Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 195
 | 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 190 | ← | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | → | Archive 200 |
General WP:RS questions on Episciences Math Project and similar sources
Stumbled onto this 2013 article Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing today. I searched WP and found after 2 years that only 4 WP pages even mention Episciences[1][2][3][4] and none specifically discuss this relatively new movement to eliminate commercial publishing of academic math articles. This does however correlate with what I know of the trends of commercially published sources for niche topics becoming less and less available as people publish many things on the web that previously were published as small books.
From
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
Peer-reviewed community-publications (like Wikipedia itself) are ultimately a form of vetted but still self-published material. If mathematicians are successful in this new way of publishing their work then eventually there will be few "reliable third-party publications" to use for determining reliability.
So, my questions are:
- FIRST: What is the Wikipedia community's general consensus on the RS status of Episciences and similar so called "peer-reviewed community-published" sources ? and
- SECOND: What is the current general view on the trend of niche topics becoming more and more community-published online (and therefor less and less reliable for use in WP articles per WP:UGC) ?
I do realize the latter question is a bit of
Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers 2015
FYI: Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers is a list of scientific publishers who will publish any paper, regardless of quality, for a processing fee. In some cases the predatory publishers uses a name that is similar to or identical to the name of a legitimate journal. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Users citing their own thesis
Are users allowed to cite their own thesis? Two people seem to be promoting their own research by opening accounts just for the purpose of performing drive-by edits in Myopia. Motion sickness is also affected. I'm questioning this matter because one of the users has a history of referencing some research presented on Blogger, possibly for the purpose of increasing search rankings. Latios (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- See ) 17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- As above, and ) 17:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a template to cite thesis at WP:CITET or Template:Cite thesis. I'm not finding guidance on when to do so, but DeFacto seems that using a thesis is rarely done, and it is done either as part of a biographical mention of that persons thesis or as a source about a language. Markbassett (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- A thesis is rarely if ever a reliable source aside from a BLP type mention as a primary source. It does undergo peer-review by the advisory committee of the student, but the decision as to what goes into the finished thesis/dissertation typically rests in the hands of the advisor who is not independent. Such works aren't considered part of the scientific literature until publication, especially in medical topics, so I would just remove the reference to it. At a glance, I'm not seeing the specific edits citing it though. talk) 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is no reason not to use one's thesis provided that there are reasons in policy and guidelines to do so. There are situations where it would make perfect sense. For example, suppose a person wrote a PhD thesis on the history of their town and no other writers have written about it. Then it makes sense to use that thesis in the article about the town. TFD (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Industry newsletter
Is this primary source reliable for the following statement in the article Carnism?
An article in the beef industry publication Drovers Cattle Network criticized the use of the term, saying it implied that eating animal foods was a "psychological sickness".
See discussion at Talk:Carnism#Drovers Cattle Network. FourViolas (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of reliability, I don't see any issue with it. It's not an academic source per se that I'd generally like to reach for, but I recall it being pretty reputable in terms of fact checking rather than just being an industry rag when I've picked the magazine up a few times. More than just the industry, it would be pretty representative of livestock owners' views, which would appear to be a pretty major point of view in this topic. It could especially be useful for addressing more of the social/PR side of the topic that academic sources don't typically address. The larger question though appears to be talk) 18:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. DUE is a big problem in general at that article, since Draft:Psychology of eating meat, Meat#History and History of vegetarianism, and so on into a big article on meat-eating as cultural phenomenon.
- Thanks. DUE is a big problem in general at that article, since
- For now, in this case I'm trying to address DUE by mentioning all relevant articles and op-eds in "pretty reputable" publications, on both sides, all together. FourViolas (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
housingwire.com
The items cited to housingwire.com at
- it appears to be a trade rag; you can sometimes find really useful stuff in them about whatever industry they cover, but they also have pieces like the ones cited in that article which are essentially PR - the first instance of its use in that article is a perfect example of how such sources should not be used, as it doesn't support the content. that source would be great in an article on the housing market though. So generally reliable for their industry but you have to be careful with them. i'm removing that first instance at the article.Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Oldest people in Britain
Are the pages on the Oldest people in Britain considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth/death dates or age in
This question comes up because GRG's Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board and we are trying to determine whether or not the articles entries previously sourced to these tables are reliably-sourced. If this section should be merged into the section on news-written obituaries or the preceding section, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, note that the page is maintained by Dr Andrew Holmes, who is the Gerontology Research Group's United Kingdom Correspondent. You'll then see that some of the death entries are supported by obituaries, such as this, this, and this. Then notice on the "living" list that Gladys Hooper is also verified by the GRG and others are listed as "pending". It seems reliable to me. Ollie231213 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That the author of the page is affiliated with the GRG does not make those pages a reliable source. Using GRG tables to verify his data doesn't make his data a reliable source, either. Finally, not all entries are referenced and it isn't clear where they come from or what, if any, steps are taken to ensure the data is correct. It looks to be just a set of spreadsheets on the internet.Ca2james (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Quite. It's like using the head of the British Chiropractic Association as a source for claims about chiropractic: there is a substantial underlying bias. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is that a COI issue? And no, the oldest people in Britain page is not a reliable source to me. It falls under everything that we consider under WP:BLOGS. Is there evidence supporting indicia of reliability other than that it parrots the GRG tables and that the name matches that of the GRG correspondent? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Is that a COI issue? And no, the oldest people in Britain page is not a reliable source to me. It falls under everything that we consider under
- Quite. It's like using the head of the British Chiropractic Association as a source for claims about chiropractic: there is a substantial underlying bias. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That the author of the page is affiliated with the GRG does not make those pages a reliable source. Using GRG tables to verify his data doesn't make his data a reliable source, either. Finally, not all entries are referenced and it isn't clear where they come from or what, if any, steps are taken to ensure the data is correct. It looks to be just a set of spreadsheets on the internet.Ca2james (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are newspaper reports reliable for the age of longevity claimants?
Firstly, I would like to refer to this discussion above about whether the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables are reliable sources. The GRG is a scientific organisation that maintains a database of the oldest living people in the world and oldest people ever (aged 110 or over). As such, it is of course important that they "verify" all people included in these lists so that there is a high level of confidence that they are as old as they claim. The list would be pointless otherwise, as it would be full of people who claim to be over 110 years old who are actually younger. They have a "Table E" which is a list of oldest living people in the world, which has been determined reliable according to the discussion above. They also have a "Table EE" which is a list of "pending-validated" cases. These cases may have some documentation to support their claim, but not necessarily enough to be considered "verified" under the GRG's criteria. This was determined unreliable according to the discussion above because "fact-checking is not complete".
So what has since happened at List of oldest living people is that, whereas originally all entries were separated in to "verified, pending, and unverified" entries, pending cases were all removed and one list was created, which contained a mixture of people verified by the GRG (so their claimed age is very likely to be true) and people who have not been verified, and for whom the only source cited was a newspaper report (so we don't know for sure if their claimed age is true). There was no acknowledgement that some cases were verified and others weren't. NOTE: The page has now been protected due to edit warring.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a
- "Carmelo Flores Laura looks set to be named the oldest living person ever recorded."
- "World's oldest man Carmelo Flores Laura..."
- "A man aged 123, said to be the oldest person ever recorded..."
- "123-year old Carmelo Flores Laura..."
- "Mr Laura was born on July 16, 1890."
- "His birth date is confirmed on his baptism certificate, considered an authentic record by Bolivia’s civil registry."
The media just state his claimed age as if it is a proven fact. But oh, wait a minute - it says he's got a baptism certificate! Maybe the newspapers do fact-check after all? Er, no. Let me now present these two articles, entitled 5 reasons this man probably isn't 123 years old and World's oldest man... isn't; Aging experts debunk Bolivian man's claim to be 123. Again, here are some important quotes:
- "The story has all the elements that make it irresistible to the public ... and journalists. To be fair, the story contains qualifiers like "If Bolivia's public records are correct," but the claim was relatively easily debunked within a few days."
- "Though Flores has a birth certificate and a national identity card bearing his birth date, neither are original. Bolivia didn't keep records of live births in 1890."
- "Gerontologist Stephen Coles (who actually looks into these claims for the Guinness Book of World Records) says the lion's share of supercentenarians are women. He notes that just two of the 57 people verified to having lived past 110 are male, with the oldest man on record having lived to 116."
- "The Gerontology Research Group that Coles heads up tracked down what it says is Flores' baptismal certificate—which establishes his age as an impressive but not record-setting 107."
- "UCLA's Dr Stephen Coles, director of the Gerontology Research Group, which investigates these kinds of claims for the Guinness Book of World Records, says he was skeptical from the start, especially because there was no documentary proof dating to the year Laura was supposedly born."
So, I think this provides enough evidence that newspaper reports alone cannot be used to accurately state whether or not someone is age X, because there just isn't enough in the way of age validation. I would appreciate any other viewpoints here and I apologise for the long-winded post. Ollie231213 (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- One more thing: The reason I bring this up is because I firmly believe that articles like List of oldest living people should distinguish between "this person has been proven to be age X" and "this person claims to be age X". I think do otherwise is to mislead readers. Ollie231213 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- TL;DR: Are news-created obituaries like this one and articles about supercentenarians like this one reliable sources for a supercentenarians' birth/death dates and age in the WP:WOP's "List of" articles?
- This question comes up because Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board. For the entries to remain in the tables, another reliable source must be found; otherwise, the entries must be removed. In some cases, news outlets have written articles and obituaries on these people but the journalists don't engage in documenting the person's age. Does that lack of documentation mean that these articles are not reliable sources? Thank you for your help. Ca2james (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- This should be shut down and ignored until someone can point to an actual name on a actual table that's in dispute. All this does is give further delays to any attempt to work on these articles that isn't simply "let the people play with their tables on their own." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- support using the GRG as the sole source for longevity articles. They are the world's experts on longevity and we should be trusting their tables over newspapers who have no basis for reliability.
- This should be closed as a WP:BIOGRAPHY needs to get done) and only for their birth dates (not every fact as acknowledged) just because someone says we shouldn't include a list of pending admittedly-incomplete claims by another organization is counterproductive and a waste of time here. It's another example of the decade-long sinkhole of time that the WOP project creates here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Are {{dubious }} and {{opinion }} tags appropriate for these quotes by reliable sources?
I'm referring to Kingdom of Sine and this edit. Dennis Galvan seems to be clearly a reliable source, see[8], as is the late Étienne Van de Walle[9]. There's old background to this tagging but I don't think we need to stray from the issue here. Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see any obvious reason to tag this as dubious, nor has the person who made the edit provided any, except his opinion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't know this subject area at all, but as an independent editor, the text is certainly verifiable and the sources appear to be reliable. The tags appear to have been added in a somewhat "aggressive" way and disrupt the article. The tags should be removed and discussion started on the Talk page regarding the material.DrChrissy (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian, DrChrissy, he's done it again. See[10] where he's taken a quote from Van de Walle (see above) so that we have " "The formation of the Sereer ethnicity goes back to the thirteenth century,[dubious ][opinion] when a group came from the Senegal River valley in the north fleeing Islam, and near Niakhar met another group of Mandinka origin, called the Gelwar,[dubious ][opinion] who were coming from the southeast (Gravrand 1983[failed verification][page needed]). The actual Sereer ethnic group is a mixture of the two groups[dubious ][opinion], and this may explain their complex bilinear kinship system".[1][dubious ][opinion]" I've never seen an editor put tags inside a quote in this way - and not just one, but 8 tags within the quote and 2 more for the entire quote. This is to say the least not constructive. It's relevant that he created this article himself (although I think he may have created it by moving material from another article without attribution, I'm not sure). Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Typically when one adds these tags, one is expected to say on the talk page why something is dubious. If this is not done in a reasonable period, the tags should be removed, with a pointer to WP:BRD. Quoting from Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute#Disputed_statement, Please don't mark up the article text without first describing the problem on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚20:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Typically when one adds these tags, one is expected to say on the talk page why something is dubious. If this is not done in a reasonable period, the tags should be removed, with a pointer to
- Kingsindian, DrChrissy, he's done it again. See[10] where he's taken a quote from Van de Walle (see above) so that we have " "The formation of the Sereer ethnicity goes back to the thirteenth century,[dubious ][opinion] when a group came from the Senegal River valley in the north fleeing Islam, and near Niakhar met another group of Mandinka origin, called the Gelwar,[dubious ][opinion] who were coming from the southeast (Gravrand 1983[failed verification][page needed]). The actual Sereer ethnic group is a mixture of the two groups[dubious ][opinion], and this may explain their complex bilinear kinship system".[1][dubious ][opinion]" I've never seen an editor put tags inside a quote in this way - and not just one, but 8 tags within the quote and 2 more for the entire quote. This is to say the least not constructive. It's relevant that he created this article himself (although I think he may have created it by moving material from another article without attribution, I'm not sure). Doug Weller (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I really don't know this subject area at all, but as an independent editor, the text is certainly verifiable and the sources appear to be reliable. The tags appear to have been added in a somewhat "aggressive" way and disrupt the article. The tags should be removed and discussion started on the Talk page regarding the material.DrChrissy (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, clearly inappropriate. I have vague memories of POV problems re. Serer with this editor several years ago, such as claiming Serer is an official language of the African Union, deleting the classification because he finds the relationship between Serer and Fula (Pulaar) to be offensive, claims that Serer is the "progenitor" of Fula and Wolof, etc. Edits at the time appeared to be based on own nationalistic beliefs rather than any reference to RS's, and any sources he disagreed with were by definition not reliable. — kwami (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
| inappropriate discussion anywhere in WP Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- I've hatted the exchanges above. There is so much inappropriate stuff that the issues are unreachable. If anybody wants to restate discussions about the sources and their reliability feel free. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Statement by the board of the AAAS
In 2012, the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement on the genetically modified food. We are working on developing a statement about the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. This is a bit complicated, as the content and its full sourcing are each under development and this is one source among several being proposed for use
The currently proposed content and the source are as follows. Other sources are being brought as well - the question here is just whether this one source - the AAAS board statement - is reliable for this, or if we should not give a lot of authority to it. Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source. I hope that makes sense. The statement of the scientific consensus appears in several articles; the current discussion is on the talk page of Genetically modified food.
- "The scientific consensus holds that eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."[2]
References
- ISBN 978-0-7656-1619-7.
- ^ American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Press release: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers. Board statement: Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods Quote: "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (added relevant article, per request below Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)) (note - added ref to actual board statement Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC))
- initial comment: For those who don't know it, the AAAS is the most important non-governmental scientific society in the US and the publisher of Science, one of the most important scientific journals in the world. This statement - this source - is being questioned as just being a mouthpiece of Monsanto, or as the statement of an "advocacy group" on par with say ENSSER (external link), a small group of scientists who advocate for the view that GM food is dangerous. In my view, the AAAS source is very authoritative and we can use it to support the proposed content. It is also useful because it summarizes what other major scientific bodies say. Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- I broadly agree but I have a question: Was this statement produced solely by the board of directors or was it an item put to a vote by the entire membership or a representative body of the organization? I honestly don't even know if AAAS produces material - ethical guidelines, policy statements, etc. - that are purported to represent the entire organization or at least a broad consensus of its members but if so then it would carry even more weight. ElKevbo (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Where is it for? - need to see the article context to determine if it's WP:RS for it. Otherwise all I can say is that this would be better described as citing a 'community' statement, not a 'consensus' statement, as it's showing Board of Directors speaking rather than showing a process of reaching decision. (In particular it is not showing a process of jointly arriving at this which included the scientists who advocate for the view that GM food is dangerous.) I also echo that Board of Directors position is not the same as Members vote count -- AMA having more pointed examples of such dichotomy. Markbassett (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was a statement produced by the board. There was a subsequent Pew Survey of AAAS scientist members found that 88% of them agreed.Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog (insert) wrong and wrong - cite is to a press release by an author paraphrasing an AAAS board advocating a legislation move, which in part stated what European science says. AAAS board statement is useful as 'community' and 'position', but should then be cited directly. PEW survey is useful as 'majority' view of scientists but not 'consensus' much less 'scientific consensus'. To get a label of 'scientific consensus' then the actual science papers out of Europe might do or might not -- but 'PR guys thinking' is inappropriate and so is 'majority in opinion poll'. Markbassett (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- As was pointed out several times in the RfC that preceded this, the PEW survey, "Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society," released three years after the AAAS statement, is a general interest comparison of opinions of the US adult population to those of US scientists (the sample, from all disciplines, including astronomers, social scientists, computer scientists, etc,Appendix B: About the AAAS Scientists Survey was taken from AAAS members). A variety of questions were posed on "a range of science, engineering and technology issues." The scientists were not a group with collective expertise in biotechnology, let alone GM food specifically. A claim of scientific consensus in an area of genetic engineering does not follow from this source. --Tsavage (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a statement from a few members of the Board in an anti-GMO labeling position paper. So if it is used, this should be made clear. Wording such as Tsavage suggested would be good: "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..." We just had an extensive RfC about this and other sources, please see Tsavage's breakdown of the AAAS source and why it cannot be considered independent (see third comment down - numbered points).
There are further problems with the paper, however. GRIST does a fabulous job so I won't attempt reproduce their work here, you can read it. Two points I will highlight: in their position paper, the AAAS misrepresents the WHO, which doesn't actually claim eating GM foods is safe, but rather, GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GRIST also notes that the AAAS misrepresents the EU study as well. Michael Hansen is quoted in GRIST as saying "If you actually look at the “study” it’s just a review of all the EU-funded biotech work for a ten year period. Most of the studies were about developing test methodologies to use in investigating genetic engineering (GE), not GE safety studies themselves. In fact, only three of the studies could be considered GE feeding trials and they all did find effects."
