Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Reliable sources

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Cline (talk | contribs) at 18:43, 23 October 2014 (Reverted edits by Hcobb (talk) to last version by 90.205.247.65). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

    Additional notes:
    Shortcuts
    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
    Start a new discussion

    Known issues section of Nexus 5

    The known issues section of Nexus 5 was removed because none of the sources are considered valid. could an independent party check them one by one?

    Websites of medical centers as sources for services they perform

    Resolved

    At Talk:Acupuncture#Academic_centers (stable version here) there's been discussion of how to source the fact that multiple medical centers use acupuncture. Some editors have argued that the websites of these centers (e.g. Osher Medical Center at Harvard) are fine; others have argued that they are not because they are "primary sources". IMO, this is a case where a primary source is fine per WP:SELFSOURCE not to mention WP:SENSE. What do you folks think? (Relevant section of article here.) --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (edited 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Strictly, this is not a reliability issue, but a weight/neutrality issue, since of course a medical centre is reliable for listing its own services. The question is: is the fact these medical centres have such offerings significant? If so, it should be easy to find secondary sources making mention of it and use them. Otherwise it would seem undue—I don't think we would list medical centres that offered some other medical specialism (for a particular type of operation, say) so why for acupuncture? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for commenting, Alex. Good point. As you know, there are more than a few editors determined to depict acu as a wholly fringe phenomenon, and that influence is pervasive. Citing its use in mainstream settings is a counter to this UNDUE problem. Since we do have some sec sources now, it's less of a big deal -- except when somebody decides those sec sources are outdated or otherwise inadequate and tries to delete the material. Which is not unlikely given the article's history. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I remember that article well. Since secondary sources exist can I take it the query here is now moot and whatever issues there are with using the secondary sources can be resolved on the Acupuncture Talk page? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not, for the reason I stated above ("except...."). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI)10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's an issue with the weight accorded to those secondaries, and discussions on Acupuncture's Talk page are at an impasse, it may be worth raising the question of those sources' use as a separate query at WP:NPOV/N. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a «reliable sources» problem. In Pizza, we do not say that many places sell pizza, with citations from individual pizzerias. In Ibuprofen, we do not say that many pharmacists sell ibuprofen, with citations from individual pharmacists. That would be strange. Why do we say it this way for acupuncture? Spumuq (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question, and thanks for commenting; the answer is that it's part of the section on reception, which includes sphere of usage. It's not nearly as common as pizza or ibuprofen, but isn't as fringe-y as some determined woo-fighers would like to depict it. Re which, see also my reply to Alex just above; we do have some sec sources. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 08:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that Spumuq has hit the nail on the head. Presenting anecdotes as if they were data is often problematic—what you want is a systematic study of the usage of acupuncture in a given country, not a cherry-picked list of the most-impressive-sounding institutions that may have an acupuncture clinic. However, that's a WP:WEIGHT issue rather than a WP:RS issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is important to remember that acupuncture itself isn't Fringe. It is actually quite common (especially when you consider it's prevalence in the non-western world). What is fringe are most of the claims about the medical benefits of acupuncture... what acupuncture will do for the recipient.
    As for listing hospitals that perform acupuncture... It is important to look into why they do so... it is quite possible that some of the hospitals do so because they think it has a beneficial placebo effect on the recipient. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good points, and generally agree all around. Yes, claims of efficacy and sphere of use are different things, and as far as I can tell, acu is used in academic clinics mostly for nausea, pain and anxiety, all of which have a lot to do with its placebo effects, and may be all placebo -- but I'm not speaking for these clinics. To clarify: when I say "mainstream", I mean the scientific/academic mainstream. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 23:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing; thanks to all for input. Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 05:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wendy Davis (politician)

    At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class. [1]

