even less. Her ResearchGate profile lists 7 questions and answers posted on the platform and 43 followers as of December 03, 2012; two months after the article was published - a surprising low number to ever have been in the top 5%..

In my opinion, the above statements either separately or together do not meet Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SPS, WP:OR, and WP:PSTS. There has been a dialogue about this on the ResearchGate talk page, but no clear consensus or resolution has emerged.

Any recommendations for resolving this within relevant Wiki guidelines would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. JNorman704 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide the sources we are expected to check against.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that this is only one of at least four noticeboards on which JNorman704 has posted his grievance. My take on the situation is here. For simplicity and centralization, I recommend that further conversation simply take place at Talk:ResearchGate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've (twice now) added an edit to this article concerning items it sells on its online store - mugs and t-shirts saying "Islamophobic and proud of it". It's been removed twice by the same editor with the claim that we can't use the blog's website itself as a source for what it sells as it is a primary source. The editor gives other reasons at Talk:Politically Incorrect (blog) but if you read the talk page from the top it looks more like an argument over whether the blog is Islamophobic or not, with the editor who is deleting me saying " does not define itself as islamophobe and it does not share any categories with Islamophobia, actually". That's a different issue of course as are the other reasons he gives for deleting me, but his main reason still seems to be his claim that we can't use it as it is a primary source. Note that we not surprisingly are already using the website as a source in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This a primary source so it better to use it in conjunction with secondary sources.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've done that. Ironically, a source that the editor reverted me insists, rightly, is a reliable source, was part 2 of an article, and part 1 leads off with a statement about the mugs and t-shirts. But what is the difference between what I added and the two sentences in the lead "A condensed version of the weblog is available in English. The blog's self-declared goal is to bring news to a wider public attention which it perceives to be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media due to a pervading "leftist political correctness."" which are both sourced to the website?

The problem is in using of primary sources its deciding what important and what is not i.e WP:UNDUE of course a stated goal of organisation is very relevant to the article but if the organisation notable enough the secondary sources should have discussed their goals but this goes beyond the scope of this board. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would actually have to say no on its use as a primary source. It is a blog and really has no editorial oversite. Per WP:PRIMARY:"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". I took a look and this really does not meet the criteria as reliably published, which is why blogs are generally not used as primary sourcing unless as part of the subject of another source. Sometimes an RS will not mention a primary source itself but just the facts from it, so a reliably published primary source would add value. If you were to find a secondary source that mentions this site, it probably still shouldn't be used as a primary source in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm lost now. Are you saying we can't use it as a source for what it sells in its online store? Are you saying we need to remove the sentences about its self-declared goal and that it has a condensed version available in English? Surely this is a misunderstanding of WP:PRIMARY, and is actually covered by WP:SPS:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Doug. I have such huge respect for you and feel a little odd disagreeing with you, but stating what they sell and using the site as a primary source is unduly self-serving.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And I wouldn't normally do that, but given the context of a debate over whether it is Islamaphobic it seems reasonable. But, as I said, I found a reliable source stating that they sold the mugs and t-shirts. In the context, I don't think it is self-serving, and certainly not as self-serving as the frequent use of an organisation's website as a source for the organisation's beliefs. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

If the content is acceptable, then they are a good source for it. For example, a list of journals published by a society is good content; a list of t-shirt colors from a retailer is not. In the middle, of list of major product lines of a major company can certainly be sourced from their website-. What would be self-servicing is a list of product reviews, if used without any further search for one that might be less favorable. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I have two questions related to the United Nations website :

1. Is this a reliable source to provide geographical and political data regarding a country, such as its borders, its capital, its population, ... ?

2. At worse, in case of controversy on the matter (let's think about Western Sahara claimed by a lot of people), is not the UN's point of view one of the highest due:weight regarding the way wikipedia must display information ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per this board rules you should give specific case where you want to use it and in what article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shrike,

Well. I think it is more neutral if the case where it would be applied is not given but we may assume it is good for Western Sahara, Tibet, Israel/Palestine and South Ossetia/Georgia.

Pluto2012 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide the link to the website in question. The information you are seeking to find an answer to specifically and the articles you are edting that this is needed for. No assumptions please. If this is a broad and general question, it may not have an answer as we can't paint with a broad brush here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

eg this one.