- AAAS is one of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the US, and is certainly a reliable source for contextual discussion of whether there is a consensus on a scientific issue. That a survey of AAAS members found 88% of members in agreement appears to be icing on that cake. Yobol (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is a statement made by the board with the weight of the AAAS. The claims of lack of independence have the same root as recent manoeuvring by the Senate to exclude credentialled scientists but allow those funded by industry. This is science: the best-informed scientists will of course have worked in the field, that is how it works. You have raised the same baseless objection before, and had the same response. In second-guessing the AAAS you are engaging in textbook ) 20:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that we should be willing to give significant weight to this statement, and we should give short shrift to objections of the sort raised above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about accidental reversion of your last edit. Fat fingers on smartphone. - Nick Thorne talk 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a statement by any scientists, it is not peer reviewed, is not presenting any new science, and is not presented as a neutral view but rather admittedly in favor of anti-GMO labeling to promote that goal. The AAAS would be good to hear from, and likely wouldn't literally misrepresent the WHO in their statement as the members of the board have done. I am sure a MEDRS compliant, non-advocacy statement can be found to use instead of this. But again, if it is used, there should be clear indication of the nature of the statement, and the problems contained should be noted as well. Why not just stick with science and leave advocacy out? petrarchan47คุก 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- The board of the AAAS is the elected representative board of the largest association of scientists in the USA. This is an official statement with the full authority of the Society. That is how it works. I understand that some people dislike the idea of GMOs but the AAAS board have no dog in the fight, they are not engaged in the motivated reasoning that dominates anti-GMO rhetoric, they are stating the facts as they read them from the science. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is not a statement by any scientists, it is not peer reviewed, is not presenting any new science, and is not presented as a neutral view but rather admittedly in favor of anti-GMO labeling to promote that goal. The AAAS would be good to hear from, and likely wouldn't literally misrepresent the WHO in their statement as the members of the board have done. I am sure a MEDRS compliant, non-advocacy statement can be found to use instead of this. But again, if it is used, there should be clear indication of the nature of the statement, and the problems contained should be noted as well. Why not just stick with science and leave advocacy out? petrarchan47คุก 17:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- consensus here seems clear. The source is reliable for WP content about the scientific consensus on GM food. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Where on earth did you get that idea? Is this MEDRS? We just had a well attended RfC on this and other sources where there was no consensus that the claim of scientific consensus on GMO food safety was supported by any/all of your sources. A handful of editors here has not in fact trumped the monthlong discussion held by upwards of 30 people. I can't believe you're serious. We need to have another formal RfC on this source alone, and invite everyone to weigh in just as we did before. However, the introduction to the AAAS paper in this thread is in my mind quite disingenuous by omitting the facts behind this position paper. Let's not make that omission again if an RfC is opened. I hope that in general, editors are more interested in properly representing sources (especially when it comes to human health) than expressing a certain POV. petrarchan47คุก 01:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- "consensus here seems clear". What??? I find it troubling that such a determination would come from someone who has wielded such extraordinary editing control over the GMO articles. The disagreement over the AAAS statement here and in this RfC (where a non-involved admin. (WP:RS. My objections and others by numerous other editors to the AAAS statement can all be found there, but I am happy to reassert them here if they are difficult to find. Petrarchan47 and Tsavage have already asserted a good portion of those problems. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- "consensus here seems clear". What??? I find it troubling that such a determination would come from someone who has wielded such extraordinary editing control over the GMO articles. The disagreement over the AAAS statement here and in this RfC (where a non-involved admin. (
- MEDRS and SCIRS are clear that we pull content of this sort from respected academic organizations in the field. The insistence that content like this comes only from review articles, must be peer-reviewed, etc. is somewhat odd considering review articles usually don't take the time to spell out consensus in such specific words. You usually find statements of consensus from organizations like this instead. There shouldn't be any question that this source is reliable for the content outside of those trying to consistently push against the scientific consensus statement. talk) 13:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- You appear to consider a statement on policy from the BoD as synonymous with the organization itself. Is that correct? petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- The cite seems to have a few issues in question
- This TALK is quoting the PR release written by Ginger Pinholster ... his/her PR writing is not the words of AAAS Board
- The written at Ginger or at the board statement does not support the article content; content is taking liberties.
- The AAAS board statement is a position on legislation; as indirect part of that it characterizes European and WHO data
- The AAAS board supports article wording of 'community' not 'consensus'
- I'll suggest no this is not RS for the article. TTFN Markbassett (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog That is what made it clear to me this cite is Ginger Pinholster's writing and not the item to cite as AAAS board position. If they want to do that, then the cite should BE the AAAS Board documnet, not Ginger Pinholster's writing about it. WP Article is paraphrasing a PR release about AAAS Board characterizing European research annnnd Ginger is just not good cite practice nor RS for 'scientific consensus'. Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's nothing about a "scientific consensus" in this anti-GMO labeling position paper. Are you extrapolating for our readers? petrarchan47คุก 01:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Despite the confusing framing of this RSN question, we cannot give blanket qualification of a source as "high quality" or "reliable" for any and everything it says, obviously, the specific content it is intended to verify must be considered. The primary objection to this source for the proposed statement of scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice, is that the source content is not equivalent to the consensus statement. There are two parts.
First, the consensus:
- AAAS source: "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion"
- article paraphrase: "The scientific consensus holds"
Is this sufficient for restatement as "scientific consensus"? The AAAS release clearly wishes to convey that there is widespread, if not unanimous, agreement. Is their non-specific, all-inclusive list - "and every other respected organization" - sufficient? Or, is the WHO, AMA, NAS and BRS, specifically mentioned, sufficient when taken alone?
This is also where the nature of the document should be considered for independence. It is a one-page public position paper vigorously supporting no GMO labeling (to the point of stating that labeling supporters are motivated by "the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm"), which suggests that, at the very least, the wording be closely examined.
Second, and most important, the safety statement:
- AAAS source: "consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques"
- article paraphrase: "eating currently marketed GM food poses no greater health risk than does eating conventional food."
The AAAS release gives the impression of, but does not actually make, a broad claim of safety for all GM food. It has carefully reworded a finding that is widely supported, that genetic engineering is not inherently a riskier method of food modification than conventional breeding. In fact, it is the AAAS restatement of an EU report comment to that effect, which it has quoted in the sentence immediately prior: "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."full AAAS statement. In other words, if you create a food by GE, and the same food by conventional breeding methods, the GE method will not have introduced additional risk, the products would be same, as would the risk. This is all that is stated, not that "currently available GM food is no riskier."
- That reading is almost as bad as the press release reading; in this case, it is the most wikilawyering reading of policy and the source possible. If citing the most important scientific and medical bodies in the world doesn't add up to "consensus" I don't know what does. And the hair-splitting emphasis on the difference between "no riskier than" and "no greater risk than" is especially ... silly. And likewise, I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening. Again, your response reads directly against the grain of the clear intention. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- The source does not say what you want it to about GM food safety. Whether it supports a consensus statement for what it does say is secondary.
- "I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening." Say what you like, this is not the Provisionally reliable sources noticeboard. Either the source supports the content, or it doesn't. If you need to combine more than one source for a statement of scientific consensus, then it is synthesis (particularly per WP:RS/AC).
- "I am not saying "this source alone" - I specifically said I was not doing that in the opening." Say what you like, this is not the Provisionally reliable sources noticeboard. Either the source supports the content, or it doesn't. If you need to combine more than one source for a statement of scientific consensus, then it is synthesis (particularly per
- There are many other ways to present the information in this and the 17 other sources you've lined up, so it's not a matter of obscuring information, it is you insisting on this one "scientific consensus" phrasing, without a proper source. --Tsavage (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nope. Not what I am doing. I am just taking baby steps. And for the bazillionth time, you are very welcome to propose some content and sourcing on this issue for discussion, which you have never done. No one has any idea what you will support. I am curious - I would like to read a proposal from you instead of another wall-of-text saying "no" to something Jytdog (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- There are many other ways to present the information in this and the 17 other sources you've lined up, so it's not a matter of obscuring information, it is you insisting on this one "scientific consensus" phrasing, without a proper source. --Tsavage (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure what the baby step is here (or why this is here), since you once again broke away from an ongoing discussion at the article Talk page that couldn't be more detailed and incremental, to open this RSN discussion, just as you broke away from a previous discussion to start an RfC involving over 30 editors, all essentially based around this AAAS source as the strongest of 18 sources. Creating alternate wording was suggested by the RfC closer, discussed before and after that close, and I have supported versions. Please stop trying to turn the discussion to me, I'm only following your argument. --Tsavage (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog and Tsavage - this is the wrong place for that discussion, this is RSN thread on whether this one specific cite is RS, not the place for discussing article content proposals. Markbassett (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- As the position paper for one of the most respected bodies in science, it should certainly be given a lot of weight. I am not sure why this is on WP:RSN. I suggest that it not be used by itself, but it be used together with review articles directly discussing GMOs. Kingsindian ♝♚05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is here because people have strong feelings about GMOs and we need reasoned, community discussion. Yes, sometimes to affirm that the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- No. This is another assumption of bad faith. People like myself have objected for numerous legitimate WP:PAG grounds. If you are motivated by feelings you can say so, but I have seen none of the editors saying they are basing their opposition to AAAS on their feelings, so please stop assuming bad faith and focus on content, not the motivation of editors. David Tornheim (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- No. This is another assumption of bad faith. People like myself have objected for numerous legitimate
- It is here because people have strong feelings about GMOs and we need reasoned, community discussion. Yes, sometimes to affirm that the sky is blue. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian The cite is to Ginger Pinholster's PR release about the AAAS board position on legislation, so ... it isn't the actual AAAS board words, nor the actual AAAS body. Not to fault Ginger, just being clear that the cite has mischaracterized the source. A PR release is different from the Board position, and a Board position stated for legislation is different than a Body consensus. RSN gets similar debates over whether HYPost is RS for x and whether it was an opinion piece or editorial comes up. Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Markbassett: I am not sure what your point is. The statement says at the bottom: "Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 20 October 2012". How is this "not the AAAS board's words"? Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian The cite is to Ginger Pinholster's PR release about the AAAS board position on legislation, so ... it isn't the actual AAAS board words, nor the actual AAAS body. Not to fault Ginger, just being clear that the cite has mischaracterized the source. A PR release is different from the Board position, and a Board position stated for legislation is different than a Body consensus. RSN gets similar debates over whether HYPost is RS for x and whether it was an opinion piece or editorial comes up. Markbassett (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: -- You are not looking at what was actually proposed as the cite. What is cited ends with a link "Read the full statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods." The actual AAAS Board statement is two clicks further. What you are looking at sounds like the actual board statement. What is cited is not. Ginger's press release is close, but not quite it and the question (in part) WAS whether the press release is the the right source. Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- Good grief. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- @ 20:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: Why are folks so badly not wanting to cite the actual AAAS Board statement ? The point being that RSN was asked (in part) if the press release was the right thing to cite and that it chose to embed a quote from AAAS Board item two clicks away is just adding to the oddity, it does not change the content of the press release or somehow make a oddformed cite better. Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mark you are putting an enormous amount of energy into something silly. For all these years, folks have clicked through to the actual statement. I have gone ahead and added the link to the actual board statement above, and updated the citations in all the articles as well. You are raising a nonissue. And no the point of the RSN was never about whether the press release was anything - it was always about the board statement. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Markbassett's concerns are certainly valid. I suggest this back and forth about what source Jytdog actually meant be resolved by opening a new section/question for this NB using the correct source (rather than a press release about the source intended) and making sure to follow the proposed rules of this noticeboard which include stating what article language is proposed to be supported by that source, which Tsavage correctly noted was absent from the original post here. Then refer back to this section for those who may have missed it. Starting down below seems to make things more complicated for new readers, than starting afresh and stating what is actually meant than expecting us to figure it out from the mess that is here. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mark you are putting an enormous amount of energy into something silly. For all these years, folks have clicked through to the actual statement. I have gone ahead and added the link to the actual board statement above, and updated the citations in all the articles as well. You are raising a nonissue. And no the point of the RSN was never about whether the press release was anything - it was always about the board statement. Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: Why are folks so badly not wanting to cite the actual AAAS Board statement ? The point being that RSN was asked (in part) if the press release was the right thing to cite and that it chose to embed a quote from AAAS Board item two clicks away is just adding to the oddity, it does not change the content of the press release or somehow make a oddformed cite better. Markbassett (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: -- You are not looking at what was actually proposed as the cite. What is cited ends with a link "Read the full statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on labeling of genetically modified foods." The actual AAAS Board statement is two clicks further. What you are looking at sounds like the actual board statement. What is cited is not. Ginger's press release is close, but not quite it and the question (in part) WAS whether the press release is the the right source. Markbassett (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
<od> Jytdog Then why not just cite the actual statement ????
- "The scientific community position is that eating food from GM crops poses no greater health risk."[1]
References
- ^ Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods (Oct 2012) Quote: "The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques."
- As I stated immediately above, I strongly prefer that an entirely new post/section be created on this noticeboard than the confusing situation of having the original flawed source and lack of intended language coming first. I would prefer we start de novo, but refer back to this discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I second that: resetting with a straightforward new question that presents article content and supporting source, with no conditionals, would be more usable for RSN (and more respectful of uninvolved editors' time and energy, mine, for one). Why reset?
- Changing the source and what it supports during discussion hopelessly confuses the discussion - see just above.
- This is not the place to discuss content development (as is the case throughout).
- This is not the place to establish the authority of a source independent of a concrete content statement: "Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source.").
- Evidence or weight based on authority alone - "because They say so" - is almost worthless in evidence-based considerations, verify the content first. --Tsavage (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Now your dog is eating its tail. Just logically, what organization is better situated to describe the status of the scientific thinking on X than the AAAS? Yes, authority matters there. And please know that per MEDRS (and even RS) statements by major medical and scientific bodies is indeed authoritative within WP. Your arguments are getting weirder and wierder. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- I second that: resetting with a straightforward new question that presents article content and supporting source, with no conditionals, would be more usable for RSN (and more respectful of uninvolved editors' time and energy, mine, for one). Why reset?
- As I stated immediately above, I strongly prefer that an entirely new post/section be created on this noticeboard than the confusing situation of having the original flawed source and lack of intended language coming first. I would prefer we start de novo, but refer back to this discussion. David Tornheim (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Can someone clear this up for us - is a statement made in opposition to GMO labeling by the BoD synonymous with a MEDRS-compliant source, in this case, as a statement by the AAAS itself? (I am requesting that involved editors not repeat their arguments once again, I'm interested to hear from someone who hasn't weighed in on this particular source - perhaps
- I don't know why this is still going on, and I don't know whether I am "involved" whatever that means (I gave my opinion at WP:RS/AC this source is acceptable as a statement of the AAAS itself. It is natural that the BoD for AAAS will make a statement like this. This is how official statements are made. Kingsindian ♝♚00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- The director's report fails MEDRS. That this question has come up is a symptom of tendentious editing. To determine whether or not there is consensus on the safety of GMO foods, the neutral approach is to look for a review study and report what it says. In this case, review studies say no consensus exists. TFD (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is a great analysis of the AAAS director's statement in an article from Maude Barlow's Food & Water Watch, "The So-called Scientific "Consensus"". It explains that the sources they use to claim there is a consensus do not say the science is settled. TFD (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- That "explanation" is FRINGE advocacy. Surprising that you would bring that. Jytdog (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Re, TFD's comments. The question here is not whether AAAS is right or wrong, but whether the cited source can be fairly cited as the opinion of AAAS. Weight given to various opinions should be discussed on the article talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Advocacy yes, fringe no. Barlow was awarded a lifetime achievement award from the Canadian Environment Awards, which is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. She was also adviser to the UN on water. And you do not have to take her word for it, as you do with the AAAS directors' statement. The article compares the conclusions the directors' made with the actual statements the organizations made. Or we can avoid all this by following MEDRS guidelines and use review studies. TFD (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The AAAS is the mainstream of US (and world) science. Something challenging the AAAS statement to that extent, is by definition FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- A source is reliable or not for a specific statement. How prestigious the source is is irrelevant if not connected to particular content. In this case, the content is simply not supported by the source. The AAAS says one thing, that GM methods introduce no greater risk than conventional methods, the content says there is scientific consensus that currently avaiable GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food (illustrated in detail, above). The former may lead one to conclude the latter, but is not equivalent to the latter. It is that straightforward. The source content can be quoted, or accurately paraphrased, and attributed to the AAAS, but it does not support scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice. This ambiguously worded RSN question is a time-waster. --Tsavage (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The source does support the statement. The source discusses both method by which GM food comes into existence, and the method by which specific GM foods come to market - those two methods mean that currently marketed GM foods are as safe as food from conventional crops. There are other sources that I have not brought here that are yet more explicit in making the surface point. But in any case, as before, I look forward to seeing a proposal from you on the Talk page, that takes into account this and the other sources discussed there. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- A source is reliable or not for a specific statement. How prestigious the source is is irrelevant if not connected to particular content. In this case, the content is simply not supported by the source. The AAAS says one thing, that GM methods introduce no greater risk than conventional methods, the content says there is scientific consensus that currently avaiable GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food (illustrated in detail, above). The former may lead one to conclude the latter, but is not equivalent to the latter. It is that straightforward. The source content can be quoted, or accurately paraphrased, and attributed to the AAAS, but it does not support scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice. This ambiguously worded RSN question is a time-waster. --Tsavage (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The AAAS is the mainstream of US (and world) science. Something challenging the AAAS statement to that extent, is by definition FRINGE. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Advocacy yes, fringe no. Barlow was awarded a lifetime achievement award from the Canadian Environment Awards, which is a partnership between the Government of Canada and the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. She was also adviser to the UN on water. And you do not have to take her word for it, as you do with the AAAS directors' statement. The article compares the conclusions the directors' made with the actual statements the organizations made. Or we can avoid all this by following MEDRS guidelines and use review studies. TFD (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog, by your reasoning if the AAAS directors said there was no consensus for global warming, evolution or the safety of aspartame then we could ignore all the other sources we currently use. Certainly you would demand a review study published by the AAAS and then we coould see whether it had been accepted by the scientific community. TFD (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Evans-Thirlwell a reliable source?