    --NeilN talk to me 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a wee bit of an oversimplification of the issue at hand. The cites given use her campaign website as the primary source for the claim "top of her class" for which I can find no reliable secondary sources. Since this is being used as a parenthetical bit of fluff, I suggest we would need sources which are secondary and not simply ones which refer to her official campaign biography which was shown to have a couple of problems in a minor controversy. Had it not been shown to have problems, I would not be as concerned, but it was and so it is.
    The proper question is "If a campaign biography has been shown to have inaccuracies, can we assert in Wikipedia's voice that it is accurate for other matters?" again noting that the sources provided all appear to rely on the campaign biography, including copying of entire sentences therefrom. Collect (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have given no proof that the listed sources have used her campaign website without error checking. --NeilN talk to me 18:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially as Davis' life story has been heavily scrutinized for inconsistencies and no source has been presented challenging that text. --NeilN talk to me 15:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except one should note, for example, that CNN ascribed claims to her autobiography, the wording of the various sources seems to be identical in too many places to have been independently verified, and the use of any campaign website or press release is iffy as a source. Other than that, we all know she was number one in her class, and the most notable alumna of her uni ever. Cheers -- does anyone understand that fluff claims do not belong on BLPs? Collect (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the position that a university website is not reliable for where a student places in the class of that university beyond bizarre. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be adding back the statement tomorrow as Collect has not provided a shred of evidence the claim was not verified and was challenged. --NeilN talk to me 03:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The "university website" contains quotes from her campaign website, and even has misspellings to boot. Amazingly enough the "university website" appears to print press releases. Cheers. As for the suggestion that "top of her class" has been shown to be true, that is a matter for consensus at this point, but the fact is that there are zero actual independent sources for the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Collect: No editor here agrees with your "zero actual independent sources" assertion. --NeilN talk to me 00:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me a source which does not have exact quotes from her campaign biography. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Show me where any source disputes this reporting by the NY Times, "Their daughter, Dru, was born in 1988 and, after Ms. Davis graduated from Texas Christian University at the top of her class in 1990, she set her sights on Harvard Law School." --NeilN talk to me 02:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Several sources generally considered reliable have reported the matter, including the website of the university that honored her as "alumni of the year". No reliable source has been identified which questions the assertion, and it is widely known that her political opponents scrutinize her claims intensely. I respect Collect's skepticism on such matters in general, but am unconvinced by Collect's arguments here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If a reliable source says she graduated at the top of her class then we can say that too. Reliable sources are supposed to weigh evidence and determine whether it is correct. We should not question them except whether different sources are in conflict. TFD (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sukkot section removed

    This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that

    The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.


    Author Elon Gilad

    Article SukkotTheredheifer (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The claim that this material was removed on those grounds is misleading, since much discussion followed after that first post of mine on Talk:Sukkot#Another_.22source.22_removed. Not posting a link to that discussion was not nice. I suggest the discussion should continue there. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a side comment, the complaint that sourcing behind a paywall violates WP:V is utter nonsense, and is simply an invention of the editor's imagination. Choor monster (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the material that was removed, apologies for not adding it before.

    The origins of Sukkot are both historical and agricultural. Based on its timing and the fact that it is frequently referred to in the Bible as "the holiday of ingathering," meaning harvest, it is believed that the holiday evolved from ancient agricultural religious practices. Over time it was formalized, centralized and given religious significance.[1]

    +

    Sukkot became a significant holiday during King Josiah’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages. [2]

    As was the norm with all Jewish holidays during the Temple period, the holiday centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer.[3]

    Theredheifer (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ The history of Sukkot, once the most important Jewish holiday of all
    2. ^ The history of Sukkot, once the most important Jewish holiday of all
    3. ^ The history of Sukkot, once the most important Jewish holiday of all

    Are journalists/writers not reliable sources if they have written about paranormal subjects?

    There's an odd case at the Summerwind article (scrutinized because it's in AfD).

    There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the Huffington Post, Bill Wundram of the Quad-City Times and Chad Lewis of Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past? --Oakshade (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

    To get the best input from this noticeboard you should probably give more context, i.e. what specific text do you wish to cite to what work by what author? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
    It's really a meta-discussion question, but this is an example: An editor has challenged the below statement because "Chad Lewis other works include articles about UFOs and Bigfoot." [2]

    In 1916 it was purchased by Robert Patterson Lamont, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion.[1][2][3]