But the reliability of a source should not be considered for a given point. It would mean it is examine a source case by case, which is no sense. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"un.org" has been accused of simply following whatever the Generral Assembly deems to be the truth on any given subject -- and is citable as the "UN published position". This is not necessarily exactly the same as "fact" unfortunately. Where disputes exist, the UN is known occasionally to "take sides" in territorial disputes, names of capital cities, etc. Collect (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources for such a statement ? And why is "following whatever the GA deems to be the trunth" is not reliable ? Pluto2012 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually -- one of the perennial fights on Wikipedia is "Palestine/Israel Anything" and thus anything the UN prints relating to that topic (among others) is instantly going to be opposed by someone. Need more examples? Collect (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Although "going to be opposed by someone" is not the same thing as "unreliable". On the assumption that this is about I/P, the UN does not necessarily get the last word on matters of fact, but information stated in WP articles as fact which is inconsistent with information available from the UN should probably not be there. Pluto: if you think this discussion is likely to help then good luck, but I disagree. Formerip (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It is reliable for the opinions of the UN. That is not the same as being a reliable source of disputed "facts." For example - "is Jerusalem the capital of Israel?" Would you use a UN publication as a source to make it a statement of "fact" to be placed in Wikipedia's voice? Collect (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, Collect, but, if so, all I can say is re-read what I said above. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi

How claims that what is on the UN website is unreliable ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I would expect it to be a reliable (if rather unexciting) source for most topics. Is there some specific piece of content here, where editors have doubts about the validity of the UN as a source? bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering if A Texan Looks At Lyndon (A Study in Illegitimate Power) by J. Evetts Haley is a reliable source for an uncontroversial statement in John Douglas Kinser: "He owned Butler Park, located across the Colorado River in Austin.2" According to a September 1987 issue of Texas Monthly (a reliable source) discussing the book: 1) "It was the most controversial book ever written about a Texan, and although it fell quickly into obscurity, it became a cause célèbre of the 1964 election." 2) "At almost 7.5 million copies, A Texan Looks at Lyndon had become the best-selling book of any kind in the country and the most successful political book of all time." 3) It was self-published... "Haley says no publishing house would touch it". 4) Haley carried a vendetta against Johnson and "Historians today dismiss the polemic as a venomous propaganda piece..." I'm not sure how to reconcile this with WP:SPS. Given the book's relative notability, it this something that can be used in other sources, too? Should in-text attribution be required? -Location (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not using a notable source can give neutrality problems, and lead to us not reporting everything, but if a source is known to take an unusually strong position then we can attribute to it as a specific opinion, or even mention that it controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a neutral statement, the argument would have to be that the book is so irresponsible that nothing in it could be believed. This may well be the case. But, looking at the article, there are other aspects to the article even more disturbing: only 1 of the 5 references is by a reliable mainstream publisher, and a statement that the jury was stacked, and that a particular named person corrupted it, is attributed to a book by an author promulgating a JFK-LBJ conspiracy theory. The article is also self-contradictory: the first paragraph says his killer was convicted of first degree murder-the last says the tainted trial prevented conviction on that charge. Given the events described, neutral news sources should be available for it. Though the person is known only for having dated LBJ's sister and getting killed by a former boyfriend, there are political implications that might make him notable if they are reported by RSs. If better sources are not forthcoming, I will nominate it for AfD . (If any of the participants were still alive, I would already have deleted it as BLP) DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with all of this, and was merely making a good faith effort at WP:BEFORE. #1 and #4 stood out immediately as violating SPS, I thought there might be an exception on this one (due to the notability of the book and the "blandness" of the assertion), and I wasn't sure how to deal with the "Barnes and Noble" publishing reference in #3. Only #5 appears to be "reliable" for an attributed statement (but not enough to establish notability of the individual on its own). Location (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I have a concern over a SkyVector source on List of airports in the Okanagan, which I am planning to take to featured list status. A peer reviewer suggested that SkyVector could be unreliable, and I am now questioning this noticeboard. I personally do believe it is reliable, but, again, am not exactly certain. I was hoping that the reliable sources noticeboard could help me on this. Thanks, and happy holidays! TBrandley 02:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think they're a reliable source? According to the site's About page, "SkyVector.com was founded in 2005 by a web developer who was learning to fly." Anyone can create a web site. It seems like an WP:SPS to me. A reliable source is one that has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. I did, however, find a favorable article in Flying Magazine1. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Is http://cuban-exile.com/ a reliable source for material in Operation 40? More specifically:

1. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0034.html is a reliable source for "A letter dated 8 February 1961 signed by Felipe Rodriguez of the CIA, lists the leaders and men of "la COMPANIA DE INTELIGENCIA Y RECONOCIMIENTO (Operacion-40)". This letter also has names and information as to member status of death, prison, of various Bay of Pigs Invasion participants. (Letter obtained from Brigade 2506 Headquarters.)5"?
2. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0035.html a reliable source for "Among the names listed are: snip.6"? I have omitted a lengthy list of names due to potential BLP issues.
3. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_026-050/doc0042.html a reliable source for "Other members are reported on the freighter Lake Charles that retreated without landing any attackers.9"?
4. Is http://cuban-exile.com/doc_351-375/doc0355.html a reliable source for "In a 9 June 1961 memorandum10 to Richard Goodwin, historian and Kennedy advisor Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote: "Sam Halper, who has been the New York Times correspondent in Havana and more recently in Miami, came to see me last week. He has excellent contracts among the Cuban exiles.... Halper says that CIA set up something called Operation 40 under the direction of a man named (as he recalled) Captain Luis Sanjenis, who was also chief of intelligence.... But the CIA agent in charge, a man known as Felix, trained the members of the group in methods of third degree interrogation, torture and general terrorism. The liberal Cuban exiles believe that the real purpose of Operation 40 was to 'kill Communists' and, after eliminating hard-core Fidelistas, to go on to eliminate first the followers of Ray, then the followers of Varona and finally to set up a right wing dictatorship, presumably under Manuel Artime.... The exiles believe that all these things had CIA approval.... Nice fellows."?

Thanks! Location (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No as its an advocacy website which admits to cherry picking the documents it's posted to further its campaign (from http://cuban-exile.com/menu1/purpose.html "One purpose of the Cuban Information Archives is to provide primary source materials pertaining to Cuban Exile activities as they pertain to their struggle to wrestle Cuba from Fidel Castro ... The documents presented here are overwhelmingly anti-Castro related ... The need for anti-Castro propaganda and the misunderstandings between Cubans and the U.S. authorities can be seen in DOCUMENT 032 ."). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume this would fall under the Questionable sources clause of the WP:RS guideline. Off-topic but related to this, I've seen conspiracy-related websites post government documents released under Freedom of Information Act (United States) in an attempt to support various contentions. Do you happen to know of any other relevant guidelines that address the posting of government documents (information that is generally accurate) by dubious sources? Thanks again! Location (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That website is not reliable for such claims, and drawing such claims from primary sources (even primary sources from a reliable archive) would be unacceptable Original research. Please have a look at WP:HISTRS for how you should write historical articles from sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Location (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone objected to these sources in Astronomical naming conventions (I have added more sources):

A comet is named after up to its first independent discoverers, up to a maximum of three names, separated by hyphens.¹²³⁴

• Comet 105P/Singer Brewster, discovered by Stephen Singer-Brewster, should by rights have been named "105P/Singer-Brewster", but this would have led most readers to believe it had been a joint discovery by two astronomers named Singer and Brewster, respectively, so the hyphen was replaced by a space.¹²

I believe that they are adequate to source these short statements of fact. I coaxed these texts out of Google Books after many efforts. I can't find out the author and article title for some of these refs, but they are from journals and books that are reliable in the field of astronomy. Anyone willing to spend a few bucks can verify all the references.

They are not isolated sentences, I have fuller quotes in a list that I have been compiling for months, and all sources support these statements.

Should I remove the refs where I can only see fragments, or can they stay? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