Edwin Evans-Thirlwell is a UK based author of long-form gaming related articles that have appeared in The Guardian, Kotaku, Motherboard/VICE, The Mirror, PC Gamer, MacFormat (sorry, they have no online presence!) and many other venues both dead tree and online. Interestingly, he received his degree partially by writing on gaming history at the University of London, and is now in the process of starting a PhD in English. His works, both academic and trade, have appeared in citations in other works, both academic and trade.
This post comes up because I used one of his Kotaku postings as a citation to demonstrate GNG in a revived AfD. As I understand it, the basic concepts behind RS, and even SPS, is based on whether the author is writing about their topic of expertise, and that you can demonstrate that expertise by their other writings in materials that do meet RS. So, for instance, Sam Cohen's self-published book on his days in the nuclear industry can be considered an RS because he is a recognized expert on nuclear weapons and has hundreds of RS publications.
So, what say you all, is Mr. Evans-Thirlwell's Kotaku article a quotable RS or not?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Obituaries for birth/death dates
Are family- or person-written obituaries, usually listed on Legacy.com, Tributes.com, on funeral home websites, and published in newspapers considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth/death dates or age in
This question comes up because GRG's Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board and we are trying to determine whether or not the articles entries previously sourced to these tables are reliably-sourced. If this section should be merged into the section on news-written obituaries, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Ca2james (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- For death dates yes (there's no reason why this should be inaccurate). But for birth dates? No, not on their own. Effectively they are just regurgitating what the person themselves claims, but not all longevity claims are genuine. If they are to be included as references on articles like List of supercentenarians who died in 2015 then there needs to be a mention of whether or not the person's age has been verified by an independent body. Ollie231213 (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I expect self- or family-written obits are essentially self-published sources, which I think can be used for uncontroversial information about the person. Personally, I don't think birth or death dates are controversial (yes, I realize the GRG disagrees but this is Wikipedia, not the GRG), so I'd expect these obits would be OK but I defer to uninvolved editors. Ca2james (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Normally, I would consider birth and death dates uncontroversial, and obits relaible for them. But "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Living to an age well above 100 is (at the moment) an extraordinary claim, and may gain the person significant positive attention while that person is alive. Thus there is a motive for some people to claim to be older than they really are, and obits that are essentially sourced to the memory of a very old person, perhaps not supported by any documents at all, are probably not reliable for birth dates in this context, I would think. DES (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would have to agree that these are SELFPUB sources. As such, they are certainly reliable for an attributed statement as to when the person is believed to have been born ... but they may not be for an unattributed blunt statement of fact.
- A lot depends on the specific person, and why the information is being questioned. If the concern is that there are other sources that give a different date of birth/death (sources that are considered more reliable than the SPS source), then I would go with those other, more reliable, sources. If not - if the concern is simply that the SPS source is all we have - then I think we can go with the SPS, but should indicate that the date is an unconfirmed claim. I would suggest that the simplest solution would be to add a question mark next to the unconfirmed date (as in "born: 1902(?)") with a foot note in the citation explaining that the date is an unconfirmed claim. Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS specifically advises against putting question marks by dates in this way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates where it says: "To indicate around, approximately, or about, the use of the spaced, unitalicised form c. 1291 (or the {{circa}} template) is preferred..." and later "Other forms of uncertainty should be expressed in words, either in article text or in a footnote: April 14, 1224 (unattested date). Do not use a question mark (1291?) for such purposes, as this fails to communicate the nature of the uncertainty." So I would use "born 1890 (unconfirmed claim)" or "born 1890 (unattested date)" or the like. DES (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- ah... my bad... I didn't realize that MOS has already addressed the issue. No problem... the point I was trying to make was simply that we should indicate that the date given by the SPS source is unconfirmed. Using a circa (c.1904) instead of a question mark does this, and so is fine with me. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- The MOS specifically advises against putting question marks by dates in this way. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Uncertain, incomplete, or approximate dates where it says: "To indicate around, approximately, or about, the use of the spaced, unitalicised form c. 1291 (or the {{circa}} template) is preferred..." and later "Other forms of uncertainty should be expressed in words, either in article text or in a footnote: April 14, 1224 (unattested date). Do not use a question mark (1291?) for such purposes, as this fails to communicate the nature of the uncertainty." So I would use "born 1890 (unconfirmed claim)" or "born 1890 (unattested date)" or the like. DES (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I expect self- or family-written obits are essentially
- So if I understand correctly, the consensus is that self- and family-written obituaries for supercentenarians are definitely reliable sources for death dates. They may be used for birth dates as long as an indication is made that the date is not confirmed, either using circa with the date or adding an unconformed or unattested notation to the date. Is that right? If so, then feel free to close this. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would see deaths as generally non-controversial self-published sources and therefore reliable. But birth dates can be controversial, especially when relatives claim longevity. So where they are controversial they should not be used. TFD (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Panorama (TV series) as reliable source
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the article
Discussion is underway at
- The relevant section is found at Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#BBC_Panorama. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert, for opening this thread, as I wasn't sure how to. The Panorama episode entitled "Who Killed Anni" (broadcast Sept/2013) is an unreliable, biased, agenda-driven, and ultimately untrustworthy source. I could, ad naseum, dissect the program minute by minute to demonstrate this. But I shall not impose upon the reader more than necessary, and will take it one example at a time to make my point.
Exhibit A: the two very short clips linked below contrast each other to demonstrate an instance where Panorama tries to cover up very damning inculpatory evidence against Shrien Dewani. Namely, evidence that Shrien Dewani had secretly passed a large sum of cash to the men who murdered his wife, Anni. The implication made in Panorama's 2013 episode that there is no particular reason to suspect Dewani ever did so is entirely CYNICAL and DISINGENUOUS. We know this because in a previous episode of Panorama (one which is reasonably fair and balanced and which, as such, the producers would apparently now like to sweep under the carpet) they have a pretty good suspicion that he had done exactly that. See for yourself how Panorama, from the first Dewani episode to the next, suddenly developed a convenient case of amnesia: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yXmg92NvfgqhcVYMbb0oHfNhMFNkGEd Lane99 (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- So basically you think the 2013 programme is unreliable because - in light of new evidence - it offers a different version of events than the 2012 programme did? You can't have it both ways, claiming that the 2012 programme is reliable because you agree with it, because the 2013 one isn't because you don't disagree with it. The programme makers didn't "develop amnesia," but rather in 2013 they clearly reassessed the case in light of evidence that wasn't known when they made the 2012 programme. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- IIRC, it was also the case that the 2013 programme featured a more thorough examination of the forensic evidence collected at the crime scene than the 2012 programme, in particualr having a British ballistics specialist's opinion on the nature of the single gunshot wound to Mrs Dewani. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The discrepancy in the programs that I have linked to has nothing to do with "new evidence" as to whether Shrien Dewani had secretly passed a large sum of cash to the men who murdered his wife, Anni. Panorama 2013 makes no reference to any "new evidence" on this point. So Nick Copper's claim is false, and therefore his remarks and position should be disregarded.Lane99 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsense. In 2012 the purpose of the money in the envelope was unknown, but by the 2013 it was known that it was for the surprise helicopter flight. Ditto the CCTV footage of Mbolombo's colleagues actually discussing the flight arrangement. Stop cherry-picking/misrepresenting the facts to suit your own motives. Also bear in mind that the discussion here is whether Panorama as a whole is a reliable source, not just the particular edition of Panorama that you disagree with (as opposed to the one you do). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Whether you are confused about this issue or deliberating attempting to drag the discussion down a rabbit hole, the derailing effect is the same. Bringing it back on topic, I claim that Panorama 2013 is biased and agenda-driven because it misleads its viewers when it suggests there is no reason to believe Shrien Dewani ever secretly gave a large sum of money to his wife's killers. The video clips I linked above prove that Panorama 2013 knew full well there WAS good reason to believe Dewani had done so, even as they were telling their viewers there was not. That is flagrant bias, at best. Lying, at worst.Lane99 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Interjecting -- it appears the material is being used in a section about Panorama which is of no specific great utility to the main topic of the article at hand, but likely relevant to the article on that programme. As the programme uses different writers, investigators, etc. its use as a "reliable source for fact" may not be consistent, and I still want a spaghetti tree. Collect (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Today is 18 August, in most of the world. Spaghetti trees are only in evidence on 1 April (and maybe on 31 October). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I thought it was hilarious! More seriously, in coming to this discussion completely impartial, I was amazed to see the only source of complaint about the Panorama programme was the wordpress.com article. (The Telegraph only reports the family criticised the programme, but in itself, does not substantiate the criticisms.) To my mind, the wordpress.com source is a blog and not acceptable as a RS. The section criticizing the Panorama programme should be deleted unless a better source/s can be found.DrChrissy (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has any issue with the Telegraph report about the family's complaints being included. Lane99, though, wants to push a particualr interpretation of the case via the Wordpress blog, and is a vociferous advocate of Shrien Dewani's guilt on various fora (e.g. here, here, here, and here). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was actually going to delete the wordpress.com section as per WP:ONUS is on them for why it should be included.DrChrissy (talk)14:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- BBC sources on Panorama is more reliable than a wordpress source. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Panorama has been aired since 1953 and is a highly regarded documentary show. One users personal opinion based on a Wordpress source doesnt seem to credible towards the notion that this programme was biased.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Would you care to justify those statements with reference to Wikipedia policies, BabbaQ? My understanding of Wikipedia policy is that reliability of a source is not based solely on who published it. Reliability must also be judged on the quality of the work itself, and whether the author/editor/creator of the work is biased or has conflicts of interest.
- Please Note WP:RELY where it is stated: ″The word ′source′ as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist); and the publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press). Any of the three can affect reliability.″ afd (talk) 14:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was actually going to delete the wordpress.com section as per
- I don't know what "source of complaint" precisely means. In addition to the wordpress.com source, an examination of the Panorama2013 program itself shows it disingenuously attempts to covers up incriminating information against Shrien Dewani. This indicates bias, unreliability, and trustworthiness. Also, I feel you downplay the victim's family's contributions to the question at hand. They have not merely "criticised the programme". The Hindocha family have formally complained to the BBC that the program was not impartial, and that they were not afforded their right to reply to the allegations contained in the program.Lane99 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- An "examination" tainted by your outspoken views on the case. More impartial observers may very well come to a very different conclusion. As already noted, though, this is a discussion of whether Panorama - as a long-running and highly respected current affairs programme - is a reliable source, not whether your own bias makes you think a particular edition of it isn't.
- The Telegraph article reports that a member of the Hindocha family wrote letters of complaint to the BBC Director General and the director of news and current affairs prior to the 2013 programme being screened, so presumably before any of the family even seen it. There is no evidence that they availed themselves of the BBC's formal complaint proceedings, nor indeed any external regulator. The Telegraph report states that the family complaints were on the ground of sensitivity, particular the re-use of previous interview material, and that it would "cast doubt on the case against [Shrien] Dewani," which is hardly surprising given their consistent support for that case, which obviously ultimately failed. In short, the family disagreed with a programme casting doubt on Shrien's assumed guilt, because they were already (wrongly) convinced of it themselves. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has any issue with the Telegraph report about the family's complaints being included. Lane99, though, wants to push a particualr interpretation of the case via the Wordpress blog, and is a vociferous advocate of Shrien Dewani's guilt on various fora (e.g. here, here, here, and here). Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I thought it was hilarious! More seriously, in coming to this discussion completely impartial, I was amazed to see the only source of complaint about the Panorama programme was the wordpress.com article. (The Telegraph only reports the family criticised the programme, but in itself, does not substantiate the criticisms.) To my mind, the wordpress.com source is a blog and not acceptable as a RS. The section criticizing the Panorama programme should be deleted unless a better source/s can be found.DrChrissy (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Today is 18 August, in most of the world. Spaghetti trees are only in evidence on 1 April (and maybe on 31 October). Robert McClenon (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- To "Collect" above, if I am putting this reply in the correct place: on my behalf, Robert McClenon was generous enough to start this thread. An examination of the Panorama2013 program reveals it to be extremely biased. I never said, nor meant to suggest every episode of Panorama is biased, and don't have an opinion on that. Although if one can point to instances of particular episodes of Panorama being biased, I don't see why the question of whether Panorama is, generally, biased does not then begin to become worthy of discussion. I, myself, though, have only said the 2013 Panorama episode entitled "Who Killed Anni?" is biased and unreliable, and therefore should not be featured prominently on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" article.Lane99 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, it appears that we have at least one editor, Lane99, who says that the 2013 Panorama episode is biased and unreliable. Other editors disagree. There doesn't appear likely to be a consensus here or at DRN. I will wait briefly for comments here, but will then reopen the discussion at DRN, but probably only for the purpose of having a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- At this point, it appears that we have at least one editor, Lane99, who says that the 2013 Panorama episode is biased and unreliable. Other editors disagree. There doesn't appear likely to be a consensus here or at DRN. I will wait briefly for comments here, but will then reopen the discussion at DRN, but probably only for the purpose of having a
Regavim (NGO) research on Susya article (Hebrew source)
The following text was remove from Susya under the claim "not RS".
- According to others, Khirbet Susya didn't exist as a permanent village before 1986. Travelers from the late 19th century report founding ruins (while nearby Semua is reported as inhabited), British census from 1945 doesn't mention Susya and a reseacher, Yaakov Havakook who stuied the area between 1977-1982 writes Khirbet Susya was used seasonally during the grazing months for the winter and abandoned again in the summer.[1]
Except for the leading statement which is a conclusion based on the documents it provides, every thing else is based on historical documents such as traveler journals, British census from 1945 and a book which is quoted also by the human rights organizations. In the discussion on the talk page editors argued against it that Regavim is "party to the conflict" and "copy-cat human rights". Rabbis for Human Rights, which represent the Palestinians is repeatedly used in the article, along with B'tselem and activist David Dean Shulman, both very active on this conflict. So, (1) Is it reliable to simply cite historical documents that can be verified or even appear already in the article? (2) Is it reliable to conclude Susya wasn't a permanent village but only seasonal one? (There is no evidence that contradict that. some historical maps show Susya, some don't and British censuses from 1922,1931,1945[2] as well as a Jordanian from 61 (p.22) don't even mention it). Settleman (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Susya: The Palestinian lie - the village that didn't exist" (PDF). Regavim. Retrieved 14 August 2015.
- ^ http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/yabber/census/
- I have already discussed this on the talk page, but I will give my viewpoint for outside editors. The "seasonal" claim was discussed on the article talk page, and might be admissible if phrased adequately. The objections 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regavim is a settler-Jewish rights organization committed to the denial of Palestinian rights on the West Bank. Rabbis for Human Rights is a Jewish organization committed to human rights for all parties, Jewish and Palestinian. Settleman, per his name, identifies with the Regavim movement, and he has just (see the talk page) unilaterally removed large amounts of documented RS information regarding that shady organization. He's a POV pusher, and probably a banned editor in an early wiki life. Regavim does not check facts unless they conduce to Jewish supremacy claims. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Scrap this. Regavim is referred to by NYTimes, Jewishpress, dailymail and is very common in Israeli reporting. It is unquestionally biased and therefore attribution is required. But beyond that, by default they are RS and if someone claims they aren't, they need to prove it. Settleman (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as "by default they are RS" -- you've got that precisely backwards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Scrap this. Regavim is referred to by NYTimes, Jewishpress, dailymail and is very common in Israeli reporting. It is unquestionally biased and therefore attribution is required. But beyond that, by default they are RS and if someone claims they aren't, they need to prove it. Settleman (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regavim is a settler-Jewish rights organization committed to the denial of Palestinian rights on the West Bank. Rabbis for Human Rights is a Jewish organization committed to human rights for all parties, Jewish and Palestinian. Settleman, per his name, identifies with the Regavim movement, and he has just (see the talk page) unilaterally removed large amounts of documented RS information regarding that shady organization. He's a POV pusher, and probably a banned editor in an early wiki life. Regavim does not check facts unless they conduce to Jewish supremacy claims. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy that enables us to evaluate the reliability of a source based on its political agenda. An NGO that supports policy (a) is not inherently more or less reliable than an NGO that supports policy (b), even if we really, really approve of policy (a) and really, really dislike policy (b). Both are NGOs, with a political agenda, neither can be used for unattributed factual claims, and either one can be used for attributed claims.
