Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 368

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 365Archive 366Archive 367Archive 368Archive 369Archive 370→Archive 375

Caste In Mind Craving For Endogamy Reflection From The Bengali Matrimonial Columns Of The Higher Castes

This journal Caste In Mind Craving For Endogamy Reflection From The Bengali Matrimonial Columns Of The Higher Castes written by DR. APARNITA BHATTACHARJEE is reliable? It is also used as a reference here. please help me to Identify is it reliable or not for caste-related articles. Thanks Nobita456 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This does not appear to be from any kind of reputable publication, but rather is just a random paper off the Internet. As such, we would not regard it as a reliable source. If it appeared in an actual academic journal, that would be another matter altogether; but we would need a solid reference to said publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thank you so much for this advice.Nobita456 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it is usable for non-contentious points. It also looks as if it was actually formally published, and perhaps the uploader Saswata Sengupta could be asked to give further bibliographic details. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Richard Keatinge Orange Mike actually the journal is not indexed but it is used as a reference at an indexed journal as I pointed out before.is that makes it reliable? The author herself is also a historian.Nobita456 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
No, use by someone else doesn't make it reliable. "Anudhyan : An International Journal of Social Sciences" describes itself as open-access, and that doesn't seem to allow for a rigorous editing process. But for a non-contentious point, an erudite article by someone who appears to be sane can be used, and this would seem to qualify. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your detailed explanation.Nobita456 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought I had made a comment here, but I guess I had not. It seems that the caste system, the ancient and long-lasting system of stratification, exclusion, and ritual purity—after 70 years of derecognition by India's 1951 constitution and equally as many years of affirmative actions programs for the more disadvantaged castes—has survived inexorably in the realm of endogamy. A recent survey found some 95% of Indians to have had arranged marriages within the caste. That means that the system won't go, unless arranged marriages go, and that will take time. So the general statement in the title and description in the abstract of this paper is not a surprise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
There was something in that journal that I wanted to include in baidya article.but as you guys told this is not reliable that means I can't use this book.this was not about marriages, thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


I have no comment about the reliability of this article to specific contexts, but am a little surprised by some comments made by some Wikipedians here. First the article is not "just a random paper off the Internet" as Orangemike dismisses it, but an article published in Anudhyan: An International Journal of Social Sciences. The reliability and quality of that journal is a different issue. Secondly, Richard Keatinge seems to suggest open-access journals, or perhaps just this one, do not allow rigorous editing process, and that citation by someone else doesn't count towards reliability. However, WP:USEBYOTHERS is a criterion towards reliability, and there is a wide difference between open access and predatory journals. Lastly, the article contains a significant literature review, which makes at least that part a WP:SECONDARY source (which we prefer per WP:SCHOLARSHIP), which can give greater weight and broader perspective than isolated studies, and Bengali marriage customs appears to be a specialty of the author. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The link as formatted appeared to be off some cloud storage archive; it was not formatted as an academic citation to a published article, and I couldn't decipher it. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you guys for your comments, which means I can use this journal as a secondary source.Nobita456 (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Nobita456, as Richard Keatinge says it is not indexed and No, use by someone else doesn't make it reliable. "Anudhyan : An International Journal of Social Sciences" describes itself as open-access, and that doesn't seem to allow for a rigorous editing process. But for a non-contentious point, an erudite article by someone who appears to be sane can be used, and this would seem to qualify.. TrangaBellam has also clarified non-Indexed journals many times on the Talk:Baidya. Specifically, TB writes "You cannot select a bunch of low-quality sources—Raj et al are a collection of conf. papers and their unreliability has been already discussed, Bhattacharjee's article was published at a non-indexed journal of no reputation, and Revankar's scholarship is in the genre of legal sociology—to push a particular POV that goes against modern historians". Again, he writes No, we cannot use random vernacular (non-academic) publishers especially when they run against the bulk of peer-reviewed scholarship in English.. I agreed with TB and so does EkDalian. We cannot use it for contentious issues like varna especially since a bulk of high quality academics oppose the view. ThanksLukeEmily (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
It may be a secondary source as one of the editors says above, but not for contentious topics. For example, a a low quality source on Shivaji may be a secondary source for something like the name of his 1st wife, but not for his varna.Please see WP:SECONDARY. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks luke. Nobita456 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Kurt Butler as a source

Kurt Butler is a nutritionist and science-writer (he is listed [1] as having a Master of Science Degree in Nutrition from the University of Hawaiʻi. Butler has authored several books criticizing nutritional quackery and charlatans and promoters of fad diets. His book is often cited on Wikipedia. For example, it is cited 14 times on the Gary Null article and used on other articles criticizing quackery.

Butler has a chapter criticizing John A. McDougall and basically dismisses McDougall for promoting unsubstantiated health claims and dangerous medical advice. The source can be accessed in full see the previous link but you will have to be logged into archive.org.

John A. McDougall or someone claiming to be him has turned up to his Wikipedia talk-page and is claiming that Kurt Butler is not qualified in nutrition, that he never obtained a Master of Science Degree or he obtained it from a "paper-mill". He also describes Kurt Butler as an uncredentialed "beach-bum" [2] and says he is a biased source that should be removed from Wikipedia.