    1. ^ Wundram, Bill (October 29, 1995). "Summerwind: More ghostly than ever". Quad-City Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
    2. ^ Schjoth, Corey (March 25, 2014). "Haunted Travel: Wisconsin's Most Notorious Haunted House". Huffington Post. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    3. ^ Lewis, Chad (2014). "Travel - Wisconsin's 10 most haunted places". Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
    The editor has went on to add the word "allegedly" to the sentence.[3] Are the publishers and authors of these sources unreliable because the authors of these sources have also written about topics such as Loch Ness Monster, Vampires, UFOs and Bigfoot?--Oakshade (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For anyone else reading this, I don't know where that diff came from, but most of those changes are not me. There are 6 intermediate changes there. However, I also have a problem with taking articles about ghost stories and UFOs and using pieces of them to cite items as facts as though we know what parts of the article are unverifiable retelling of a ghost story and what parts of those articles are verifiable facts. In the context of a ghost story or legend, those sources are reliable for retelling the legend, but may not be reliable for verifiable facts about history. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If an author's previous writing about the paranormal shows that they are credulous about such matters, that's generally an indicator of unreliability (for anything). Itsmejudith (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If an author's previous writing shows that they are credulous about any topic, yes they would be un-reliable. But what about the writers simply having written about paranormal topics? Does that in itself make them un-reliable journalists/writers/authors as the charge is?--Oakshade (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asking if this work by this author is considered a reliable source of facts regarding who the architects of record were for the Lamont Mansion? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The real issue is what content supported by what reference in what article with what weight is being proposed. Without these specifics its generally not fair to evaluate a source. A writer who is a generalist, that is writes about multiple topics may not be the best source for an expert opinion on any specific subject. However, unless we know more about the content and its source I don't believe we should be making any definitive comments about sources. Id' take this back to the talk page (is there one) and try top get input there.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]

    It was brought here because discussion on the talk page and edit warring threatening 3RR was going around in circles. The specific content that became the center of discussion is what's listed above, but it also affects the entire article as these and other authors who have written about paranormal topics - no surprise as this topic is a reportedly "haunted" house - are most of the sources. It really came down to the validity of generally discrediting journalists/writers solely because they have previously written about such paranormal topics as UFOs, etc. --Oakshade (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This edit warring is continuing with a single editor now removing all of these sources.[4] Input to this question is highly appreciated.--Oakshade (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    iFanboy

    Is this article at iFanboy [5] reliable for the following 2 statements at The Punisher (1993 video game):

    • "This version also contains some content censorship including the animation of cigar smoking by Fury being removed"
    • [The game ranked] as the fifth top Marvel arcade game by iFanboy's Josh Richardson

    Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pit bull

    It seems that there are sourcing issues on the article Pit Bull. I am leaning toward sources like Veterinary Associations. There is POV warring using a very old and misinterpreted CDC study and the article is not really about pit bulls so much as support for the POV that pit bulls are nature's killing machines. I understand this is different from the sourcing issue but I would appreciate some consensus building advice. I am not sure if posting references here will work and have the refs show up properly so I will come back tommorow and repair if the refs are not working rights. I think this is kind the ideal type of RS https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspxWikidgood (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't even discussed this on the article's talk page, so you're not following good practice. Don't misuse boards. Your concerns will get an ear (or more) at the talk page. Please ping me there, since I have over 5,000 pages (plus their talk pages) on my watchlist. (I recently pared it down when it reached 10,000!) -- Brangifer (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a matter of fact I posted on the talk page and you ignored it. I have every right to pose a question to this or any other notice board. You are continuing with your opening salvo of vague renarks tantamount to a personal attack. Actually, it is a personal attack to accuse me of misusing a notice board. Before that you accused me of "drive-by tagging" after I tagged POV on a section, not the whole article. I had been aware of the POV problem with that articles for weeks if not months. Please stop making personal remarks and allegations of misconduct and discuss constructive edits. You also do not "own" the pafe despite that your UID resonates with the article title. A third personalizing remark, for which however I will reserve you WP:AGF is your speculation regarding my mental state or emotional purchase for the issue or something along those lines. It is not polite to make a remark like that, it is like "cross talk" in a meeting abouta topic in which you "take personal inventory" of someone. So to reiterate, I have the right to ask for RSN pointers and you do not have the right to accuse me of misuse of the notice board. Aside from your accusations and allegations and innuendos, do you have anything to say about sourcing? Wikidgood (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My sincerest apologies for the mixup. I somehow missed your comment on the talk page. I had your user contribution history open, but hadn't refreshed it for a few minutes, and during that time you left the comments there. Then I saw this comment pop up on my watchlist and made the obviously mistaken conclusion that you hadn't used the article's talk page. My bad! Sorry about that. We can work things out on the talk page. You are of course welcome to seek advice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NO PROBLEM.Wikidgood (talk) 02:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My primary concern/ requesting comments on this issue