- As I explained on the talk page, just because NYT quotes someone in some context does not mean they are RS in other contexts. NYT probably quotes Ban Ki Moon, Netanyahu, Ayatollah Khamenei, or Osama Bin Laden in various contexts. That says nothing about their reliability. Also, the NYT did not quote Regavim on historical matters. Anyway, I will shut up now and leave this for outside editors. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a whole article based on a report by Regavim. They take matter to court and won cases. Not liking their politics doesn't make them unreliable. And now I will shut up :) Settleman (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- So an Israeli organization is supposed to be reliable because they win cases in the Israeli court system? I think you've got some problems... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Brad Dyer nails it. Just cite Regavim saying something like: "According to NGO Regavim.... " And remember that even the Red Cross is biased.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, that's not what we're going to do. One could turn our articles into vast echo-chambers for anything an organization says. If what's in question is a factual claim of some sort, then there's no reason to include the claim unless there's a proper reliable source for it. Otherwise "according to" ends up being a mechanism for including as much crap as you please. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- ( 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- KingsIndian, you are inventing/demanding new standards not applied to other, reputable NGOs. (The practice of applying one standard to Jewish countries and another to the world at large has a name.) However, since you asked: [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- The only argument against Regavim is - they are pro-settlers so can't be trusted. They are quoted often on Israeli papers ynet, i24news and Haaretz. The funny this about this conversation is, Regavim provides all the sources on which it bases its arguments. Census, journals etc. The year 1830 repeated in so many pro-Palestinian websites, has no ground whatsoever. Yet, you prefer to reject the secondary that provides its primary sources and accept the one that doesn't. Very interesting. Settleman (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Nomoskedasticity: in your universe, a person become RS only if he got arrested by the IOF, right? Like Arik Ascherman. LOL Settleman (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea what the "IOF" is. You're digging quite a hole for yourself here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @E.M.Gregory: I am sorry, I don't find in that Telegraph article, Regavim being quoted for historical matters anywhere. Can you tell me where exactly it is? Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian, history does not have and scholars do not recognize an "exact" point at which "historical matters" start or end.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming my reading that it does not talk about history at all, primarily the early 20th century censuses/photographs/whatever for which this source is supposed to be used. The article is talking about EU support to Palestinian villages in the last few years and how it might possibly conflict with Oslo accords, which is a legal matter, and has nothing whatsoever to do with history. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regavim is a legal NGO, it brings land rights related law suits, parallel to, for example, the American NGO Natural Resources Defense Council. such cases hinge, in part, on the history of the law and of the ownership of the resource in quesiton. In other words, Regavim's recognized expertise is precisely and centrally about the history of land use in the region.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can see my comment here about how RHR completely misrepresent (or in other words, lie about) their source for '1830s' claim. Settleman (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Kingsindian: I agree if Regavim would make an historical claim without providing its primary source it will be suspicious but they do provide it. I think they are as RS as any of the other organization and activists supporting the Palestinians (which I proven to falsify sources). If bias makes them non-RS for current events, the rule should apply equaly to all. Damn, we're going in circles. Settleman (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion on the talk page has led to Regavim being used with attribution for now, so not much else to do here. Further discussion, if any, can happen on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Regavim is a legal NGO, it brings land rights related law suits, parallel to, for example, the American NGO Natural Resources Defense Council. such cases hinge, in part, on the history of the law and of the ownership of the resource in quesiton. In other words, Regavim's recognized expertise is precisely and centrally about the history of land use in the region.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming my reading that it does not talk about history at all, primarily the early 20th century censuses/photographs/whatever for which this source is supposed to be used. The article is talking about EU support to Palestinian villages in the last few years and how it might possibly conflict with Oslo accords, which is a legal matter, and has nothing whatsoever to do with history. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian, history does not have and scholars do not recognize an "exact" point at which "historical matters" start or end.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- KingsIndian, you are inventing/demanding new standards not applied to other, reputable NGOs. (The practice of applying one standard to Jewish countries and another to the world at large has a name.) However, since you asked: [14].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Kids Company - Reliable source
(This discussion was started on 14 Aug 2015 at assistance/Requests Kids Company and moved here as the more appropriate noticeboard)
Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. On the Talk page. A research study by the the London School of Economics into Kids Company is being decried by an editor DeCausa as not from or not a RS. This is not about the figures referenced by the Talk link but about a particular edit stating:
- "In 2013, a research study by the London School of Economics identified 'imited and unstable funding' as a major source of stress and anxiety for staff and 'a massive challenge for the sustainability' of the charity. It also found that an increase in bureaucracy and excessive management could jeopardise the charity's effectiveness and presented a challenge to its ability to sustain focus on the needs of its clients".
...that has now twice been reverted by the editor who has been a substantial editor of the article over the last 10 days. In a substantive exchange on the Talk page where indicated above, on 12&13th August, the Editor claims an article by The Telegraph and an article on the Times Higher Education website crticising the research study (because London School of Economics was paid to conduct the research) makes the report a unreliable/questionable source. My question is two or three-fold;
(1) When an organisation is considered a reliable source, say Reuters, can articles published by them still be considered untrustworthy/questionable? Equally, if a RS like Reuters published a single unreliable article, would Reuters then automatically be deemd an unreliable source (I hope not) or would the balance of reliable articles they produce keep them in good stead as a RS?
(2) Do articles criticising research necessarily make that research automatically unreliable/questionable. In this case, LSE has robustly defended its own impartiality and that of the article - in the same Telegraph article source saying, "University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research, "This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".
Although the Times HE and the Telegraph suggest the LSE report is questionable they produce no evidence to back such claims whilst LSE is unequivocal in its own defence.
In the unlikely case that the LSE research is now considered questionable/unreliable, I would like, at least, to include the response from LSE included in the Telegraph. I hope this all makes sense and look forward to your response. The preceding entry was orginally posted by Selector99 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the notice board you're probably needing is WP:RS for some things but not others. Each use of it must be considered on its merits. For example, a noted military historian who writes about World War I is clearly an RS for a discusion of military tactics during the war. However, if in passing, he were to make some comments about Wilfred Owen's poetry not being very good, that probably wouldn't be RS. A judgment has to be made as to what the scope of expertise the RS has. Another example, is if a noted historian writes a series of highly acclaimed books but then writes one that is severely criticized as being poor quality research. His earlier books may be RS, but the latter one may not. An example of this is Hugh Trevor-Roper, an eminent historian of Nazi Germany whose pronouncements on the Hitler Diaries are not RS. As far as the second sub-question is concerned, it depends. I think you are focusing too much on who is the author rather than looking at each work separately. The "S" in "RS" is actually the work and not necessarily - although it is clearly relvant - the author per my Hugh-Trevor Roper example. (2) Not necessarily. It's a matter of consensus whether they do or don't. The preceding reply was posted by DeCausa07:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, DeCausa, sincerely for that prompt, considered and detailed response. You will understand my seeking further response from an unconnected, third-party, editor. The preceding reply was posted by Selector99 10:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, in advance, for your input and comments. Selector99 (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, DeCausa, sincerely for that prompt, considered and detailed response. You will understand my seeking further response from an unconnected, third-party, editor. The preceding reply was posted by Selector99 10:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I enter this discussion from outside, and am not particularly conversant with the issues themselves, especially being American and rather far from awareness of the objects of discussion. In particular, I have visibility only to the printed material avail here on WP and in the references given therein, none to how the English media in general (or on video) are presenting the affair. It seems to me that some of the questions that have arisen about WP:RS may hinge on who is saying what and how, and how that is presented in the media, so I have chosen to remain distant from that kind of froth.
First, my impression is that the London School of Economics looks like a very solid RS from the outside. Barring some history of malfeasance I am not aware of, I see no reason that it should be challenged as unreliable in general. In this specific case, it also looks to me that its study, like most studies, did not have the scope "everything about Kids Company", but rather a more limited look at things. Naturally, the media story about the financial collapse has a wider scope, and with typical media imprecision, some commentators began to ask why LSE didn't scope everything out, glossing over the fact that it wasn't their job. (These are the ITV commentators referenced in the World Academic Summit article.) Notably, that WAS article and its companion here, the Telegraph article, do not themselves level accusations of unreliability against the LSE study. Only WAS mentions the ITV commentators, and those are the glossers. As subtext, I perceive some typical media frenzy, probably involving many unmentioned players, the net effect of which is to whip up emotional reactions to a sizable incident, the demise of Kids Co. Now, both WAS and the Telegraph feature prominently the fact that Kids Co funded the LSE study, but no more. LSE is not criticized for that, nor is the study itself. If someone in the media is trying to imply malfeasance by LSE or to undermine the study, they do not say so explicitly in the referenced articles given here. Therefore I cannot agree with user DeCausa that the study is questionable, and coming from an RS, it also should then be considered reliable here. I also disagree with DeCausa's analysis of the study itself, particularly in regard to the statement that Kids Company supported 36,000 children and adults. I wonder if the editors have considered that this is (according to the Telegraph), the number claimed by Kids Company at its closure, whereas the LSE report was done in 2013. But wasn't Kids Company supposed to have grown in the two intervening years? Something's fishy with those numbers, and I don't have the interest to sort it out, but I think we would almost surely have unreliable editing going on until the base facts are cleared up.
With regard to RS in general, I would hold up any media outlet and "news report", done for a continuous, hourly, or daily release, to intense scrutiny with regards to its reporting. Such reporting is by its nature designed to bring what facts can be obtained immediately to its audience, but it is not by its nature equipped to do more than a cursory job of vetting, and is never privy to the luxury of taking a longer or wider view of anything, nor of providing any kind of perspective to the events they describe. By their nature, they are highly questionable as to reliability. Only the highest standards of journalism are acceptable as reliable, and then only as to immediate details and perceptions of the moment. There is no question that there can be no scholarly rigor or balance in any of it; that's not its function. Nor can such sources be considered competent to make any judgements as to the reliability of a report such as the LSE's. For this, the ITV commentators are completely unsuitable. They may reliably report that some actual expert has judged the report to be reliable (or not), but they may not take that job unto themselves. So far, there has been no expert criticism of the LSE report presented here on WP (that I have noticed). The LSE report did list primary findings, and classified them as primary, and regardless how it arrived at the findings (a matter on which we and DeCausa have no business speculating), they stand as primary and as reliable so long as the report itself is not successfully challenged by experts (not media).
Please be aware that I'm not stating that the LSE report had its facts correct. I am saying that the report is reliable and should be used on WP as such. If the report is wrong, there needs to be expert conclusion of wrongness (for whatever reason, conflict of interest, or otherwise), not media innuendo. Then that expert conclusion can also be used as RS.
We are an encyclopedia. We take the long view. We do not report the news, even though we can stay up to date. Some things are given to immediate update (Voyager 1 is now x miles from Earth), and others are not. We can sift this, and wait for confirmation. A WP article should not attempt to keep pace with media's breaking stories. We need to provide perspective on what we talk about, and we therefore need to wait for reliable experts to provide us with the sources that enable us to provide perspective. I would suggest that the unfolding news story might be linked into the article in raw form by providing a kind of addendum section with minimal WP text and references to media reports, simply indicating that there is a story going on presently, and letting the media talk for themselves rather than for WP. (But dump the ITV commentators, who are guilty of overreach.) Evensteven (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Evensteven, for your considered response. It's apparent that you have spent some time familiarising yourself with the Kids Company article and I am grateful for that. That said, the important issue is Wiki guidelines and I think you do well to make reference to these throughout. Also, I absolutely agree that the media are great at finger pointing whilst saying very little or even nothing at all. Selector99 (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The problem here, which is slightly unusual, is the source has become part of the news story, and not in a good way. If we use this source we'll have some text in the article that is cited to it and some text that, in terms (and supported by RS), says what a poor source it is. The scope of the study was supposedly to give an account of the efficacy of Kids Company's work and Kids Company quoted it multiple times as evidence of its efficacy. But, as the BBC has said, "the charity failed to build a serious evidence base behind its work. That made it hard even for lots of very sympathetic funders to back it. We do not know how many young people used the service, let alone how many got qualifications, jobs or were spared prison because of its work.
Even the most-cited academic assessments of the charity's work
are not useful to this end." The highlighted text is a link to the LSE report. It isn't just that the report has been deprecated by The independent, The Times Higher and the BBC. The report, on its face, has made a number of statements which subsequent RS have contradicted. For example, it says that an increase in the level of management would be a risk to the charity - yet poor management governance (i.e. too light) has been covered by multiple RS as a major problem. I think the maximum we can do with this source is use it to say the LSE report said XYZ, but, so as not to be ) 12:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, on the face of it, that's seems reasonable. But under the skin, it has greater problems. First, the fact that the source has become part of the story is not a particularly unusual thing. It's a fairly normal technique applied in the media when the opportunity arises for them to sell stories based on it. Second, I don't argue with your assertions regarding the actual scope of the study, nor of how the management of Kids Company is a prominent feature of the story, with questions arising before the story became so big and originating outside the media. Nor do I argue with many of your other assertions regarding the far-reaching impacts of the whole mess. They're almost self-evident. But third (to continue my list), the base problem is what we are calling RS. You are citing several news media outlets as RS, and I am objecting to that. What? I don't consider the BBC to be an RS? My answer is yes and no. I'm willing to admit that the BBC is about as good as it gets in Britain (I have had access to some of it across the years, even so far away as I am). But I see many problems confronting journalism these days, and I think many of them erode the confidence we may have placed in even the best institutions in the past. Today, we ought to be more skeptical, and we have grounds to be. Even the BBC has been guilty of presenting stories as though they (the media) are experts in the fields they are reporting on, not just experts in the field of reporting. Those are not at all the same thing, and we must not treat them as the same thing. Now, I don't have anything like exposure to the mass of coverage of this story that I presume is going on in Britain. In fact, what I have is **only** the snippets I have looked at here, as provided by the given sources. That means that I am not an expert on the story, but I think that's a good thing in this case. It allows me to see what is presented on WP, and only that, so I can get a good notion of how well-backed-up the article is wrt the story. And what I see is that these sources are not experts wrt the LSE report, nor do they do any reporting about that report that is based on expert opinion. I think we have to take the media sources as reliable reporters, giving the benefit of any doubt about their journalistic practices. (I'd let editors who know more about them judge that aspect of things.) But just because they have credentials in reporting does not make them expert enough that we need to take what they say about the story as more than simple commentary not coming from experts. Criticisms of the LSE study, or of the charity's management, or assertions of malfeasance or conflict of interest on the part of LSE in connection with funding of the study, or any of the other basic facets of the story, all those essential underlying facts need to be founded on something more expert than the media themselves. Until the media dig up those sources for us and report on them, the media have given us nothing worthy to be called RS on WP. Perhaps we can dig up the requisite sources ourselves, but the media criticisms cannot stand as expert until they have experts telling the same criticisms. In other words, we must hold the media to account for the sources of their information the same way we hold WP editors to account for their sources, because we are both in the business of reporting. And we cannot accept the media themselves as a source any more than we accept editorial opinion on WP. That's my criticism of what I see here at present in a nutshell. I don't doubt there's a great deal more to the story, and maybe even dirt lying in some corners, but I don't believe any of it as fact until I see something better to back it up. Until then, I see innuendo. And I am afraid the media is much given to that these days. We need to be cautious of it. Evensteven (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- It could be said that BBC News cannot be considered an RS for this article as the corporation's high-flying and long-standing executive, Alan Yentob was also chair of trustees at Kids Company. It could be argued that BBC News is over compensating in response to allegations of a conflict of interest. But I'd never say that.
- It could also be argued that the Spectator is no longer a RS for this article as having shown its hand earlier in the year, it had little choice but to subsequently back its own play so its attempts to slur the LSE can't be trusted. But I wouldn't say that either.
- Instead, I agree with Evensteven and with what I've previously said that outside of suggestion and innuendo, there is no evidence presented by any news item proving the LSE research study is not RS. That's my bottom line. As such I don't think citations from the research require qualification, particularly the quote I'd like to include. There is no conflict between the citation's comment on the pitfalls of "excessive management" and later calls for "improved management". The two are quite different things and, frankly, I think it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Selector99 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- It could be said that BBC News cannot be considered an RS for this article as the corporation's high-flying and long-standing executive, Alan Yentob was also chair of trustees at Kids Company. It could be argued that BBC News is over compensating in response to allegations of a conflict of interest. But I'd never say that.
- Ok, on the face of it, that's seems reasonable. But under the skin, it has greater problems. First, the fact that the source has become part of the story is not a particularly unusual thing. It's a fairly normal technique applied in the media when the opportunity arises for them to sell stories based on it. Second, I don't argue with your assertions regarding the actual scope of the study, nor of how the management of Kids Company is a prominent feature of the story, with questions arising before the story became so big and originating outside the media. Nor do I argue with many of your other assertions regarding the far-reaching impacts of the whole mess. They're almost self-evident. But third (to continue my list), the base problem is what we are calling RS. You are citing several news media outlets as RS, and I am objecting to that. What? I don't consider the BBC to be an RS? My answer is yes and no. I'm willing to admit that the BBC is about as good as it gets in Britain (I have had access to some of it across the years, even so far away as I am). But I see many problems confronting journalism these days, and I think many of them erode the confidence we may have placed in even the best institutions in the past. Today, we ought to be more skeptical, and we have grounds to be. Even the BBC has been guilty of presenting stories as though they (the media) are experts in the fields they are reporting on, not just experts in the field of reporting. Those are not at all the same thing, and we must not treat them as the same thing. Now, I don't have anything like exposure to the mass of coverage of this story that I presume is going on in Britain. In fact, what I have is **only** the snippets I have looked at here, as provided by the given sources. That means that I am not an expert on the story, but I think that's a good thing in this case. It allows me to see what is presented on WP, and only that, so I can get a good notion of how well-backed-up the article is wrt the story. And what I see is that these sources are not experts wrt the LSE report, nor do they do any reporting about that report that is based on expert opinion. I think we have to take the media sources as reliable reporters, giving the benefit of any doubt about their journalistic practices. (I'd let editors who know more about them judge that aspect of things.) But just because they have credentials in reporting does not make them expert enough that we need to take what they say about the story as more than simple commentary not coming from experts. Criticisms of the LSE study, or of the charity's management, or assertions of malfeasance or conflict of interest on the part of LSE in connection with funding of the study, or any of the other basic facets of the story, all those essential underlying facts need to be founded on something more expert than the media themselves. Until the media dig up those sources for us and report on them, the media have given us nothing worthy to be called RS on WP. Perhaps we can dig up the requisite sources ourselves, but the media criticisms cannot stand as expert until they have experts telling the same criticisms. In other words, we must hold the media to account for the sources of their information the same way we hold WP editors to account for their sources, because we are both in the business of reporting. And we cannot accept the media themselves as a source any more than we accept editorial opinion on WP. That's my criticism of what I see here at present in a nutshell. I don't doubt there's a great deal more to the story, and maybe even dirt lying in some corners, but I don't believe any of it as fact until I see something better to back it up. Until then, I see innuendo. And I am afraid the media is much given to that these days. We need to be cautious of it. Evensteven (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- comment - the London School of Economics is a major, globally recognised academic institution. if they publish a study of something, that is news. if it generates discussion/dispute, if the study is contested, that may very well also be news; especially if the disputants have some decent credibility in terms of their credentials and/or arguements.
- one can debate whether the lse study is correct in their analysis of this organisation, BUT the fact a that the study was conducted & published, BY the lse, AND that this study received significant press coverage and discussion, merits inclusion in the article in any case. NOT to include it would be biased.
- same goes for the bbc :p
i would also note... that at the present time, the article mentions the existence of the LSE report, but then provides NO information about what it contains.
which is bloody ridiculous; it's like reading a global-ban decision coming from the wmf:office :p
our job is to INFORM USERS about the subject (of an article); if our internal arguements & procedures prevent that, then we have FAILED.
