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

→‎ unlink to help with monitoring link abuse
m (Bot: Replacements: fix URL prefix)
(→‎ unlink to help with monitoring link abuse)
* Further, would you support the ability to cite original documents from the chemical industry that are maintained on this website, even if not the text written by anyone at the website? Would you completely rule out the ability to present an original archived document in a Wikipedia article on a topic that it may directly relate to? [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
::No, this source can not be trusted. If you are picking «original documents» from this website how can we trust that they are representative, or tell the whole story? [[User:Spumuq|Spumu''q'']] ([[User talk:Spumuq|tal''q'']]) 12:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
:::To clarify, they are a subgroup of the Environmental Working Group. [<nowiki></nowiki> Their about page.] Are they also not ever a reliable source here? {{u|Spumuq}}, you are basically simply asserting "No, this source can not be trusted" without any reasoning as to why you say this about this group versus any other group whose work is allowed to be cited on Wikipedia. I need a really specific description of your reasoning, because this ''matters'' and if we disallow this group, then we're disallowing a whole lot of very painstaking and detailed and most likely very responsible hard work on the part of a whole lot of people whose interest is most likely to get out critical information about things that matter to human health and to ecology. To discount all that with a simple "no they can't be trusted" is not acceptable. You'll need to show that they are somehow significantly substandard and distorting things consistently if you want to disallow them as a source. Just because they're not a governmental agency and they have a mission that is to safeguard the public health from wrongdoing by the chemical industry -- is that what you have an issue with? [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 12:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
* '''not reliable''' I haven't !voted here but will do now. Two issues really. 1) We have no way of knowing if the documents presented on the website are authentic. 2a) the documents presented there are [[WP:PRIMARY]] sources in the classic sense of that term; 2b) the website on which they are presented is clearly highly partisan; if there were PRIMARY sources that presented a different picture it doesn't seem likely that one would find them there (per their About page); 2c) every policy and guideline warns against using PRIMARY sources; this is even more important on [[WP:Controversial articles|controversial articles]]; 2d) documents concern subject matter about which people have strong emotions - so 2) a highly partisan collection of PRIMARY sources should not be used in WP as it will just be fodder for POV-pushers who will use them to create UNDUE problems. In this particular case, there are much better sources (washington post article) and the specific sourcing issue has been resolved at the article while this discussion was unfolding. I did want to get the community to discuss the source as used for this type of thing, as it had not been discussed before. Now this will be in the archives for future reference. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 13:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)