My objection was to the "title unknown" citations, especially the one with the made-up journal name "The Strolling astronomer" and no URL link. And why do we need these multiple sources for statement of fact that's largely irrelevant to our naming conventions? Your edit summary seemed to be trying to justify the cite as being copied from article space, but you had just added it there, too, where I removed it with similar objection. I just noticed that my questioned revert was in article space; I was thinking I was editing a page on WP naming conventions, which is not the case; in any case, my objections are the same. Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fragments aren't sources. If you haven't read the source, you can't quote it. And the source is the minimal unit of comprehensive communication (the chapter, section, article, pamphlet). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not strictly the case though, since we do permit the use of archive services such as Wayback Machine and Highbeam. The question I suppose is whether Google snippets provides a valid archive utility? I see no reason to oppose it, since the use of Google Books preview is common, and the Google snippets seems to be an extension of that service i.e. it does seem to provide an accurate reproduction of the text. In the case of the "unknown title" source, ultimately Google snippets does provide enough bibliographic details (journal name, volume, year, publisher, and even a page number) to verify the RS status of the source and the veracity of the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the veracity is not so much at issue. We just don't need extra flaky cites for info that's already cited in accessible sources. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the archive is not preserving the text in full invariant and complete it isn't an archive and you haven't read the source. Fragments are never acceptable as original research is required to interpret their meaning. Snippets are not texts Betty. They are incoherent ramblings of a capitalistic search engine. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Books Preview doesn't preserve the text in its entirety either, which is in prolific usage on Wikipedia, so common practice doesn't seem to require the full text to be verifiable. I don't have strong views either way, but I don't see why the snippets should be treated differently to other partial archives. They should be treated consistently. Betty Logan (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The consistent treatment is that if you haven't read the work in full, don't cite it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if every book reference is attributed to a book the editor had read in its entirety. I think the key point here is that there needs to be enough context to be reasonably sure that the claim is supported by the source. Reading the whole book may be a good idea if you are quoting someone on climate change, but perhaps not necessary if you want last week's football score. I work on the snooker articles a lot and have a huge almanac of 80 years worth of scores at my disposal; however, if I want a particular score of a particular match I just look up the match, and a snippet of that book would serve the same purpose provided it were an accurate archive. The nature of the claim often places different demands on a source, so while I wouldn't go ahead and say you can use partial archives for everything, I don't think they should automatically be discounted either. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't read it in its entirety you shouldn't cite it: basic principle. Obviously it doesn't apply to reference books. I could source an etymology to an etymological dictionary, but I haven't read the whole dictionary. Your snooker example is like that. In the astronomy case, cites should be to real documents, not fragments. If you know the document's contents well enough, cite it, if you don't, don't. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The full work in an otherwise citeable reference work is the article or item, "The" Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Ed.; Janedaughter, Robert, "Cult Agricultural Economics," Historian's dictionary of the American–Vietnam War AGE Scholarly Encyclopaedia; Brianson, Susan, "Object #445930a" Online Astronomers Compendium of Scholarly Star Observations; "Random versus Nobody (1997)" The Authoritative Dictionary of Men Punching Other Men For Money Boxing's Best Press. Correspondingly the article in a journal or newspaper, the chapter is a collection of chapters or coherently organised chapters of a single author book of considerable length. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I see the sense of at the very least having access to, skimming, and spot checking the majority of the source, in order to avoid citing a (long) embedded quote of somebody other than the author, a "bad example" example, or counterargument out of context. I've run into that sort of unintentionally bad source use before. And don't cite a source where full attribution (actual title, author, publication, page, publisher) is not available, because that rather badly impairs verification. Enric have you already tried Questia and (via library online) Ebsco and other whole-text book resources? Or WP:RX?
  As an aside: "Read it in full or don't cite it" - whose "basic principle" is that? Where did that notion came from? It's not in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:Citing sources or WP:REFB. It seems nuggety enough to merit its own shortcut. Do tell (rests chin on palm). --Lexein (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Read it in full or don't cite it" is a basic principle of research, and has been repeatedly referred to in the past regarding snippets on RS/N? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I asked, and it doesn't answer my question. Anybody else? --Lexein (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. --Jayron32 00:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool - doesn't say I have to read the whole source in full, thankfully. Whew. --Lexein (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe WP:NOR? Sources must "directly support the material being presented". If the snippet is too small, and the context is not clear, you might run into one of the problems listed by Lexein. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not seeking strictness here; I often look things up in books via Google books and cite them even though I can't always see all the pages. But making up a journal name and citing a snippet is silly. All the more so because his reason for doing so is to drag a dispute from WP space into article space, by piling on the evidence about the IAU calling for hyphens in official comet names, which is not really the disputed part of the dispute anyway... Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that using a source that does not have all the information seems odd....it isn't against policy as other editors can fill in the missing info. I will say that Betty Logan is right. Google snippets are acceptable as they (and Google previews) are only presented as a convenience and are not the actual source. If an editor admits that they only found a snippet and are using it it, as long as the snippet is enough to show the relevence there is not real issue. What would be an issue is if the snippet clearly does not support the claim. Then one would need to be clear that the snippet itself does not support the claim...and here is the odd part...if you don't have the source yourself...how can you claim the actual source doesn't?--Amadscientist (talk) 04:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I found the abstract for one of the quotes 2. Now I know the author and title of the article, and I have most of page 116. But I still don't have access to the full article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: as per WP:VERIFY and in particular WP:NOENG, I suggest it would be a reasonable courtesy to provide links to English search results on English Wikipedia. Three (3, 4 and 5) of the six references originally provided in this section result from searches within the Spanish language version of Google Books. Would the original poster consider using the Google Books citation tool to both Anglicise the URL and, as an added benefit, provide citation consistency? --Senra (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. I fixed the URLs here, and now I'll fix the citations in the articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP is not a scholarly work, and can use sources in a less formal way than a scholar would. Betty is probably correct that most of our books citations are to excepts in GBooks; this is actually an improvement over earlier years, when they were mostly based on someone seeing the title and thinking it would be relevant. Obviously one must be very careful with excerpts, because the context is often significant. There is a difference between when GBooks provides preview of full pages in a book, and when, as for in-print books from some publishers, only a single sentence is returned by the query. I would be very reluctant to use such sources--especially single sentences-- as the only basis for a controversial or negative part of a BLP. And, as said, when one does use GB as the source, the reference here should both give the bibliographic information on the original book, including the page number of the selection used, and a statement like (as seen on GoogleBooks, link) What makes GB even usable is it For some in copyrtright books from some publishers, it does not, and then I would be especially careful. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article on Johannes Letzmann currently claims that one was a "Nazi sympathizer". I removed the claim due to poor sourcing with the reason given on comment line. Historical overview about meteorology at Graz can be found here. Now the claim has been restored without much of explanation. I'll ask one who added the claim to provide exact context where the claim is taken from. Even if the claim is there on the talk show, this is likely a rumor related to the fact that Letzmann moved from Estonia to Germany during the time when Nazis were in charge, but escaping from war and having a job in a German university during that time yet doesn't make one a "Nazi sympathizer". I find this claim being a serious attack which can't be in a biography without a reliable source (where the claim was taken by one who mentioned it in a talk show) on Letzmann's political views. 88.196.241.249 (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not have a clear understanding whether or not WeatherBrains is a reliable source nor do I feel like listening through a 98 minute podcast to find out who actually made the comment. Given the absence of sourcing elsewhere, the claim could likely be removed under WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. At the very least, a contentious claim from a single source should be attributed. Location (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk shows are RS for almost nothing at all. Including here. Collect (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited program is a weekly show hosted by meteorologists, led by James Spann. The guest, Harold E. Brooks (a prominent world expert on tornadoes), discusses European weather studies beginning at 46m30s, the Letzmann discussion begins around 47m35s and the Nazi references occur from 49m40s - 50m15s. Nikolai Dotzek, a German colleague of Brooks (now deceased), found the evidence when reviewing Letzmann's papers. It's a brief mention in the article of biographical information that is highly relevant to his postbellum career trajectory. Evolauxia (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the directions. Brooks says Dotzek went through Letzmann's papers and found that Letzmann was "probably a Nazi". Brooks did not offer any specifics as to what Dotzek found in those papers. Even if he did, I think more would be needed for a contentious claim made with second-hand information. Location (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just listened to it myself and come to the same conclusion. The second hand reporting by Brooks on what Dotzek noted would need much better sourcing to make this claim. Arzel (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