Lx 121 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that voice of reason, Lx 121. I tend to agree that a few news organisations pointing fingers at the LSE, without saying much, before quickly moving on does not somehow make the LSE or its research, 'the accused'. Perhaps it'd be better if LSE was actually the accused. Then we'd, at least, take them at their word instead of attempting to dismiss them as unreliable based on jack all. Selector99 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be helpful to have some material on what the LSE study actually says in the article. And I agree that any contesting of the study would be news and reportable. However, there has been no contesting of the LSE study by anyone other than the inexpert media, who cannot be RS for the contesting, which has been my point. As soon as someone reliable actually contests it in some way, then they can be sourced here. Evensteven (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, ALL, very much for contributing to this discussion. For my part, I now consider the matter closed - if not resolved. Be well! Selector99 (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
MeasuringWorth
I'm not sure about the credibility of this site, but the about page reads, "There are two missions of this site. The first is to make available to the public the highest quality and most reliable historical data on important economic aggregates, with particular emphasis on "nominal (current-price) measures, as well as real (constant-price) measures ... The second is to provide carefully designed compartors (using these data) that explain the many issues involved in making value comparison over time." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- What's it being used as a reference/citation for? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Fyddlestix, Kalidas (film), which is currently a FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Oxford University Press vs a management specialist's newspaper column & a recipe web site at Jollof rice
There seems to be an ethnic-related dispute here. Not too long ago it stated the Jollof rice was of West African origin[15] - the sources being a recipe website (not an RS) and "A West African CookbooK" by Ellen Gibson Wilson. At first glance that might not seem a reliable source, but the author, although not an academic, was specialist in the area[16] and her book has been mentioned in other reliable sources, eg[17]. But in the infobox it stated that Ghana was the source, and in May User:Yamaguchi先生 removed that as contentious and unsourced. Ah, looking at the next edit I realise that there was a lot of edit-warring over origin and that next edit was User:Smartse's semi-protection of the article. That didn't stop the argument and User:Jamie Tubers stepped in using a column in a Nigerian newspaper[18] as a source.
I got involved when an IP edited another article on my watchlist and changed the text sourced to Vanguard. I noticed that the text was (minor) copyvio and in any case seemed too specific. The IP and I worked it out on my talk page and looking at sources it was obvious that the origin is disputed (and IMHO impossible to determine as it was almost certainly made before written history of the area). Using an OUP book I changed the region to West Africa and added "According to the The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink "Jollof rice is a subject of great debate in West Africa. Every country has its own version, and abhors "inauthentic* variations."<ref name="Diner's Dictionary">{{cite book|last1=Ayto|first1=John|title=The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink|date=2nd edition 2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199640249|page=188|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NoicAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA188&dq=Jollof+rice+west+africa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA2oVChMI5s-b5tmoxwIVpbPbCh1odQAj#v=onepage&q=Jollof%20rice%20west%20africa&f=false|accessdate=14 August 2015}}</ref>"
Jamie Tubers then reverted me, removing the statement that the origin is a subject of debate and replacing the website and the newspaper as sources. This was after I tried to work this out at Talk:Jollof rice#Origin and sources where I had another editor supporting me and Jamie Tubers opposing me, in part because he thinks "West Africa" isn't specific enough and in part he says that the newspaper would have made sure that the column was accurate before editing. I'd pointed out that the columnist's qualifications are in management and administration[19] but that evidently didn't matter to him. Rather than revert again I've come here. Doug Weller (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: I am not an expert in West African cuisine, nor do I have a special interest in the Jollof rice article. With that said, as a Wikipedian I find the use of WHATS4EATS.COM as an encyclopedic source disturbing. WHATS4EATS is a personal website belonging to self-proclaimed "Content Manager and Social Media Strategist" Brad Harvey, see: http://www.whats4eats.com/about and https://www.linkedin.com/in/bradchef -- none of the articles appear to be peer reviewed, the photographs are scraped from Flickr, and there is no possible way to verify any of the backstories presented for each dish. In my opinion, utilization of this website as a source for encyclopedic content is inappropriate.
- When I raised my concerns regarding this source with Jamie Tubers approximately 2 months ago, he responded that the source should be sufficient. [20]
- If the origin is disputed, and we have reliable sources which have established the same, I believe this is how we should present the article to our readers. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Why aren't all the sides of the dispute presented in the article accordingly, with appropriate referencing provided? Basic foods rarely originate in specific places, but rather regions, sometimes concomitantly. There shouldn't be an issue in finding good references to note this. Heck, I found 365 with just a simple search! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:FoCuSandLeArN Because of ethnic nationalism and disagreement or ignorance concerning our sourcing guidelines and policies. That's why I think we should simply state the reason and that it's origin is disputed. If you can get people to agree, great! Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem controversial to me. If consensus is reached here or in any other venue, we can just be bold and write a preliminary paragraph to that effect, to later implement it in-article. If this is something the community rejects as a change, then so be it, but hard-headed decisions have no place on Wikipedia. Per Yamaguchi's comments above, if there is in fact such a kerfuffle around the geographical origins of this food (which seems absurd given geographical boundaries are artificial) then let's find appropriate sources for the contesting views and present each in their proper light, given a food website is obviously not a reliable source for anthropoligical statements. FoCuS contribs; talk to me!18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem controversial to me. If consensus is reached here or in any other venue, we can just be
- User:FoCuSandLeArN Because of ethnic nationalism and disagreement or ignorance concerning our sourcing guidelines and policies. That's why I think we should simply state the reason and that it's origin is disputed. If you can get people to agree, great! Doug Weller (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIR, West African "national boundaries" have no relationship to where any food is found. Ivory Coast, Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Nigeria are not "natural nations" but were arbitrarily carved in the 19th century. "Jollof rice" is a one pot stew which is found across the "national boundaries" and arguing about specific nations is actually silly. It is likely common to every country which has members of the specific ethnic group or tribe named. Was this really a serious issue? Collect (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Here is another good source that support's The diner's dictionary summary cited by User:Doug Weller:
A second dish that marks the connections in West Africa’s culinary geography is a ubiquitous dish called Jollof rice. ... Jollof rice appears prominently in most West African cuisines, such as Wolof (Senegal), Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ironically, it is not called Jollof rice in Senegal (home of the historical Jollof empire), where that country’s elaborate version is called thiebou dienn(or phonetically cheeb u jen) and where it incorporates smoked or fresh fish. Cheeb u yapp is the same rice dish made with meat.
— James C. McCann (31 October 2009). "A west African culinary grammar". Stirring the Pot: A History of African Cuisine. Ohio University Press. pp. 133–.ISBN 978-0-89680-464-7.
- Pages 134-135 have further discussion of the dish's origins starting with "Jollof rice’s point of origin and its most authentic form are points of substantial debate.", laying out some popular theories, and ending with "Specialists may never agree.". The author is a professor specializing in history of food/cuisine in Africa, and the excerpt is from a chapter showing that despite its political, cultural and linguistic diversity, West Africa shares "fundamental elements of a common cuisine", of which Jollof rice is cited as an example. Using newspaper columns to favor individual regional claims fails ) 17:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Amazon as a reference
Please see List of Dragon Ball Z chapters--where what could have been a reference list is basically a collection of spam links. I know we accept Amazon for release data and stuff like that (and I don't like that at all), but in this case Amazon is really all it is. (Of course, that it's all Amazon also means we're not dealing with a very encyclopedic topic, but hey--it's manga, and that's untouchable.) I know that Tintor2 has edited this extensively though I don't know if they're responsible for that. Anyway, I think that this is way over the top. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- If I remember well (though that was some years ago), the official Viz Media site lacked the series' release dates so I had to use Amazon.com.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi'Ite Islam
I wonder if it is a reliable source for this edit. I was only able to find this review about the book. Some users are concerned about the publisher and/or the author's theological background. Here is the author's webpage on Princeton University's website. I appreciate your input on this matter.--Kazemita1 (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I lack any knowledge of the field or subject, so treat this with caution. A quick search turns up "JESUS, THE QĀ'IM AND THE END OF THE WORLD, Gabriel Said Reynolds, Rivista degli studi orientali, Vol. 75, Fasc. 1/4 (2001), pp. 55-86." Page 75 contains this content "These doctrinal developments are more evident in the writings of Ibn Ani Zaynab al-Nu'mani...he records a large number hadith... The most important one... is a hadith that was already present in orthodox Sunni collections wherein the Prophet Muhammad declares that he will be followed by twelve caliphs (alernative versions have... qayyims)... from his descendants..." As I say, I can't judge if this supports the edit being questioned as I lack the expertise. It does however appear to be an RS. Thanks - talk) 11:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't link "this edit", although I'm assuming it was this. First, I'd like to address the principle objection raised to this source: Darwin Press is not a self-publication or vanity press. However, although I would consider this source generally reliable, I cannot offer support for the linked edit. It is overbroad to be supported by a single author, and suffers from significant problems of tone and neutrality. So, although I would consider the offered book a reliable source for some potential edits on this topic (and without that book onhand, I decline to speculate as to text that would be acceptable), I believe the other editors' removal of this content was the correct outcome. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks ) 06:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
A Spy for Wellington: Sir John William Waters (1774-1842)
There is an article called
A new editor,
- Griffiths, Barrie (1999). A Spy for Wellington: Sir John William Waters (1774-1842), Cefn Cribwr's Forgotten Hero. Cymdeithas Cynffig. ) — Length 38 pages.
Is it a Wikipedia
) 10:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)What criteria are used to judge newspapers as being RS?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- If only we had a policy on reliable sources that editors could consult, and some sort of noticeboard where they could discuss the specific application of those rules to more difficult, specific, or nuanced questions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- ermmmm...is this sarcasm, perhaps?DrChrissy (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight? Is its reputation in the area of discussion for these particular facts? Which other sources are reporting these facts? Which other sources are reporting contradictory facts? Is the question a matter of WP:MEDRES? How old is the publication? Are there newer sources that have more up to date analysis? Does it have a reputation for scandal and rumor mongoring? Is there a conflict of interest in this particular story that weighs against other criteria? When it makes mistakes, what corrective actions does it take? When it makes mistakes do other reliable sources cover the mistake? Are they covering it because it is a rare event or because mistakes are the stock in trade of the publication?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom20:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which ones have this reputation, which ones don't. It feels a bit like we are asking everyone to reinvent the wheel each time. --ℕ ℱ 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TRPoD. Now we have something we can work with. Do you think the country in which the newspaper is published is relevant - for example, might British newspapers be considered more RS for British matters?DrChrissy (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Locality could be a factor into expertise, which is one of many considerations when it comes to reliability. Locality can also be a source of bias, which does not affect reliability but can affect how an article should frame any claims. I've written an essay at ) 01:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks TRPoD. Now we have something we can work with. Do you think the country in which the newspaper is published is relevant - for example, might British newspapers be considered more RS for British matters?DrChrissy (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Which ones have this reputation, which ones don't. It feels a bit like we are asking everyone to reinvent the wheel each time. --ℕ ℱ 20:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight? Is its reputation in the area of discussion for these particular facts? Which other sources are reporting these facts? Which other sources are reporting contradictory facts? Is the question a matter of
- ermmmm...is this sarcasm, perhaps?DrChrissy (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?
| Newspaper | Country | Age (years) | Does the source have a good or bad reputation for - | Do other sources | Another column | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Checking facts |
Accuracy |
Editorial oversight |
Reporting on this subject |
Correcting its mistakes |
Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours |
Preferentially reporting rare events |
Conflict of interest |
9 |
10 |
Report contradictory facts |
Report mistakes by the source |
Category 1 |
Category 2 | ||||||||||||||||
| Daily Mail | UK | 65 |
bad |
bad |
gooda |
bad |
good |
bad |
good |
bad |
? |
? |
Yes |
Yes |
? |
? | |||||||||||||
| Daily Express | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
Daily Telegraph
|
UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
| The Guardian | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
| Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrChrissy (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Should I call a RfC for this?DrChrissy (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that would be to anyone's benefit, including yours. talk) 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris I'm not sure I understand your point - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy (talk)20:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am close to calling an RfC on this but I would like to be aware of the possible consequences. So, I am repeating my question to you - why would calling an RfC not be to my benefit?DrChrissy (talk)19:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @
- @
- I'm not sure that would be to anyone's benefit, including yours.
- Should I call a RfC for this?DrChrissy (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is the RS noticeboard. YOur post is actually a 'de-facto' RFC. Several people replied already. And going bureaucratic dose not change the fact that we cannot cast in stone what you want. talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is the RS noticeboard. YOur post is actually a 'de-facto' RFC. Several people replied already. And going bureaucratic dose not change the fact that we cannot cast in stone what you want.
You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly.
- Comment People seem to think there is a hidden agenda here - to set things in stone so that there is no point to this Noticeboard. There is no hidden agenda. What I am trying to achieve is some sort of general consensus which can be published as a reference guide so that editors can quickly see that a source might be challenged. Even if this is something like "Tabloid newspapers are generally considered as poor sources and better sources are almost always preferred". I don't understand the reluctance to do something like this.DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:DrChrissy Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are trying to give individual newspapers a general "grade" without regard to the content and context of a particular reference in a specific article. I'm afraid such a contextless "carte blanche" grade is basically meaningless. To make statements like "The Anyburgh Daily Blah is hereby declared to be a Reliable Source, for any and all purposes and for all time" is an excercise in futility. Each individual reference is evaluated within its specific context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am actually more concerned about identifying non-RS. Some editors are already "carte blanche" dismissing sources by leaving edit summaries like "completely unacceptable particularly as a validation of other rumors. no no no no no", "the Daily Mail is a tabloid rarely suitable four [sic] sourcing but certainly not on an issue like this." and "Probably need something better than a HuffPo blog post for this." If these generalist concerns were available, especially to new editors, they would save editors much time and frustration, and lead to better sourced articles.DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with such proposed 'blacklists' is that they lead to arguments to the effect that anything not on the list can be used as a source for anything. That isn't the way it works, and we don't want to give credence to such simplistic thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- If they are identifying the Daily Mail as unreliable, they are most likely right. It is sometimes right, because even they can't be wrong all the time, but they are very frequently wrong, and deliberately so. Guy (Help!) 08:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am actually more concerned about identifying non-RS. Some editors are already "carte blanche" dismissing sources by leaving edit summaries like "completely unacceptable particularly as a validation of other rumors. no no no no no", "the Daily Mail is a tabloid rarely suitable four [sic] sourcing but certainly not on an issue like this." and "Probably need something better than a HuffPo blog post for this." If these generalist concerns were available, especially to new editors, they would save editors much time and frustration, and lead to better sourced articles.DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:DrChrissy Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you are trying to give individual newspapers a general "grade" without regard to the content and context of a particular reference in a specific article. I'm afraid such a contextless "carte blanche" grade is basically meaningless. To make statements like "The Anyburgh Daily Blah is hereby declared to be a Reliable Source, for any and all purposes and for all time" is an excercise in futility. Each individual reference is evaluated within its specific context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [21] In that respect, it's actually worse than
- Thanks for that. It is exactly that sort of information that we need to encapsulate in something like "The Daily Mail is rarely considered to be a reliable source, however, it has a more acceptable reputation when reporting on womens' fashion and shopping".DrChrissy (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. That violates WP:BEANS. The salient fact is that the Daily Mail is usually only reliable on things that are not worth including in Wikipedia. And if we do use them as a source for some trivia, we are attracting clicks to adjacent content which is usually either grossly unreliable or simply creepy (the phrase "all grown up" for example is a hallmark of their obsessive sexualisation of very young women). Guy (Help!) 17:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can we really "violate" what is just an essay?DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is that you shouldn't have hard and fast rules about whether 'x' is a reliable source, because somebody will use it in an argument in an edit war or AfD discussion : "Of course it's a reliable source, it's 'x'". Guy, if you look at my user page, you'll see I keep tabs on BLPs cited to the Sun, the Mail and the Daily Star, which incredibly (as I write this) appears as a citation in no less than 13 BLPs. Please help reduce the backlog. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I really do see the points that are being made here and I am listening. Maybe this is an issue more about editor's behaviour. I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is.DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail didn't get a poor reputation for reporting on the number of dogs killed at an annual festival, if has a poor reputation on everything, especially anything relating to a regime which does not match its ideal (which is somewhat more libertarian than either Thatcher or Reagan). It probably didn't fact-check the number. The Indie might have, but also is quite likely not to have done. That kind of number has a tendency to be speculative and to originate with a group with an agenda. Guy (Help!) 08:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I really do see the points that are being made here and I am listening. Maybe this is an issue more about editor's behaviour. I came to this issue because I wanted to write about the numbers of dogs eaten at an annual festival in China. I found several blogs which stated 10,000 (but obviously non-RS) and then found the Daily Mail article which also stated 10,000. So, I edited the entry only to be told that The Daily Mail was not a suitable source, So, I then researched further and found The Independent also reported 10,000. So where exactly did the Daily Mail gain such a poor reputation for reporting on the numbers of dogs killed at an annual festival in China? This is the context in which the source was used but I believe a much broader brush is being used in these decisions. I really don't care whether the Daily Mail or whatever newspaper is perceived in this way, but I do care that editors should be informed somewhere of how broad this brush is.DrChrissy (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the point is that you shouldn't have hard and fast rules about whether 'x' is a reliable source, because somebody will use it in an argument in an edit war or AfD discussion : "Of course it's a reliable source, it's 'x'". Guy, if you look at my user page, you'll see I keep tabs on BLPs cited to the Sun, the Mail and the Daily Star, which incredibly (as I write this) appears as a citation in no less than 13 BLPs. Please help reduce the backlog. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can we really "violate" what is just an essay?DrChrissy (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No. That violates
- Thanks for that. It is exactly that sort of information that we need to encapsulate in something like "The Daily Mail is rarely considered to be a reliable source, however, it has a more acceptable reputation when reporting on womens' fashion and shopping".DrChrissy (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I strongly agree this would be a valuable resource and I have never understood why it doesn't exist. While we should make clear that there is no definitive list and RSes are judged on a case-by-case basis, the specific questions "Does the publication have a reputation for fact checking, accuracy and editorial oversight?" can and should be answered in a table like this. It would be an especially valuable resource to people who just stumble on a paper they are unfamiliar with, which happens all the time. How are you supposed to know if the Weekly So-and-so has a reputation for fact checking? Well, maybe someone else knows. I don't think there's a reasonable objection to making public and accessible the community's consensus on how specific newspapers generally measure up in terms of these standards. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't exist because it would encourage a rules-based approach that lost sight of the actual content, so unreliable content could be supported because it's in a place that's usually reliable and vice-versa. It's not as if anybody will be unaware that 90% of what the Daily Mail writes is dross, after all. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure where you get your statistics from, but it would be interesting to know the demographics of the survey. Are 15-yr-olds aware of this reputation - especially the ones that are directed to edit on WP as a school exercise? How many US, Chinese, French (enter any non-UK country) citizens are aware of this reputation? We need to let them know.DrChrissy (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, when I'm dealing with foreign papers, especially Indian ones, it's rarely clear what's dreck and what isn't. Even with American and British sources, there are simply so many different ones, and I never know how to find out if they fact check. Does the average person know that The Daily Beast is a quality paper? We see the Huffington Post cited all the time, and it's clear most people don't know anything about its editorial practices. What about The New York Post - it's a tabloid, but does that mean it doesn't fact-check? The answer is only obvious if you hang out at RSN. Again, there needs to be a disclaimer, and it needs to be made clear that consulting the table is not a substitute for judging whether the specific information cited is reliable in context, but information about the editorial practices of newspapers should not be kept secret. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure where you get your statistics from, but it would be interesting to know the demographics of the survey. Are 15-yr-olds aware of this reputation - especially the ones that are directed to edit on WP as a school exercise? How many US, Chinese, French (enter any non-UK country) citizens are aware of this reputation? We need to let them know.DrChrissy (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is almost certainly canny enough to stay on the right side of libel laws, which in the UK are largely the privilege of the rich and powerful, it being very expensive to fight a libel case. To that extent they may be reliable, the problem with them (and even more other tabloids), is the simplistic coverage. I don't see how WP could have a 'star' rating, as others have said, the context matters. A generally reliable paper like the Grauniad, consciously prints comments which are not mainstream and which are not the papers own analysis, to that extent such pieces are the opinions of the writer ONLY, as I'm sure do other notable papers. The Daily Mail would be as good a place as any for the opinion of Citizen X if that is the claim we are trying to support.Pincrete (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't exist because it would encourage a rules-based approach that lost sight of the actual content, so unreliable content could be supported because it's in a place that's usually reliable and vice-versa. It's not as if anybody will be unaware that 90% of what the Daily Mail writes is dross, after all. Guy (Help!) 16:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE context. Markbassett (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- That interpretation of ) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a great question, DrChrissy. I would like to expand this question to two parts. What makes a newspaper a reliable source for:
- sourcing a claim's truthiness
- establishing a claim's weight or importance?