    I first thought about opening a thread on RSN actually re RS(medical) because some people seem to think that the ONLYlegitimate refs for bio med articles are things like BMJ and JAMA. But I insist that it is OK to use sources like Rueters and mainstream newspapers, including third world newspapers, for things like "Hospital Researcher Announces New Vaccine". I think the area of disagreement is that some people think that we have to worry about false hopes being raised by hucksters. That is a concern but it doesnt IMHO mean that you have to wait six months for a peer reveiwed journal article when it is a fact of history that, say, a Thailand Hospital research team has a vaccine in testing phase with animal trials. So I was hoping that there would be a similar refinement on dog bit related pages where we distinguish between an article in a newspaper stating thatthere will be say a city council ordinance on pit bulls in a place like Denver, that does these things, and we allow that as RS for that kind of thing. But we do not take it as RS if a newspaper, especially a sleazy rag or something between a sleazy rag and NYT, Wash Post or AP/UPI?Reuters blasts a headline identifying a dog as a "pit bull" becauses some old boozer down the street told the press that such and such a dog is a "pit bull". For encyclopedic statements aboutwhat is and is not true about a breed identification we need a source which is (a) secondary (b) preferably peer reviewed. If it is not (b) or if it is (advoccy), then we can present it if we identify it as a statement of an advocacy group, and/or if we balance it with a contrasting view, a criticism or at least a label that it is controversial. Does this resonate? Wikidgood (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Secondary concern

    I think advocates are essential sources for perspectives and so I think there is need of good Wiki policies and guidelines which prevent people from reverting any advocate as not RS just because they are POV. A good example is that RT Russia Today is very slanted but it is probably RS for things like "Putin has a black dog". Similarly, Interpretermag (not sure I spelled it right) is vigorously anti Putin but is probably RS for much. But some editors claim that some sources are NEVER RS for ANYTHING and I suspect that problem will look large on pit bull in the coming weeks. Wikidgood (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have read the lengthy text above and find it quite hard to see what is being asked. When posting to this board editors are requested to post (a) some content and (b) its source for evaluation. What seems to be being asked is for general guidance giving permissions for certain classes of source for as-yet unspecified content. That's not what this board is for, and general discussions about sourcing or neutrality should take place on the respective WP:PAG Talk pages. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think as much was implied and the obvious reference was to the ongoing edits. I aksi\o had some particulars in mind for here but since I have ironed out the differences with the above users there is no further need to go into it here.
    FYI I don't think that there is a hard policy regarding the specific-edit/specific-source framework you suggest although I know that is usually how it works. But if there are sourcing issues that are not being worked out on the talk pages, it seems less confrontational to take them up here rather than going the rout of arbitrations and edit war reporting and all of that stuff. You are free however to ignore threads on RSN which in your opinion don't follow some etiquette you prefer. I agree however that my more general concern is more effectively taken up on the RS talk page. It would have been nice if you addressed my substantive concern with the distinction between sourcing which should be from peer reveiwed journals rather as opposed to sourcing whihc can be journalistic but you are free to do what you wish.Wikidgood (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    War of the Pacific

    The current version of the article War of the Pacific states:

    ... However according to Peruvian historians, during the war, both sides commonly ordered a repaso (or repase), a method "to completely kill the dead" by executing all soldiers, regardless of injuries, of the opposing army left in the battlefield.[1] After the Battle of Tacna, Chilean troops went as far as to enter field hospitals and execute all soldiers of the opposing Peruvian and Bolivian armies.[1][2][dubious – discuss] The repaso further incremented the number of Peruvian casualties in the battles of San Juan, Chorrillos, and Miraflores.[3][dubious – discuss]

    References

    1. ^ a b Narracion histórica de la guerra de Chile contra el Perú y Bolivia. Por ... – Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán – Google Books. Books.google.com. 2008-02-21. Retrieved 2012-11-02.
    2. ^ El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur – Humberto Cayoja Riart – Google Boeken. Books.google.com. Retrieved 2012-11-02.
    3. ^ Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra ... – Carlos Marнa Muсiz – Google Books. Books.google.com. 2007-01-01. Retrieved 2012-11-02.

    I considered the sources unreliable. 1) (Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán) it is a primary source. The sources 2) and 3) are available only stripped. The names of the books, "El expansionismo de Chile en el Cono Sur" (Chilean Expansionism ...) and "Historia del patriotismo, valor y heroнsmo de la Naciуn peruana en la guerra ..." (History of patriotism, bravery and heroism of the Peruvian nation ...) don't seem very RS.

    Thanks in advance. --Keysanger (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S.: M.F. Paz S's book "Narracion historica de la guerra de Chile contra el Peru y Bolivia" can be found in archive.org. --Keysanger (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Those sources are fine as the content is attributed to Peruvian historians. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    gangs toronto canada

    There has been an gang culture in Toronto Canada since 1964. Verification personal experiences.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=630826050"