However, if the facts of his career are documented with somewhat greater detail than the current article, the reader can draw his own conclusions. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I am just checking to see if sage journals (http://online.sagepub.com/) is a reliable source?

From what I have read it seems to be a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals therefore I am assuming it is a credible source of information. Thanks in advance. --CR.ROWAN (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule of thumb, Sage is a publisher of scholarly reviewed journals that are likely to be RS for us. That doesn't exclude the possibility of questioning a particular journal or a particular article. Andrew Dalby 10:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I made a small edit to a page a few days ago and while i was reading threw the talk page I noticed something very odd. A section was removed based on a false claim that certain words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times. The odd thing is that diffrent editors appear to have come to the same false conclusion that these words were not being mentioned (in any of the cites) when in fact these words were mentioned more than 40 times.

Most of the section was based on sage publications and I just wanted to see if sage was a credible source of information before I took any further action.

Thanks again for the quick reply--CR.ROWAN (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• In more detail: Journals vary. For any major publisher, the quality will vary. (A publisher friend whom I trust tell me that publishers often informally think of them as A , B, and C; myself, I'd add a D and an F.) Many SAGE journals in the social sciences are excellent or very good; the ones in other subjects vary quite widely--I would not make the same judgment as Andrew without specifying the subject field and the journal. The customary objective measure for a journal is impact factor as compared to other journals of the same type in the same subject, but it is a subtle measure with great limitations and needs to be applied with judgment. It needs to be used in conjunction with less objective factors, such as which selective indexes include it, extent of library holdings, whether it is the publication of a scientific society & just which society, reputation among experts, a check on just which journals and which authors cite it, quality of the authors, & quality of the editors, all of which are also complicated factors with limited validity requiring judgment.

You asked earlier about Springer , and their journal Current Dermatology Reports Many Springer journals are excellent,though relatively few are the leading journals in their subject. Many are mediocre, a few less than that. Current Dermatology Reports is new in 2012, and therefore does not yet have time to have built up a reputation or get an impact factor. I have a certain degree of skepticism about new journals in an established field where there are already many; as libraries can't afford the existing one, why make things more difficult without a very good purpose?