- I've been lambasted in the past for citing newspaper articles to include a report on a lawsuit against Monsanto, in which my critics said that a particular newspaper has a history of critical reporting against Monsanto. On the other hand, i think there are biases that most people don't see because they're like the water to the fish, such as that the Wall Street Journal has a strong pro-business and pro-capitalism bias, and therefore their reporting would lend more than due weight to anything that promotes this political agenda. But their brand has the appearance of gravity and establishment acceptance, so they're rarely questioned on that basis. I think there is a danger that the "establishment" positions get strongly biased because they are establishment. Establishment does not mean consensus, but rather that which favors the status quo power structure.
- As to the original question, i tend to have a profile of many news sources in my memory bank, and to update them as i learn more from experience with that news source. Some sources i just don't even go to, given their abysmal track record in regard to bias and distortion. Others, i take on a case-by-case basis. SageRad (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- That is disingenuous. The problem was is your advocacy, not just the sources you use for it. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wat? JzG? People opposing the inclusion objected on the basis of the news sources being "crappy". That would not occur if it were reported in the WSJ or NYT or some other "establishement" news source, yet a news source that is named "AntiMedia" is not deemed worthy even though it's got an editorial board and the reporter who wrote the story about the lawsuit has authored 220 papers for that news source, and seems to be a genuine reporter on the job. So... there is definitely a power dynamic that involves establishment news sources being privileged, and also having a more establishment point of view, and therefore the establishment point of view gets de facto privileged here in Wikipedia, as well. Being "establishment" does not make a point of view more valid, but means that it's the point of view favored by the establishment, which means the people with the power in the status quo, and therefore it favors the maintenance of the status quo. This is a very strong bias that is built into society and it's mirrored and perhaps even amplified by Wikipedia. I think we should be aware of it. We should not be afraid to name it, describe it, and see what it is. Then we can decide whether to address it in some way, such as by not privileging establishment news sources above alternative news sources. We can judge based on quality of reporting, not based on point of view. We can cease to call every single alternative publication a "fringe" publication as that is a term that derides a publication solely for diverging from the establishment point of view. Judge based on quality, not on alliance with a sector of society. SageRad (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- That is disingenuous. The problem was is your advocacy, not just the sources you use for it. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is certainly a reliable source. Like other newspapers they are sometimes wrong, but correct their errors. I think the main issue is weight. If something is only covered in the DM, then it is likely insignificant. Echo chamber stories for example may be reported there. For example an article might say, "According to the [right-wing] XYZ Foundation, [insert latest conspiracy theory here]." And the article would be accurate, XYZ Foundation actually said that. But there would be no reason for us to pick up on the story unless it hit mainstream media. The WSJ news reporting by the way does not have a pro-business, pro-capitalist bias, any more than other mainstream media, only the editorial page does. TFD (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is of course not possible to give general formulae. But if the Daily Mail reports something on science, most probably the opposite is true. But often they are not even wrong. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian and The_Four_Deuces, i have noticed very bad, one could say counter-factual, reporting about climate change and fossil fuels issues from both the Daily Mail and the Wall Street Journal, and i mean reporting, not just editorial page. Here, in fact. is a report about the issue in regard to WSJ, based on a study recently published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. And, i continue to assert my claim that the WSJ -- both in the reporting and the editorials -- is pro-capitalist to an extent that is pretty much ideologically bound. It is a paper of the establishment in terms of socioeconomic class, and it cannot be expected to have the same perspective as a more populist news source. There are indeed perspectives embodied in different news sources, and it's not just the explicit opinions in the op-ed pages. SageRad (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- To clarify, I am not talking about "hot button" issues like climate change. The basic practice in many news media is simply to take a press release about some alleged study, often put out by a totally unqualified person, and report it as fact. There are many firms who specialize in hyping up such things, thus, you find every other day "X cures cancer" or "Y causes cancer", based on studies that show no such thing. The Daily Mail is worse in this respect because of it sensationalist tabloid structure, but many mainstream outlets are pretty bad as well. One good source about this matter is this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 11:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Kingsindian and The_Four_Deuces, i have noticed very bad, one could say counter-factual, reporting about climate change and fossil fuels issues from both the Daily Mail and the Wall Street Journal, and i mean reporting, not just editorial page. Here, in fact. is a report about the issue in regard to WSJ, based on a study recently published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. And, i continue to assert my claim that the WSJ -- both in the reporting and the editorials -- is pro-capitalist to an extent that is pretty much ideologically bound. It is a paper of the establishment in terms of socioeconomic class, and it cannot be expected to have the same perspective as a more populist news source. There are indeed perspectives embodied in different news sources, and it's not just the explicit opinions in the op-ed pages. SageRad (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is of course not possible to give general formulae. But if the Daily Mail reports something on science, most probably the opposite is true. But often they are not even wrong. Kingsindian ♝♚ 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
'
- In my opinion, asking whether a major news media source is reliable (or not) is the wrong question. The question that I think should be asked is: how much WEIGHT we should we give news reports? (and the answer to that will depend on specifics... context is always important.) Blueboar (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I would suggest "celebrity news and gossip" is almost invariably problematic for every single newspaper I can think of, and is worthy of the "weight" of a helium balloon at best. Any other claims should be weighed in accord with the strength and number of sources, not just saying "this is the only source, so it must be reliable, and I want this claim in the article" <g>. Lastly, if a source retracts an article as being libelous or inaccurate, then the cite linking to the original claim becomes extremely marginal at best. Retractions are generally done "for cause."
- SageRad, thanks for pointing that out. I guess my view was outdated, as the WSJ pre-Murdoch was much more balanced. But that does not change my overall view. Certainly right-wing media will provide greater emphasis to certain views, but that does not affect whether or not their reporting is factual. Kingsindian, they do not report fringe theories as fact. They will say things such as "a recent study shows that x may prevent cancer." And of course the study, which was published in the academic press probably did say that. But ) 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @WP:MEDRS exists, but I was talking about newspapers, like the Daily Mail, on science in general. Kingsindian ♝♚14:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @
- The problem is editors who think headlines are the same as articles. Frequently, a full article in any newspaper gives the proper qualifying sense and detail (including the Daily Mail actual full articles) while the headline is written by ... a headline writer. The intent of that person is to hook a reader (e.g. the "hooks" given for clickbait sites). I rather think that using the "headline" for any claim is beyond iffy, but there are those who regard the headlines fondly <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Collect: I wish that were true. However, the body of the articles are often just as inaccurate, or as I mentioned earlier "not even wrong". The reason is that they are basically writing the press release put out by a PR firm. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Um -- I suggest you note that press releases are used by just about every major newspaper now - recall that staffing levels at newspapers in general are down more than 40% in less than a decade. Revenues for newspapers are down about 60% in the same general time period. For medical press releases see [22] back in 1998 - " Of the 1060 newspaper stories analyzed, 142 referred to journal articles; of these, 119 (84%) referred to articles mentioned in press releases and 23 (16%) referred to journal articles not mentioned in press releases (comparison of proportions, P=.03). Articles described first or second were referenced in more newspapers than articles described later in the press release (P=.01 by chi2 analysis." Yep - newspapers even back I 1998 relied very heavily on those press releases, an did not do too much work as journals not mentioned near the top of the release did nit get mentioned in articles.
- [23] 2003 "Maryland.—In a breakthrough discovery that may change the face of scientific communication forever, a researcher has found that, although journalists rely on press releases to bring important discoveries to their attention, they do not write news stories about every press release they receive. Even more striking is the discovery that press releases from scientific journals sometimes present incomplete information about scientific findings.
- “I’m shocked, just shocked”, said the author of the article, which appears in the current issue of Science Editor. “I never would have guessed that journalists would have such blatant disregard for what they are told is news, and I never would have suspected that journals aren’t neurotically meticulous in their press releases.” ("fake" press release used for real article following)
- (actual finding) Woloshin and Schwartz found that 23% of the press releases mentioned study limitations, and 65% quantified study results. (JAMA study)
- In short - often the fault is in the press release sent out by the actual medial journal, and something an editor would not normally call back on. (read the full article - it also deals with specific newspapers)
- [24] (covering the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, and Times) In 2008, researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, UK, discovered that 60 percent of the articles in British newspapers the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Independent had been copied from wire reports and press announcements issued by various corporations, businesses and universities. Three out of four such stories had also gone to print without being fact-checked, a trend that seems widespread: in 2012, an audit sponsored by the European Observatory of Journalism found factual errors in approximately half of all news stories published in Switzerland, Italy and the United States
- 60% - and including the "elite" newspapers in the same group. [25] "Most newspaper articles (72%) were written by named journalists (the unnamed journalist category refers to labels such as ‘Daily Mail Reporter’) and in nearly a quarter of cases were there was no clear identification of who had written the story (as is often the case with Nibs). Only 1% of stories were directly attributable to PA or other wire services (see Table 2.4). At first glance, then, these data suggest that the newspapers give the impression that they depend on their own journalists rather than wires or other outside sources." then " Indeed, 30% of the stories in our press sample replicated wire service copy almost directly, and a further 19% were largely dependent on wire copy. In other words, nearly half of all press stories appeared to come wholly or mainly from wire services. " Even where a "journalist" gets a by-line.
- DM gets a hit "So, for example, a story about the health risks of eating oily fish (‘Why oily fish might not be so good for your health after all’, Daily Mail Reporter, Daily Mail, March 24th 2006, p7) directly replicates facts and quotations taken from two Press Association stories, and another from the regional news wire Mercury." but not for being "inaccurate" but for copying inaccurate material from what Wikipedia would normally accept as a "reliable source."
- "Despite the covert nature of much PR activity, we expected to find examples of PR playing an agenda-setting role. However, in many cases the influence of PR goes much further. We found that nearly one in five newspaper stories and 17% of broadcast stories were verifiably derived mainly or wholly from PR material or activity (Table 2.6) – which suggests that the practice is rather more typical than John Lloyd’s critique suggests."
- "For example, a Times story headlined ‘George Cross for Iraq War Hero’ (Michael Evans, The Times, 24th March 2006, p27) is an almost verbatim repetition of a press release issued by the Ministry of Defence. " also from The Times "An example of a print story that mainly consists of information from a single source of PR material is an article in The Times about a new league table of UK Heart Surgeons (‘Hand on heart, who is the best surgeon?’, Nigel Hawkes, The Times, 27th April 2006, p16). The article is almost wholly derived from a press release issued by the Healthcare Commission," uzw.
- In short - even a decade or more ago, newspapers were dominated by press release material - and the situation is worse today by far (noting that US newspaper employment is down over 40% - and the number of actual newspaper journalists is down much more as the total "newsroom" count includes the "web editors.") Back in 1998 [26] " Like most news organizations, Business Week has no choice but to put its trust in the fairness and accuracy of its reporters, because neither money nor time allows for writers' work to be formally fact-checked. ", then "At the same time, newsmagazines are curtailing their fact-checking budgets and requiring their writers to verify those details once double-checked by others. And at many newspapers, those traditional sentinels of accuracy, editors and copy editors, are expected to focus more than ever on presentation of stories, less on their content." then " One more fact-checking caveat. Most researchers rarely trust newspaper clips. Not formally fact-checked before publication, say magazine staffers, they're just too prone to contain errors. "We're not going to trust that the New York Times has been fact-checked," says Forbes' Kroll. " Clear?
- [27] from Forbes is fun to read - managing to note a newspaper which ran a headline "Amphibious Pitcher Makes Debut" But wait, there's more!
- [28] The Times again " Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error." In 2015 they should have caught it earlier. And delightfully The New York Times "An earlier version of this column misidentified the sea that God parted in the Book of Exodus. It is the Red Sea, not the Dead Sea." Although I suppose Lot parted the Dead Sea ...
- What we have left? No newspaper is as assiduous in fact-checking as it was even 15 years ago. Even "elite" papers routinely use press releases without actually looking t the studies puffed. Silly proof-readers are no longer used at newspapers - they rely on automated spill chuckers. And thus the theoretical belief that "good newspapers always check facts" is gone with the wind. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble - but papers that used to have a dozen (low paid) fact checkers now generally have zero. Their old group of actual proofreaders - gone forever. One newspaper (?) [29] offers zero money for "volunteer proofreaders"! In 1909, New York City alone[30] had on the order of 1000 compositors and proofreaders. Many "working" proofreaders get well under $25K p.a. (bottom 10% get under $19K) In New York. A person at the proposed new minimum wage for fry cooks there will make over $30K p.a.
