Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unresolved sourcing questions[edit]

This is the most difficult FAC to sort that I have ever encountered (I'm hoping the nominators will read some other FACs to glean some ideas about how to respond in ways that the FAC isn't so hard to sort, and to minimize the excess markup, bolding, etc.).

As far as I can tell, the following are unresolved in terms of reliability of sources:

Resolved
. Well this issue has now been resolved since a better REF has replaced the site (http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/ibnbatuta/07china2.html) which is an onliine reprint of a book. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

. The Website has been proved unreliable for the claim it's used to cite at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#www.kamat.com. Hence, removed the REF. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These two also.
Resolved

Since the site is basically a newspaper (e-paper) and it is used to cite only and only some local events in Mangalore, the site being a local Webpaper can be considered reliable for such news. However, it is unreliable for contentious, controversial and historical claims. *Wikipedia:RSN#Mangalorean.Com (http://mangalorean.com/index.php)

Resolved

. Removed the site unless and unless it is proved reliable at Wikipedia:RSN#World Gazetter (http://world-gazetteer.com/) KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 14:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that all four have had arguments put forward for why they are reliable, and I left them unmarked for other reviewers to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup[edit]

I would not consider the first three to be reliable. The Penn University source is the work of a student as determined by the tilde in the url.

Point of information: the tilde just means the webpage is stored in the user's personal folder. Could be student, professor, admin, ..., depending on how their IT people organise the campus web server. --Northernhenge (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Gazetter on the other hand has been used as a source by wikipedia including several featured articles such as Mumbai. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't agree:
  1. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dludden/global1.htm has been written by David Ludden. He is a professor at Penn who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. Here is his homepage http://www.history.upenn.edu/faculty/ludden.shtml
  2. http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/itihas/abbakka.htm
    There are may books which recommend the site.

http://books.google.com/books?id=lR2LoYwR3IwC&pg=PA37&dq=Kamat%27s+Potpourri&lr=&sig=ACfU3U22WIQoJCsgCxU79j6B6f9DbRjUsg (Venture Into Cultures: A Resource Book of Multicultural Materials and Programs by Olga R. Kuharets) (http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=Kamat%27s+Potpourri&btnG=Search+Books) lists all the books which rely on www.kamat.com

Well I have an article from The Hindu, the National Newspaper of India (http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2007/05/12/stories/2007051250850100.htm) stating the site is reliable and reputed.
http://www.tiss.edu/Alumni_in_Press023.pdf (Tata Institute of Social Sciences, one of the most reputed institutes in India, has taken an entire article from Mangalorean.Com with their permission. This should be more than enough to prove the site is reliable.
The global co-operative news centre (http://www.icanews.coop/en/node/97518), a reputed news service also recommends data from Mangalorean.Com
All these sites satisfy Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. Why should they be tagged unreliable then. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 08:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see anything at The Hindu page that recommends the site or establishes its credibility per WP:V (in fact, it mentions volunteers, and nothing whatsoever about fact-checking, credentials, or editorial oversight). Neither does using an article from the site indicate fact-checking or editorial oversight. The icanews.coop page also appears to be user-submitted. I give these as examples only; when attempting to establish that a page meets our policies, answers need to be framed per our verifiability policy, as in the examples at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. I haven't looked at the other sites; these examples are just a few to show you how to address concerns about sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But what about http://www.tiss.edu/Alumni_in_Press023.pdf . A deemed University (Tata Institute of Social Sciences) recommending the site should prove the site is reliable. Mangalorean.Com is basically a news service in Mangalore. It may be considered similar to BBC. Even according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, News services and newspapers are considered reliable. KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw my concerns. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being used in other FAs or being a professor aren't the answers needed to determine reliability and aren't measures of reliability. Saying that other reliable sources consider the site credible is more helpful. Please refer, once again, to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for how to answer queries regarding reliability of sources. Saying a website was used in other FAs has no relevance to the discussion, unless it's about bringing those FAs to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WORLD GAZETTEER

None of your answers here have addressed Wiki policy, WP:V. For example, you've provided a reprint of an article on the website of some Institute (which could be a copyright violation), claiming that establishes reliability; it does not. You have a student webpage, claiming that established reliability; it does not, the student webpage is not a reliable source. Once again, please answer queries about reliability of sources by explicitly explaining how they meet Wiki policy and guidelines at WP:V, WP:SPS or WP:RS. Perhaps you would be better to adress these concerns to WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I am posting these questions on WP:RSN. I don't know how much time can an article be in a FAC. Please do not fail this article just because of these 4 minor issues. All other issues have been resolved. These 4 sites have been just used for some extra details. There are no other errors in the article. If we are unable to prove the reliability of these sites on the last day of the FAC, then we'll remove it. Thankyou, KensplanetTalkE-mailContributions 15:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Mangalore/archive1&oldid=1136060826"