But more important, within any journal, quality of articles vary; even the best journals have a few articles that never get cited. Again, the only objective factor is citations of the individual article; again, this needs to be used together with less objective factors, such as reputation & affiliation & other publications of the authors, and expert judgment of the particular article's actual content.

And there's a common misunderstanding about Reliable Sources. There is a continuum between reliable and unreliable sources. No source is absolutely reliable for everything==they all have their purposes and consequently their limitations; no source is completely unreliable either--they all have a use for some purposes, if only to show popular misconceptions, or the fringe views of their author, or what their author wishes to have said. The presumption at WP is that any article in any peer-reviewed journal is a good source for any topic in its field, but this is not always the case for almost any journal, just as it is not the case for any other source. What articles in which journals do you wish to cite, and for what purpose? (as the instructions at the top of this page say, it is necessary to be specific.) DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's reliable, if only because from experience they have a 3-peer review of all submitted articles.Nishidani (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if the problem described by CR.ROWAN (talk) is connected with the way Sage "publishes" journals online. I have come across similar deletions by editors stating, categorically, that what the reference said was not in the reference. It was, but they had only read the abstract, not the journal article itself. Sage (and other journal publishers) rarely make the whole article available free of charge online and frequently post just the abstract; if you want more you need to purchase or subscribe. Most university students (in the UK at least) will have institutional access via their libraries, but for mere mortals a payment will be required for full articles in almost all cases. It's worth checking back to see if this is the case. Remember that Wikipedia requires verifiability, not verifiablity online and for free. Emeraude (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

At issue is:

1. whether Mitchell Bard's credentials as follows, as well as his notability/accolades/recognitions as listed here meets WP:RS (note that, like many of that article's particularly political (Mideast Conflict) sources, he is often being cited as a biased source in accord with section 3.7 of WP:RS, in order to give both sides' political viewpoints, with the disputed source being firmly on 1 of those political "sides".) and other issues on the Talk page about whether publications from the AICE group he's related to are a self-pub source & if so, do his credentials make him exempt from the SPS rule for the reasons on the Talk page that are quotes pulled from the WP:RS rules, which allow recognized experts to be self-published? Please come and post your reasoning on the Talk page.

2. Feel free to also review the rest of that article's sources --and especially those @ the bottom of the page that I've called out-- for WP:RS also, if you have the time & interest.

3. Whether Nableezy or I violated edit-warring rules, given his 3 reverts & my 2 on 12/23-12/24, as shown on the History page. (pls also note: Nableezy was involved in another dispute with user cptnono commenting: "Nableezy not being invited would also be beneficial (he declined mediation but kept on arguing on the talk page) while others could also take a step back...") I realize this an arbitration/behavior issue not specific to WP content, but the WP:RS dispute led to him making 3 reverts & me making 2.

JH Robbins 72.48.252.105 (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I stumble across various self-publishing companies such as Trafford Publishing and iUniverse quite frequently. In List of The X-Files episodes, is it appropriate to tag a Trafford book in the bibliography (i.e. Kessenich, Tom (2002). Examination. New York: Trafford Publishing. ISBN 1-55369-812-6.) with {{Self-published source}}? In Bohemian Grove, is it appropriate to tag an iUniverse book in the bibliography (i.e. Hanson, Mike. Bohemian Grove: Cult Of Conspiracy, iUniverse Inc, 2004) with {{Self-published source}}?

My tag of the former was reverted with the explanation: "while this is an accurate tag, i'm not seeing what its purpose is. unless the accuracy and validity of the source is being actively questioned why should we tag it with something?" My impression is that the tag is to alert other editors to material that does not have editor oversight and may not have been checked for accuracy and validity, and therefore may need to be eliminated or replaced with a better source. (I will invite the other editor here for feedback.) Location (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It is valid to tag any book by Trafford or iUniverse with the tag, but the book may nonetheless be reliable, depending on the reputation of the author in that particular subject. In many sci-fi related fields, some experts self-publish. The same is true of many fields of popular culture and local history. This particular title is advertised as containing interviews with key figures in the series, which may be usable, and the authors own critical opinions, whose value depends on his reputation. That's something I cannot judge in this subject area. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the tag as it seemed to me like a cleanup tag (like {{dead link}} or {{refimprove}}) with no stated aim—it wasn't actually challenging any information as dubious or claiming the source was unreliable, in which case I'd have left it up and started discussion. To me it's just stating up front what the link to Trafford Publishing already does, that the book is an example of vanity publishing rather than having been printed by a more academic house. I think tagging these things without actually challenging them seems to say "this is wrong but not in any actionable or specific way", which is a route I'm not sure actually achieves anything. I'd be happy to work on finding a replacement source if the one in question is considered unreliable, I'm just not convinced of the merit of what seems at first blush to be an unactionable cleanup tag. GRAPPLE X 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that I have no reason to challenge any particular piece of information, and in retrospect it does seem as though this particular author knows what he is talking about. I do think accepting SPSs can be problematic for many articles, though (i.e. see below). Location (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