- I trust the points are clear - so will leave with [31] The New York Times got rid of all its remaining 125 Linotype operators and proofreaders (many did both due to cutbacks) - by 1990. In short - "elite" papers also run press releases. The main and substantiated difference is down to headline witing - and the job of the headline writer is the same as the "clickbait" writer - no more, no less. If anyone uses a newspaper article, note that the real journalist does not write the headlines. Until we have genuine amphibious pitchers in baseball. Collect (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry I did not read that wall of text fully. I of course know that many newspapers use press releases, and that there have been lots of cutbacks due to financial operations. However, whatever you want to prove by that, you haven't shown that "main and substantiated difference is down to headline writing". Standards may or may not have slipped at the NYT, but it would need a lot more direct evidence to convince me that they are anywhere close to the Daily Mail. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the links as well - there is a large amount of extremely relevant material in them -- gist is that virtually all newspapers routinely run press releases, that essentially no newspapers do any fact-checking any more, and spill chuckers have made proofreaders redundant (unemployed) (except for people who believe in "amphibious baseball players). Headlines do not necessarily reflect the actual content of any article in any publication - including The Times and The Guardian, The Independent and others., and this is backed up by formal studies. Also that where there are inaccuracies, they are generally due to the person or group preparing the press release -- including press releases from some major medical journals etc. Three of the sources I gave, by the way, include comments on "headline writing" . See [32] for yet another cite to not read <-g>. The Sunday Times ran a headline "Only 100 Adult Cod Left in the North Sea, [33] which the BBC said "may be the most inaccurate headline in history." And one of my very favourites [34] "TITANIC SINKING; NO LIVES LOST" Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry I did not read that wall of text fully. I of course know that many newspapers use press releases, and that there have been lots of cutbacks due to financial operations. However, whatever you want to prove by that, you haven't shown that "main and substantiated difference is down to headline writing". Standards may or may not have slipped at the NYT, but it would need a lot more direct evidence to convince me that they are anywhere close to the Daily Mail. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Collect: I wish that were true. However, the body of the articles are often just as inaccurate, or as I mentioned earlier "not even wrong". The reason is that they are basically writing the press release put out by a PR firm. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is editors who think headlines are the same as articles. Frequently, a full article in any newspaper gives the proper qualifying sense and detail (including the Daily Mail actual full articles) while the headline is written by ... a headline writer. The intent of that person is to hook a reader (e.g. the "hooks" given for clickbait sites). I rather think that using the "headline" for any claim is beyond iffy, but there are those who regard the headlines fondly <g>. Collect (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the Daily Mail is getting very specific ire because of it's right-wing position, as there are similar left-wing tabloid-oriented sites used as sources like
Kingsindian, do you have any specific examples of where the DM stated as a fact something that was not in the source where no retraction was issued? Article headlines, titles of books, etc., btw are never reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- This is a marvelously unfocused discussion, more like a forum, which is not surprising, given the vague question. To TFD, that is not how it works. Most outlets cover themselves by simply quoting X and Y, as "he said/she said", together with some garbled analysis. Whether X is total bollocks and Y is the accurate one, they don't say. I don't claim this is unique to the DM, but they do have a large proportion of space given to total bollocks. Here is a simple example. Notice that it is not just the headline, it is almost the entire article. Here is another about the PR firm issue I was talking about. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- IOW the DM reports accurately, which is the criterion for reliable sources. Certainly there are all kinds of policies and guidelines to prevent some DM articles being used in some Wikipedia articles, just as there are for other mainstream media. But a blanket ban is unsupported by policy. TFD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is talking about a blanket ban on DM, at least I didn't. Your characterization that "DM" reports accurately is not correct. If you devote a whole story to bollocks, quoting a single totally unreliable source (which is what the second link I gave is), that does not make it reliable. Selection of sources is as important as quoting what the sources say. You can always find some crackpot to say anything at all. Anyway, this is far afield. The topic in this thread is too vague to have meaningful discussion anyway. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- IOW the DM reports accurately, which is the criterion for reliable sources. Certainly there are all kinds of policies and guidelines to prevent some DM articles being used in some Wikipedia articles, just as there are for other mainstream media. But a blanket ban is unsupported by policy. TFD (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- IMO. there are zero "reliable sources" for contentious celebrity gossip. Period. No DM headlines, nor any newspaper headlines, should be presumed to accurately reflect the body of the article to which it is attached. From any source. Where a newspaper is clearly using a "press release" of any sort, we should also examine the source to which it refers as being of superior weight. And where any column is basically "opinion" we should always ascribe the opinion and cite it as opinion. The "failings" of the DM are substantially in the sensational headlines - but even the best newspapers run afoul in that regard (vide "amphibious pitcher" in baseball). Collect (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually did read user:Collect’s “wall of text” and I encourage all who have not to do so. The reason this question seems “vague” and the discussion “marvelously unfocussed” is that the question has no good answer, and yet it points directly at the heart of the hypocrisy about epistemological questions regarding news, that is Wikipedia. Which all gets stuck right here on discussions at this RS noticeboard.
Physicist Richard Feynman has a story about people arguing about the length of the Emperor of China’s nose. They make various guesses and then they do statistics. Finally they reach consensus, but none of it is any improvement, since none of them has actually seen the Emperor of China. All that is exactly the same thing you get when you reach a consensus about the reliability of some tabloid and a particular story in it, here on the notice-board. None of us really knows the truth about the report. We also really have no realistic way of judging the reliability of any given newspaper, nor does anybody do this for us. Reliability of various sources changes rapidly anyway, as they lose money and fire fact checkers (finding that they don’t really matter). So that leaves us up the creek without a paddle. Any consensus here on such matters, means nothing. It is worse than nothing, because it actually pretends to knowledge that simply isn’t available.
How did we get here? A lot of
But the stuff in WP:IRS got used to make the RS guidelines within WP:V. This, in turn, is a core content policy, a pillar of WP. So this newspaper thing was back-doored in. Because unfortunately, the “V” part of WP:V is trivial (all it means is: can you look it up and find it in the cite?). It’s entirely the unsung RS part of WP:V that is hard. And which is the part that now is shoveled like dust under the rug. And yet was written by the essayists at IRS in 2005-6 and now magically is “policy”. One that people on the noticeboard try hopelessly to follow, as though it was graven in stone on tablets from Moses. These old IRS essay people, however, were journalists with an odd point of view that was historical and not at all scientific. Does the newspaper have a “reputation” for reliability, they ask. This is risible. As for the fact-checking issue, that’s discussed up there in user:Collect’s “wall of text”. It’s kind of horrifying.
Meanwhile, the biomedical people took on the challenge and put in some useful guidelines in
Wikipedia is a very strange place, not like any other, where the writer’s personal expertise on any given subject is not trusted. And yet, there comes a time in the epistemological chain when we reach the end, and somebody (everybody present) must take a flying guess, yea or nay. When it comes to pages like this one, the going opinion on which tabloids are reliable for which story, is put up exactly like the argument on the Emperor of China. The odd part is that if somebody actually did show up and claimed to be employed by a given newspaper and actually did know something about its reliability, we’d in theory give him no special notice, as his/her opinion on the matter would be worth no more than any odd person who turned up for the IRS debate on any given day, source, and topic, and gave an uninformed opinion on the matter. So here we are. It’s not very satisfying, is it? SBHarris 04:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate the extensive commentary by Collect and Sbharris. "It's a well-known fact that it's a well-known fact" speaks to my trouble with the concept that there is a "mainstream media" that is acceptable and a "fringe media" that is not acceptable. I feel that this may be "somewhat and generally" the case but that there are enough exceptions as well as a deeper dynamic that troubles this very model and results in it being a rule that perpetuates an ideological status quo. I will explain what i mean by the latter more. I feel there is a sort of "consensus reality" that is no more the "real reality" than other perspectives upon reality may be called "real reality" and that it's perpetuated largely in the unspoken assumptions of what we call "mainstream media". It's as unseen as water is to fish. Fish live in water but may not be aware of it. We live in this mainstream discursive universe and hardly question it most of the time. Basic concepts that we think as as real as rocks and rain may actually be relative constructs that are reified into seeming real by repetition. Then, limiting sources to what is called "mainstream media" is actually limiting the reflection of reality that Wikipedia comprises, to that particular version of reality that is the not-so-visible mainstream "consensus". The argument i am making is somewhat along the lines of Chomsky and Herman in Manufacturing Consent. I know there are some who will say "Pshhh, take your Chomsky and jump in a lake" but this is a real concern and i come up against it here in Wikipedia sometimes, when a source that has done real reporting is rejected because it's not "mainstream" enough. I'm concerned not only with the factuality of existing reporting, but also what is reported and what is not. I suppose that discussion regards notability or weight and belongs at the NPOV noticeboard, but the two are so inextricably linked that they are naturally spoken together -- two parts of the same thing. The questions of *what* is reported and then *how* it is reported. Both shape the picture of reality that the reader absorbs, and both are subject to influence of the establishment power structure, to maintain a "consensus reality". SageRad (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments seem off topic. Indeed the effect of weight is that articles will perpetuate the ideological status quo. That is the objective - that WP articles will read the same as what one would expect in a mainstream newspaper or academic textbook. TFD (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)\
- I hear your point, but i also take issue with it. It's circular because what is "mainstream"? If it is what most editors use as sources then that's cool. They're the most seen, read, cited, relied upon, etc, because they are the most used, and therefore get the most play among most editors. However, if an editor finds a news source that is not the New York Times and yet has a record of being reliable, and another editor objects to inclusion because it's not a "mainstream news source" then what is the remedy? Or do we want this type of exclusion to be possible here? If it's not among "All the news that's fit to print" then we can never print it either, despite Wikipedia's innate strength as being a huge collaboration among many people with many different exposures to information? I hear your comment, but i think mine is very much on topic, and i think it's relevant to this discussion as well as much of my experience here on Wikipedia, with conservative editors blocking additions because they say the source is not "mainstream" enough and yet can never define what they mean by "mainstream" and it seems their working definition is "anything that i agree with" and therefore it leads to a strong-arming possible by status quo defenders, and that is not the mission of Wikipedia. The mission is to use verifiable and reliable sources to establish weight and accuracy. That is not synonymous with reproducing the New York Times, but rather richer than that. It's not a fringe or advocacy platform, but neither is it Archie Bunker's project. It's a product of collaboration of thoughtful editors. SageRad (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your comments seem off topic. Indeed the effect of weight is that articles will perpetuate the ideological status quo. That is the objective - that WP articles will read the same as what one would expect in a mainstream newspaper or academic textbook. TFD (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)\
- Sage, there's no conspiracy here. It's not as if mainstream media is some sort of picky, selective, high-standards bloc. My experience is that they will print anything they think will get eyes on their pages, so long as it's not actually false. End even then…
- Looking at your efforts at TALK:Monsanto legal cases, the very minor case you are trying to get included has zero MSM mentions. You've put up one or two fringe bloggy things as RS, and all the rest of your argument is just that, argument. If the case had any merit at all, we'd have a tonne of good reliable sources, and there'd be no argument. But we don't, and so we're having this same discussion all over WP, as you try to find somebody who thinks the same way you do. My experience in this chaos of editors is that there are any number of open-minded, well-read, clever, resourceful and driven people. People much like yourself. But we're also a collaboration, and we have to get along together.
- Re: last sentence: pure rhetoric. Empty.
- Re: Monsanto legal cases, fact is wrong: you say i've put up one or two fringy bloggy things. I've put up edited publications, including The Epoch Times, which is not the New York Times but is also not "Dave's Blog on Dave's Opinions". It's a newspaper published fifteen years now, and has won these awards and received praise from very distinguished newspeople. So on he facts, you're wrong here. Nullified your argument.
- Lastly -- and most important -- you resort to the very circular argument that i am rebelling loudly against. You wrote "If the case had any merit at all, we'd have a tonne of good reliable sources, and there'd be no argument." Well, that's not inherently true. There is some filtering in the news media according to establishment versus anti-establishment events and information. Your assertion here is that because it's not printed in the New York Times ("All the news that's fit to print" -- think about the meaning of the word "fit" here for a minute) that it has no merit. You directly said that, right here. That's the circular argument. That's the power of establishment media to disappear things that disagree with it. If it's not reported, it didn't happen. Do you know who covered the civil trial regarding the death of Martin Luther King in the U.S.? The sole paper that was there for the trial was Publico, the Porugal daily. No U.S. paper was there. Was it insignificant? Would it have been unmentionable on Wikipedia if Publico had not attended? Fallacies. SageRad (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your closing example is misleading in the extreme; the King civil trial was covered extensively by reliable sources (e.g. New York Times, CBS, etc), so obviously it is "mentionable on Wikipedia" regardless of Publico's coverage. More generally, you are free to believe what you like about "the power of establishment media to disappear things", but you cannot use Wikipedia to try to redress that perceived problem. What you're doing is the essence of 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Re: MLK trial, point taken. I had the facts wrong. Not intended to mislead. What i had heard was that the only paper that had a reporter in the trial every day was Publico, and i misstated that. Sorry and acknowledged. On the topic of whether i am doing "tendentious editing" however, i strongly disagree. I'm not using Wikipedia to redress establishment media bias, but simply saying that we do not need to slavishly follow the establishment media's lead in full exactitude, as we do have many legitimate media sources available that are not so establishment, and yet which are reliable and reasonably indicate weight.
- As for your saying that i refuse to listen to anyone's feedback, that's just wrong. Where do you get that idea? I listen, i think about it, and i can respond with either "ok, i think you're right" or "no, you're not right because..." or "you seem to misunderstand me in this way..." etc. I'm in dialogue. I find that comment insulting and wrong. Can you really back that up? Can you really show that i do not listen and consider what other people say here? In fact, the very thing i am writing right now is based on listening to you and considering what you said, and responding. SageRad (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Your closing example is misleading in the extreme; the King civil trial was covered extensively by reliable sources (e.g. New York Times, CBS, etc), so obviously it is "mentionable on Wikipedia" regardless of Publico's coverage. More generally, you are free to believe what you like about "the power of establishment media to disappear things", but you cannot use Wikipedia to try to redress that perceived problem. What you're doing is the essence of 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
| ) 01:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the argument over SageRad’s position, I hope what I said above (which is different) has not been overlooked. To wit, if the NPOV expanded guideline WP:NPOV : “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” Okay, fine, but finding the prevalence of belief among Wikipedia editors (or that subset who regularly turn up at the RS noticeboard) is very often exactly how we arrive at what we CONSIDER reliable sources, to begin with (!). In what world does that make sense?
There are places where this little conundrum has been noticed, and my favorite place where WP tries desperately to avoid the contradiction in epistemology, is at WP:NPOV . There, the editors of that article take on the problem in a bold statement and footnote (8):
“A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal. (footnote) A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal.” Aha! So in order to tell if a journal is reliable, one must find out if it is peer-reviewed, and treated as a reliable peer-reviewed journal in OTHER reliable peer-reviewed sources. Thus, (to compress this thought) we simply need reliable sources that tell us (directly or indirectly) what other reliable sources are. If we have a reliable source that treat another source as reliable, we’re home free. Or not. For then we’d need a reliable source for which sources are reliable in judging primary sources to be reliable. And then a reliable source for THAT judgment. You go down this rat hole infinitely (it’s turtles all the way down), until finally you give up and go here to the RS noticeboard and find out what the consensus is, of random guys who show up here. Hmmm. That’s what we do for “yesterday’s news from Gaza” or whatever. The only alternative is simply to weight things for NPOV based on mass circulation numbers of the news source (but what do we do for CNN?). If some example of tabloid journalism has large circulation numbers, we have to trust it (or give it NPOV “weight”) to that circulation extent. By the way, the tabloid journalism article I notice is lacking in citations about the reliability of tabloid journalism, which it claims is low. And is heavily tagged as lacking citations. So indeed, how do we know reliability of tabloids are low? What reliable sources say they are low, and (more importantly) HOW DO THEY KNOW? The lack of citations and presence of citation-needed tags in this article is telling. Or at least I think it is. Funny, too. ;’p The alternative for science matters is to look for “commonly accepted textbooks” (if only we had a method of telling what those are—sales? But undergrad physics texts do better than graduate student texts). In medicine, where we’d like to do things at a level a little sooner and finer than it takes to get into medical student textbooks, Doc James and his crowd over at WP:MEDRS are trying to get editors to recognize secondary reviews over tertiary ones, and says that “The best evidence comes primarily from meta analysis of randomized controlled [human] trials.” This is often true, but not always. Where is the citation for it? In a reliable source? Would it be a source that uses meta analysis of randomized controlled trials? No? Then just what is the Gold Standard of Medical Truth by which this statement stands? (My reservations about this are on the basis of an academic background which I cannot prove to you, and which officially doesn’t count here anyway).
Why (in light of official policy) do we have nameless anonymous WP editors, whose medical knowledge we do not trust, poking about the journals for “meta analysis of randomized controlled trials”? Do we only trust Doc James to do this? Why? Is it the “Doc” in this username? Does that help? Here is some irony: one of the papers cited in this very policy which now gives primacy to meta analyses [35] also gives some weight to Eysenck’s criticism that meta analyses of trials in medicine can give an impression of weight which hides bias, and sometimes the (supposed) reliability of meta analyses is NOT borne out by single very large trials, which are taken by the medical community as better. (For example, the meta analysis on magnesium for heart attacks looked good, but the ISIS-4 trial showed it was no good, so now we don’t believe it.) At this point, you’re all saying: “But that’s a matter for the particular subject”. Wrong. It’s a matter for the whole WP:MEDRS policy, which shouldn’t be trying to do what it is trying to do, without admitting that WP’s RS policy is mocked thereby.
The point here is that we’re not (or should not be) prepared to argue the fine details of evidence-based medicine, as policy for reporting medical "fact" on WP, when the very wonks who push for evidence based medicine in the real world, cannot agree among themselves. Are we? I’ll be glad to argue it, but do any of you know anything about it? WP can report on points of view about this, but ultimately to go beyond that, must trust in the expertise of its editors (Doc James, I see) to see that that some point of view about “truthiness” (which is proxied by “reliability”) is translated into WP:MEDRS policy. This goes double in other areas: WP obviously is relying on some kind of expertise or judgment of its editors about sources, to resolve WP:RS questions here, about yesterday’s news, on a case-by-case basis. So why not just admit this? An editor (or group of interested editors) that can be trusted to tell if a source is itself “reliable” can just as easily be trusted to tell if the source’s statements of fact are reliable. No? One question about "reliability" ("likely to be true" = probably Truth) is no different than the other. Can I hear from those who think they are different? SBHarris 01:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
|
- The hatted text is amazing. It's turtles all the way down. SageRad (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Apparently pointing out a contradiction in RS policy in page-length terms is trying to make a "forum." I'm new here (though not to WP) and didn't realize that somebody already WP:OWNedthis page.
- Apparently pointing out a contradiction in RS policy in page-length terms is trying to make a "forum." I'm new here (though not to WP) and didn't realize that somebody already
- So-- we let random groups of editors here vote or decide by consensus what sources are "reliable" (i.e. likely to print truth = truthy)? How is letting random editors decide what sources for facts are reliable, differ from letting random groups of editors decide directly what facts are reliable? Is it not the same thing? In both cases, WP doesn't officially trust editors' expertise. But if you need a reference instead of your intuition or education, you go down a rat-hole, because then you need a reference for the reliability of THAT reference, and so on. Would somebody like to explain? SBHarris 02:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well put. Perhaps this discussion belongs on the talk page.
- We cannot define a reliable source with any certainty, for the turtling already mentioned. We can, however, use the established wikimethod of finding consensus here, by indicating the source, the article, the material and any prior discussion. The opinions of editors and discussion back and forth soon highlights any problems with a source. Whether a source is reliable or not differs with the circumstances. I would not trust mainstream media to reliably identify a military armoured vehicle as a tank, for example. All too often I see personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, scout cars and the like labelled as tanks.
- Going hand in mouth with reliability is the question of notability. A supposedly mainstream topic that receives no mainstream coverage is unlikely to be notable. Discussion here, with the random editors who show up. is likely to bring out all the pros and cons of a source, as relevant to the topic. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- The questions begging to be asked are *still*:
- Is "mainstream media" really the phrase we want to use to identify sources that we'll accept for establishing the facts and notability of everything under the sun?
- Even if so, what counts as "mainstream media"?
