Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 189: Difference between revisions

m
Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot
m (Archiving 6 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot)
m (Archiving 2 discussion(s) from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard) (bot)
{{reflist-talk}}
: No. Find a reliable secondary source. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 
== Is Cherwell.org (Oxford Uni student newspaper) a reliable source? ==
 
I was just looking at the article on [[Oxford University Conservative Association]], which cites a lot of its information from [[Cherwell (newspaper)]]. There was a topic at the RSN about this years ago that [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_36#Cherwell.org_-_Student_news_and_reviews_at_Oxford_University]] concluded it shouldnt be used for BLPs, but not about its general reliability. I've tried to search through the archives for information about student newspapers in general but there doesnt seem to be any definite guideline.[[User:Bosstopher|Bosstopher]] ([[User talk:Bosstopher|talk]]) 11:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
:Can you provide the URL? Sometimes although rarely, we have some good ones from Dailymail, it clearly depends upon the URL that you are using. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 11:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
::There's quite a few used.[http://www.cherwell.org/news/world/2008/05/15/douglas-hurd][http://www.cherwell.org/news/2009/06/10/members-suspended-after-oucas-racist-hustings][http://www.cherwell.org/news/2009/08/26/proctors-punish-ouca-after-racism-scandal][http://www.cherwell.org/news-in-brief/2009/07/20/union-bans-ouca-hustings-in-frewin-court][http://www.cherwell.org/news/uk/2013/03/27/ouca-back-in-business] Cherwell has a [http://www.cherwell.org/staff big editorial board] and is run by [http://www.ospl.org/contact/ Oxford Student Publications Limited]. Based on (very slight) personal knowledge I also think they have some sort of legal oversight for articles (though I cant find any info about this online). Also your mention of the Daily Mail has made me notice that a lot of the other sources used in this article are student newspapers (the Oxford Student), and Daily Mail/Imdb style sources. [[User:Bosstopher|Bosstopher]] ([[User talk:Bosstopher|talk]]) 11:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
:::Then you can wholly discard each of them. Student newspaper should not be really considered unless you are trying to confirm the existence of the information, although honest confirmation would require a [[WP:RS]]. [[User:OccultZone|'''<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Occult</span><span style="color:blue;">Zone</span>''']] <small>([[User talk:OccultZone#Top|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/OccultZone|Contributions]] • [[Special:Log/OccultZone|Log]])</small> 13:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 
:::I has editorial oversight and therefore meets rs. But that always depends on how it is used. News reporting in student newspapers is acceptable for facts about student groups at their university. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 00:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 
== The National (Scottish Independence newspaper) ==
 
There is a new Scottish newspaper called the National which is billed as a supporter of Scottish Independence and seems to be becoming popular to add as a source of criticism of political opponents of nationalism. I'm skeptical - it looks at best a highly partisan tabloid with articles such as [http://www.thenational.scot/comment/wee-ginger-dug-jim-murphys-big-principle-is-make-me-an-msp.2923 Wee Ginger Dug]. Is it reasonable to exclude this as a source for BLP? --[[User:nonsenseferret|''<sub><font color="green" size="1px">nonsense</font></sub>'']] [[User talk:nonsenseferret|<font color="BF1BE0" size="1px">ferret</font>]] 02:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
:I would say to just be careful with the site. It looks decently reliable, however it is obviously biased towards nationalism and Scottish Independence. Wikipedia states that reliable sources should have a neutral point of view, however it is not required. Biased sites may be used because it could be reliable in a specific context. Just make sure to do some fact checking when citing from the National, especially on more critical matters. You can also look here for more information: [[WP:BIASED]]. Hope this helps. Cheers, [[User:Comatmebro|<font color="green"><b>Comatmebro</b></font>]] [[User talk:Comatmebro|<sup>~Come at me~</sup>]]