edit conflictThanks for the reply. Kessenich does claim to be "an award-winning reporter and author", so I think that would give him some credibility. In the case of many conspiracy writers, they have a reputation for being experts in various subject matter by other conspiracy writers so I'm wondering how that would be addressed. Location (talk) 17:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• The tag is ok, but comment in Talk that you're researching the author, and leave a hidden comment by the tag in the article to See Talk. It is worthwhile to investigate Hanson's and Kessenich's cv and reputation to determine reliability, as discussed in WP:RS. Have they authored other works? Articles in industry magazines? (sci-fi zines?) Works been reviewed in other RS (Kirkus reviews, NYT review of books, etc.)? Cited as authoritative by anyone (Google Scholar, etc.)?
• I've done this exercise for two sources while editing Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients (search for "rationale"), discussed, and written rationales for their restricted use: Wikipedia:WikiProject_IRC/Sources. Then, if the author is arguably reliable, I'd remove the tag, and replace with a "rationale" link to a page under the appropriate Wikiproject. --Lexein (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here's some info about Kessenich link. While he is self-publishes, it seems that he has an editorial background and has experience in publishing news.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also, I've found some legit newspaper articles he wrote here and here, among others (he's wrote quite a few). So he is a published writer, and not just boasting on his book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what I find as his short bio in an independent history related website:

Rasool Jafarian studied at the Hozeh Elmiyeh QumIslamic Cleric School where he also received his PhD in 2005 in Islamic History. He is currently Director of the History Department of the Pazhooheshgahe Hozeh va Daneshgah institute in Qum and manager of the History of Iran and Islam Library in Qum. His research interests include the Shi'i world, the Safavid era and contemporary Iran. He has published extensively, including the following books: Tarikh Tashayoh Dar Iran (1997); Safaviyeh Dar Arseye Din, Siasat Va Farhang (2000); Maghalat Tarikh (13 volumes) (1997-2006).

When looking on Google Scholar, even though I do not find any papers published by him in English (perhaps because he does not know the language), I am able to see academic publications that cite his works: 1. (PhD thesis Michigan University: search for "jafarian") 2.(journal paper: click on "Download This Paper" ) 3. (journal paper: requires subscription, but his name appears in Google Scholar link provided earlier).

My question is whether I can refer to him as a scholar in matters related to Islamic/Iranian history, even though I know he is definitely a believer and for examples uses honorifics for religious figures.--User 99 119 (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine. The religious views of scholars should not affect the reliablity of their facts in academic writing. TFD (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a source being used at this article that appears contentious. It is published in what is, to all appearances, a peer-reviewed journal, though the article has a distinctly personal slant. It was initially tagged as self-published, though it is clearly not. I suppose the question is along the lines of, does the personal tone disqualify it as RS, or does the peer review process qualify it as such?

discussion is here

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly unusual for academic journals (of which this is clearly one) to publish what are, in effect, opinion articles written by experts in which they argue for their viewpoint on a topic. This article is explicitly presented as being an argument by the author (the first sentence of the abstract reads "This article represents my attempt to turn the gaze and demonstrate how Indigenous Studies is controlled in some Australian universities in ways that witness Indigenous peoples being further marginalised, denigrated and exploited."), and should be treated as such rather than as a work of disinterested scholarship. As such, it's a reliable source for material on the author's opinions but probably not much else. The author appears to be well qualified to comment on the topic and her views may warrant inclusion in the article, but they should be presented carefully. Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you tell me if you feel 6 would be considered as a reliable source, please? It is used in Tamaskan dog which I recently nominated for deletion. I know most of the other refs used are not WP:RS as they are facebook, forums etc but I wanted to check before I make further comment about the article as I don't want to make myself look even more like the inexperienced idiot I most undoubtedly am! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPS is a start. The site authored by "3dog" is clearly a self published source. The layout shows its an obvious key word stuffed SEO spam site. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Savage Love" article about Dan Savage's advice column has been expanded recently with material based entirely on Savage's writings. I think it is proper to require at least one WP:SECONDARY source per section so that minor points are not highlighted as major. There is some edit warring there—new eyes are indicated. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The article Renku currently uses featured articles from twothree online "journals" of haiku and renku as sources. In fact, at least 10 of the 18 references are to these works.