- Who decides what comprises "mainstream media"?
- What if one editor thinks a source is decent and another editor thinks it's fluff? How do you then reach consensus?
- As you and i know, these are real questions that play out in real discussions here on Wikipedia. And they resolve somehow, but do they resolve justly, or just by some people continuing to insist "my way or the highway" as i've pretty much seen most of the time here on Wikipedia on any page that's called "controversial" (which means there is a status quo vested interest in maintaining a specific version of it)? SageRad (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- The questions begging to be asked are *still*:
- Going hand in mouth with reliability is the question of notability. A supposedly mainstream topic that receives no mainstream coverage is unlikely to be notable. Discussion here, with the random editors who show up. is likely to bring out all the pros and cons of a source, as relevant to the topic. --Pete (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the heavy metal music article include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians?
There is a new RfC asking if the heavy metal music article should include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians. It is posted here on the RS/Noticeboard because Reliable Sources are one of the matters under discussion. To view and/or participate, follow the link here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Cracked
Is Cracked.com a reliable source for the article
- It is a reliable source for the claim "The Cracked.com article included a gallery of the six "most terrifying sex illustrations on Wikipedia", and for the claim "Cyriaque Lamar of Cracked.com called the images 'goddamn hilarious' and also compared them to airline safety pamphlets. Lamar acknowledged their educational value but criticized them for being too pornographic for pedagogical purposes." because Cracked.com a reliable source for claims about what is on a Cracked.com page. If anyone tries to use the page as a citation for, say, claiming that Liza Minnelli is turning into a werewolf, it would not be a reliable source for that claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, the author of the cracked.com article is listed as a "senior editor" on the site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I concur with Guy Macon. This isn't really a reliable source issue since the cite is for commentary -- see Calidum01:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
References for Cultural appropriation
Cultural appropriation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ok, so we are having a discussion about the suitability of references for the article cultural appropriation.
first, i would like to request a review of the references currently in-use; both on their own merits, & as a comparison "baseline" for the proposed additions.
second, here is a list of references that are being considered. i do not suggest that ALL of them merit inclusion; my goal has been to compile a list of everything relevant, & then thin it out. the other 2 users who have been involved in the conversation have provided only limited consideration of the matter, resorting to mostly "blanket objections". after repeatedly pointing this out to them, one suggested that i should "take it here". so here i am, & here it is.
bear in mind that the article is about a concept in sociology, & that pretty much the whole concept of cultural appropriation is a matter of various opinions. most of my work has been in the "criticism of" section; with some additions to the lead section, the addition of henna skin markings to the list of disputed cultural elements, & only minor edits elsewhere.
the list:
- http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2463427
- http://www.columbiachronicle.com/opinion/article_ae0970c2-e576-11e4-af8e-9fcf13a46af7.html
- http://www.technicianonline.com/opinion/article_3c0b1d70-3ede-11e4-8ade-0017a43b2370.html
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/15/you-can-t-steal-a-culture-in-defense-of-cultural-appropriation.html
- http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/05/cultural-appropriation-in-fashion-stop-talking-about-it/370826/
- http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095652789
- https://books.google.ca/books?id=2dGY1Iy3K0EC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=cultural+appropriation+disputed&source=bl&ots=YoYC28ZhQF&sig=Xmnf6R1Q4h7vb2FkL2O8beGFquI&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y
- http://www.dailybarometer.com/forum/crosses-in-fashion-just-another-cultural-appropriation-fad/article_9d9c4fd8-9aaa-11e3-b78a-001a4bcf6878.html
- http://lanfiles.williams.edu/~mbrown/Brown-CopyrightingcultureCA98.pdf & https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/204721 Brown, Michael F. (April 1998). "Can Culture Be Copyrighted?". Current Anthropology 39 (2): 193–222. JSTOR 10.1086/204721.
- http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/5-things-white-people-cultural-appropriation/
- http://rcnjwc.blogspot.com/2013/04/cultural-appreciation-or-cultural.html
- https://sweetfernstudio.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/henna-body-art-and-cultural-appropriation/
- http://ubeempress.com/2015/05/20/an-exploration-of-orientalism-asian-cultural-appropriation-as-found-in-american-music-and-why-being-a-non-asian-poc-doesnt-excuse-you/
- http://freethoughtblogs.com/heinous/2014/08/19/cultural-appropriation/
- https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20141023205519AAgtj5Z
- http://youarenotdesi.tumblr.com/
- http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/
- http://www.autostraddle.com/top-ten-instances-of-open-and-unapologetic-celebrity-cultural-appropriation-in-2013-210371/
'bearing in mind the nature of the article they are being used for, please indicate which references are & are not suitable, & explain the reasoning?
thank-you in advance, for your time & attention in this matter,
Lx 121 (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're asking a lot, but you can start by crossing out the forums and blogs. You also need to understand that just because something is a reliable source that doesn't mean it should be in the article. WP:UNDUE, obviously apply. Doug Weller (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I stated before, numbers 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 aren't RS just from looking at the URLs. re}} 19:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- just for the record, are you saying that "just from looking at the URLs" is the standard you are using, to judge the quality of the sources you are disputing? i ask this, because you've repeated that same statement at least 3 or 4 times in various places; did you ever go & actually read ANY of the sources? Lx 121 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- As I stated before, numbers 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 aren't RS just from looking at the URLs.
- Reliable sources for what? It's impossible to tell what prose you're trying to use these sources for because of your refusal to use inline citations. As to whether they're reliable sources for statements of fact in general, I agree with EvergreenFir that many of them are not. Dyrnych (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- since you are one of the users involved in the content dispute, previous to posting in this forum, i invite you to actually read the sources you are objecting to. if you do so, you should not have any trouble understanding what "prose" they relate to.
- & for the record i have not "refused to use inline citations", i have OBJECTED to YOUR instant removal of material AND SOURCES from the article "because there are no inline cites", even when the article was tagged accordingly. there is no policy to support this action. AND that dispute is not really germane to the conversation here. i address it now, only because you have chosen to bring it up, & i wish to to clarify the recordLx 121 (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The text they are trying to add with those refs can be found here. re}} 20:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lx 121 made numerous other edits that also lacked sources, and this list appeared to me to be just a dump for sources that could support any of the claims that they added to the article. Dyrnych (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Lx 121 made numerous other edits that also lacked sources, and this list appeared to me to be just a dump for sources that could support any of the claims that they added to the article.
- The text they are trying to add with those refs can be found here.
Most of these are not RS. # 2 is an editorial in a campus newspaper, so is probably only a RS for the opinion of its author. Same issue with #3. #4 is, again, an editorial, so really only an RS as far as the author's personal opinion (which, as with the other editorials, I doubt is encyclopedia-worthy). #5 is (you guessed it!) another opinion piece. #6 is an RS, but it's a reference source - so should really only be cited for basic information about the article subject (definition, meaning of the concept, etc). #7 might be a RS - it depends what it's being cited for. #8 is obviously not a RS, it's another opinion piece, written by someone whose opinion is very unlikely to be notable or worthy of inclusion. I'd go on but I think the theme is clear here - for the most part, these are not RS and should not be used in the article. There is a crapton of well-written academic scholarship on this subject out there, that's what the article should be primarily based on and referenced too. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- ok, so of the list, which items are' you ok with, then? & have you any opinion on the sources already in-use" on the piece? & if you could please provide some examples of the "crapton of well-written academic scholarship on this subject out there" that is "rs", giving examples for both pro & con items, i would be very much grateful, & you would be helping to resolve the dispute! :) thank-you Lx 121 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The scholarly term "bafflegab" is well-suited for the agglomeration and mélange found in this article. In some cases, people wear costumes because they find it is fun to dress up as someone else - just as sometimes a cigar is actually just a cigar. This article, unfortunately, seems to demur. There is a real topic - unfortunately this article does not address it in anything near a scholarly and neutral manner. Collect (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
hello again; just to note, for the record, users: EvergreenFir, Doug Weller, Dyrnych, & myself of course are all involved in the editorial dispute, & have an edit-history on the article.
i was looking for uninvolved third party opinions. otherwise, we are merely recycling the same arguements from before, in a different location.
as regards the merits of the article as a whole, i agree it's got problems, that's why i started trying to present a slightly more balanced view.
as regards the matter of opinion vs fact, the entire concept is subjective; this is SOCIOLOGY, & if you can draw a hard line between opinion & fact, you should write a doctoral thesis about it. the entire topic of "cultural appropriation" is a DISCUSSON OF OPINION & INTERPRETATION. if we're going to eliminate that, the article will revert to a stub.
as regards the terms of my request, i am seeking some 3rd party consensus, on which of the "contested" sources CAN (& cannot) be considered "rs".
& while we're at it, let's have a look @ the existing "standards" of the sources used on the piece?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#External_links
because, if NONE of the sources provided in the list above qualify as "reliable", then CLEARLY some of what's "in-use" now, has got to go...
Lx 121 (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have an edit-history on the article? As I can't remember any, I just checked "edits by user" and can't find any. How am I involved in the editorial dispute?
- If you're trying to make the point that a bunch of the references in the current article suck (and they do), make that point. Don't post a bunch of different, equally terrible references. Dyrnych (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- i count 7 edits to the article by you (plus 10 comments on the current talkpage), from june to now; only 1 of the edits relates to me or to the present dispute. granted, that's not as many as user:corbievreccan with 88, but it's enough to qualify you as an "involved party". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_appropriation&action=history Lx 121 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. What does my involvement on the article have to do with the validity of my opinion? Dyrnych (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- well, for one thing, i think i've successfully answered your questions just from above^ "I have an edit-history on the article? As I can't remember any, I just checked "edits by user" and can't find any. How am I involved in the editorial dispute?" -- Lx 121 (talk)
- The edit-history question wasn't mine, it was Dyrnych (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- The edit-history question wasn't mine, it was
- well, for one thing, i think i've successfully answered your questions just from above^ "I have an edit-history on the article? As I can't remember any, I just checked "edits by user" and can't find any. How am I involved in the editorial dispute?" -- Lx 121 (talk)
- Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. What does my involvement on the article have to do with the validity of my opinion?
- i count 7 edits to the article by you (plus 10 comments on the current talkpage), from june to now; only 1 of the edits relates to me or to the present dispute. granted, that's not as many as user:corbievreccan with 88, but it's enough to qualify you as an "involved party". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_appropriation&action=history Lx 121 (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- & i provided so many references, in the hopes of finding some that we could all agree on; or at least some that can't be "disappeared" by dispute. (the ones related to "cultural appropriation" claims for henna skin-dying are lower-priority, & a separate point, but it should be added to the list of claimed "appropriations"). if you'd rather, we could go through the items one-by-one instead? Lx 121 (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- And I still want to know why I'm said to be involved in the editorial dispute. Doug Weller (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- well, you did insert yourself into the conversation on the talk page; & i think it's fair to say that your comment was not strictly "neutral"; but i stand corrected. i had mistaken you for someone with a longer history on the article. & we are MASSIVELY off-subject here. i started this section to get some uninvolved 3rd-party opinions on the suitability of sources for use on the article. so far what's happened is that the main participants from the discussion @ the article have all piled on, & we've had an "existential" discussion about who is & is not an "involved party". (almost) zero progress on the refs list. would it help if i posted the links individually? Lx 121 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Can I use this as a source
- Webpage in question: Akurusu.com, Sales Data of Super Robot Wars series
- Where I want to use it: Draft:List of JRPG franchises
- It uses wikimedia software.
- Unlike normal wikimedia websites, it seems no one can edit the website, other than the the admin.
- I see it just like any other uneditable webpage, therefore I consider it reliable.
- I cant find compiled data like this anywhere else . --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Comments/Replies
- It does not fall under the "crowd-sourced" prohibition.
- The question is whether their is reliable editorial oversight. I would have said that the hurdle for this type of fact is fairly low.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC).
- It is a Wiki - and allows "users" to edit pages (even has a "create account" button). "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Gutsy Janitors. " appears to be quite a large potential group - it is exactly like a "semi-protected article" on Wikipedia. The user who created the page (who is not the "admin") states the data is mainly from http://geimin.net/ . Collect (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach for information about honey bees
Please
- The The Journal of Astrobiology and Outreach is an obviously unreliable bit of junk.
- It's published by the predatory publisher.
- The journal lists "UFO Sightings" and "UFO news" among its "Highlights".
- The journal's editor-in-chief, Chandra Wickramasinghe, is something of a crank.
- The paper was submitted on July 2 (a Thursday) and accepted on July 7 (the Tuesday immediately after). A five-day peer review process (just 3 business days) is...remarkably rapid turnaround. In my experience, that's faster that most journals make the decision to even send a paper out for peer review.
- The paper at hand isn't an astrobiology paper; even if the journal were otherwise credible (ha!) this paper would fall outside its expected sphere of 'expertise'.
- It's published by the
- DrChrissy is wasting our time. Again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:TenOfAllTrades That is outrageous! I did not post this thread and I did not suggest it be posted. Please strike your comment!DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh wow, how did I miss it was published by OMICS?! SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ditto. The paper appears to be proposing a new and not yet accepted theory (as detailed on the article talk page). A JSTOR search for example gives ~ 60 articles on colony collapse and honeybees of which zero propose geomagnetic disturbances as a possible cause. Certainly the proposed edit gives far too much weight to such a brand new theory. The Journal of Astrobiology & Outreach seems a very strange choice for publishing this paper, make of that what you will. Is the Journal itself reliable? It fails my "smell test" not least because of the significant grammar and spelling errors in the section describing the peer review process, the UFO sightings section and the peer review process that lasts less than a week. talk) 16:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- (ec) Looking more closely at the article talk page discussion, I am gobsmacked by DrChrissy's defense of this paper:
- "I have searched the journal for other articles on the behaviour of bees. I can not find any. Therefore, there is no evidence that it is an unreliable source in this context...." [36]
- Literally, he reasons that because the journal has never published anything on this topic, we cannot presume that it would be unreliable in this (new for the journal) area. I have trouble believing that DrChrissy is doing anything but taking the piss at this point. It would probably be sensible to expand his existing topic ban(s), though this isn't the noticeboard for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- User:TenOfAllTrades The last edit summary you left was a personal attack on me and uncivil. Please desist.DrChrissy (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Garbage source (obviously). Do not use. If the proposed material for inclusion is really accepted knowledge, it will be possible to find it published somewhere reliable instead. Reviewing the discussion on the article's talk page and here I too suspect there is a vexatious aspect in the push for inclusion - but this is not the forum for pursuing that. talk) 06:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note - this source
is being edit warred intowas added to a second article, ) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC))
- Jytdog you are seriously misleading the community here and I hope an admin sees this. I entered the disputed source into Magnetocepton once. This was reverted. I have not attempted to reinsert the disputed source since that reversion. I am not edit warring this into a second article.DrChrissy (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies for missing it, that DrChrissy did not include the contested source when he edit warred the content back into the article; it was included in DrChrissy's first edit. In any case, the current content at that article about geomagnetism is still supported only by primary sources. This is under discussion at two article talk pages now: ) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The publisher is not rs. That in itself does not mean the article is reliable. However, adding original studies that have not been reported in reliable sources is a violation of weight. TFD (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?
I contend that it is not.
Instead, it seems that Nasdaq.com provides more accurate data concerning shareholdings--and since most hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares, the Forbes data is in the realm of science fiction. If nothing else, it fails to update in an accurate and timely fashion.
For example, I attempted to edit the net worth figures for Steve Wynn and Elaine Wynn, predicated upon this year's sharp dive in their Wynn Resorts shares. According to the Nasdaq.com and its SEC Form 4 data, both Wynns have been reducing their shareholdings, along with an associated radical drop in share price. The Forbes data simply does not begin to reflect this massive drop in their respective equity participations.
A more detailed discussion of the matter can be found in the TALK sections of each listing
Revised Wiki Data2 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?
Yes, although its estimate, as any other, should beattributed. As for "hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares".[citation needed] And even if the generalized claim were true, it couldn't be applied to any particular individual without specific reliable, secondary source saying so because there are numerous exceptions. Abecedare (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Slate, WGN, International Business Times
We have a RfC here regarding the Josh Duggar scandal. Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that public statements by Duggar's brother-in-law that give insight into Duggar's character and personality should be omitted because Slate, International Business Times, and WGN-TV are not reliable sources. This is such a new and novel argument to me that I feel the RS crowd would be able to offer expert input. BlueSalix (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This statement,
"Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that..."
is not only non- 00:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Normally you are correct that a colorful block history such as yours would not be meat for an edit discussion, however, since your recent ... unusual ... behavior has become the subject of multiple active inquiries that are currently ongoing, a simple "heads-up" is a common sense and polite note for those seeking to protect the encyclopedia. BlueSalix (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, BlueSalix, I thought we wuz running an encyclopedia. Why do we need someone else's insight into someone's character? Drmies (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the character of any other editor, and no ability to comment on others characters. That is entirely beyond my bailiwick. BlueSalix (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- BlueSalix, I'm talking about the content that editors seem to want to put in the article. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because this is a biography, not an autobiography, Drmies. We don't limit biographies to press releases issued by the subject of the bio. The uncle of Duggar's children has publicly called for Duggar's children to be separated from his immediate custody. This is, therefore and objectively, a notable episode in the subject's life. The only question that remains is whether or not WGN-TV, Slate, IBT, etc. are RS to establish the factuality of this event. BlueSalix (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- BlueSalix, I'm talking about the content that editors seem to want to put in the article. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea about the character of any other editor, and no ability to comment on others characters. That is entirely beyond my bailiwick. BlueSalix (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I am one of the involved editors, though I don't know if I am supposed to be one of the ones with "colorful block histories" or one of the ones from Wikiproject Christianity. Anyway, I would like to point out that the Slate source was, in fact, from the XXFactor blog. Per ) 01:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- While not an expert at this, I took a look at the Slate site. On the twitter feeds page of the staff Emily Bazelon and Jessica Grose are listed as the editors of the DoubleX sections the link is a part of. AlbinoFerret 02:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)