My concern is that the journals are not scholarly in nature. The articles are almost without exception written by non-specialists in literary history (professional and amateur poets, for the most part) and are being used as sources for Japanese literary history. I am also concerned that articles written for poetic publications by the poets themselves are essentially primary sources, and do not therefore say anything about the notability of their subject-matter.

Almost all of these sources were added by one user, Bagworm, who has without explanation deleted accurate information from the article in the past78, and has used these primary sources as justification for including some rather suspect material.9

elvenscout742 (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the editors of the Journal of Renga and Renku is an accountant.10. It's new and probably quite nice, but I don't see how it could be a reliable source. And she was an editor of SimplyHaiku.com also, which casts doubts on that one. I'm not sure what the third one is. The default for sources is not reliable, so I'd argue that it is unlikely that these are reliable and that to use them someone would have to make a good case that they are. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

sources to not have to be scholarly. Published poets, particularly professional poets, writing on the history of poetry are a potentially usable source; certainly they are reliable for opinions in the field. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But what about when an accountant writes about Japanese literary history? Simply being a poet (or claiming that title for oneself) doesn't lend legitimacy to one's views an area that learned scholars have been researching for decades. Also, the views of non-notable poets (as defined by the GNG) really don't need to be given significant space in Wikipedia articles, I should think. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the point I was trying to make, obviously not well enough. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

We then have to inquire why such a journal would publish an article by an accountant. Perhaps he is a recognized expert by the criteria of the editors of the journal. And obviously the reputation of any specific poet when writing about poetry is relevant also. Is the journal known for publishing what anyone sends it, or is it carefully edited for quality? (Wallace Stevens, for example, was a lawyer for an insurance firm, and preferred that position to a chair at Harvard.) DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason for that would seem to be that it's not an academic journal that puts emphasis on accuracy or reliability: it's an outlet for poets (professional and amateur) to publish their own original poetry. Additionally, it came up in the article in question, but are we allowed to say "In recent years ... renku have been written in French, Croatian, Swahili, etc. etc.", and include links to one renku each from said poetic journal as "sources"? This seems to me like it violates WP:NOR in its original assessment of primary sources. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The journals are not apparently known for publishing articles by respected literary historians (they do on occasion print interviews and non-academic articles by scholars, though). However, they have also published similar material by hack authors like Jeffrey Woodward who only pretend to know what they are talking about but make embarrassing gaffes regularly. My main concern is that a few users have taken what were previously well-written but under-referenced articles about classical Japanese literature, and replaced much of the content with information about modern, apparently non-notable poetry in English. (I'm not sure if I should shut up about this, though, since the user primarily responsible for this has interacted with me negatively on Wikipedia before, and researching the background of these journals I think I accidentally found out the real-world identity of the user.) elvenscout742 (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Is 11 a reliable source for this BLP12. Thanks. Note that it is the only source in the article - maybe this guy isn't notable enough for us anyway. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here might be WP:NEWSBLOG in that the bottom of the page states "Indie Shuffle is a member of SPIN Music Group, a division of BUZZMEDIA." The statement within the Wikipedia article gives the impression that the album has received many notable, favorable views and I'm not convinced that one non-notable blogger's opinion is sufficient to support that... or the overall notability of the subject. Location (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are other sources for Max Lugavere the person, however. Fast Company Vogue Italia. --GRuban (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Source: Australian head of state dispute - a well-sourced Wikipedia article.

Article: Head of state

Content:

There is an ongoing debate in Australia and in Canada as to which officeholder—the monarch or the local viceregal representative—actually is the head of state.

Discussion: As the wikilink to the Australian head of state dispute article is provided, is there a requirement to also provide the many reliable sources in that article when referencing it in another article? An editor is removing this material, saying,:

1. There is no such dispute
2. not supported by attributed source
3. not RS

I see this as vandalism, given that the dispute exists and the statement is reliably sourced, albeit at one remove. --Pete (talk) 07:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you add a direct citation to support the material, which appears to be what Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) is asking for here. Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources for other articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm, could you provide the wikipolicy for this exact situation? It's a simple matter of existence of something. I look at Tide and I see several mentions of Gravity, none of them sourced. We don't need to - Gravity is well sourced. If Mediatech492 (talk · contribs) says "there is no such dispute", when the wikilink demonstrates otherwise, I get the impression he hasn't clicked on the link, which is why I call "vandal". --Pete (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia articles as sources for other articles. If there is a dispute over who was head of state of Australia or Canada, then it should be simple to use a source from that article to source the claim made in other articles. The specific policy is WP:RS. TFD (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Which section, precisely? --Pete (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In agreement with TFD. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_139
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---