Based on what I have seen, Kurt Butler is a science-writer who is qualified in nutrition (he still lectures on the topic). It appears McDougall does not like this man because he has criticized his work. I don't think it is a valid reason to warrant removal. Butler's book is not self-published, it was published by Prometheus Books. I start this discussion here so other can comment if they think Butler is a reliable source or not. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as a note, we generally don't regard master's theses as reliable sources in and of themselves. Prometheus books is an imprint of Globe Pequot Press, which itself appears to be a popular press publication. I don't see why a popular press book published by someone who has a master's would alone make it a reliable source for purposes of Wikipedia—it's probably more reliable stuff than WP:RANDY, but I'm not really all that convinced that the publisher subjects books to significant editorial review. Certainly, it's not something that would pass WP:MEDRS. The source is also from 1992, which means that it doesn't have access to more recent scientific literature that examines the McDougall diet.
While looking for more stuff by Butler, I found this LA Times letter by McDougall. The two appear to have been publicly sniping at each other since the 80s (the source describes Butler as a high school teacher), but I can't find the original LA Times book review that McDougall is complaining about in that letter.
Within the popular press, it seems mixed. On one hand, there appears to be a doctor's sharp criticism of McDougall's diet advice published on Science-based medicine, which per WP:RSP is WP:GREL but doesn't pass muster for WP:MEDRS purposes. On the other hand, a 2012 LA Times review lumps McDougall's more recent book in with other books that are largely free of food extremes.
In terms of scientific literature evaluating McDougall's diet advice it exists in a limited scope but none that I can find make the claim that McDougall's diet is the discredited work of a quack. There is at least one published study that investigates the McDougall diet's effectiveness as of 2014 as it pertains to multiple sclerosis symptom relief (a University press release is available here, but the study was in part funded by McDougall and McDougall's a co-author. One review states that the McDougall diet has been shown to improve fatigue in a randomised clinical trial while another review article describes the study as discovering that most of the positive affects of the treatment group in RCT are due to weight loss rather than anything specific about the foods being eaten. A systematic review summarizes the results of the RCT as: No difference in brain MRI outcomes, # of relapses, or EDSS score. Diet group had improvements in cholesterol, insulin, BMI, and fatigue severity scale. That systematic review also states that, with respect to MS, some evidence exists to suggest a potential benefit from caloric restriction, intermittent fasting, the McDougall Diet, and Ketogenic diets, at least when compared to traditional Western-style diets. Another review article exists that google scholar flags as containing the term "McDougall diet", but I can't access it. (Some of these MEDRS-level papers note risks of vitamin deficiencies in those who strictly follow the diet, but those studies don't list nearly as many vitamins at risk of deficiency as Butler does).
In any case, the WP:MEDRS-level sources that describe at least the McDougall diet's potential application to MS don't really seem to reflect Butler's views of McDougall's diets writ large. Rather than using a book written in the popular press and published in 1992, it would probably be better to use the more recent peer-reviewed scientific studies that describe McDougall's work with respect to MS.
— Mhawk10 (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I have read the Butler source and even added from it to the article. The tone of the source is very smugly and complacent, which for me is always a sign that the source is not qualified to be included in an encyclopedia. Butler leverages on the bias of his time against veganism and vegetarianism. This way of blatant dismissal is outdated. The only part I find valuable is that he criticizes McDougall for being against cancer screening. But we may even find another source for that. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The paragraph citing Butler has 'He noted that McDougall does back up his claims with studies from medical journals but his interpretations are often at odds with the authors of the studies he cites', citing Butler 1992. If Butler actually names studies McDougall is supposed to have provided unfounded interpretations of together with a sufficiently detailed citation of where McDougall actually does the alleged misrepresenting, this is something we can verifiably double-check ourselves. If it's unambiguously true, we can keep that sentence, if unambiguously false, we probably should delete it. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

EP Today

EP Today (eptoday.com) is identified as a fake news site both in a Wikipedia article (Fake_news_in_India#Fake_news_against_Pakistan) and in a report (https://www.disinfo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/20191213_InfluencingPolicymakers-with-Fake-media-outlets.pdf) by the EU Disinformation Task Force. This was discussed briefly in an earlier Reliable Sources discussion without any resolution.

I propose that eptoday be blacklisted.

Currently, EPToday is referenced in 10 articles (one being the Fake News in India wiki article). Some of the references appear to have legitimate sources, but the topics are outside my expertise, so I don't think I'm the right person to fix these references. Using the search term "insource:eptoday.com" the articles are

  1. Religion in Pakistan

    The focus of Islamic principles creates a system of institutionalised discrimination that filters down into society. Moreover, the Constitution sets up the Council of Islamic Ideology, tasked with ensuring Islamic ideology is followed in governmental decisions, actions and policy making.

  2. Syed Ali Shah Geelani

    After record voting percentage in Kashmir, Geelani, along with other separatists, were criticised by Indian media for misleading people of Kashmir and for not representing true sentiments of Kashmiri people.

  3. Fake news in India
  4. All Parties Hurriyat Conference
  5. Rod Rosenstein
  6. Religious discrimination in Pakistan
  7. Mark Hendrick
  8. Religious Minorities in Pakistan
  9. Edward McMillan-Scott
  10. Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan

rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

rsjaffe, procedurally this is somewhat of a malformed RfC (see WP:RFC) so the tag should be removed. I also think the scope needs to be broadened, there are a lot of other obscure sites like this one with similar use cases. By the way, the link to the previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281 § Indian fake media outlets. Looking at it, the idea for blacklisting was brought up before but no one took it up after that. Since then the use case seems to have increased, so I'd think we should go forward with it now. Give me some time to gather a list of the most relevant sites and I'll start an RfC. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. I removed the tag. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 15:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
In Edward McMillan-Scott's article, it's an external link to an article he authored. At Rod Rosenstein the source was unnecessary and another could be used. I've not looked at the Indian/Pakistan related articles yet. Posting this at RSN was a good idea, as it may also result in an eventual RSP entry if discussed enough. Blacklisting would be more likely if the source was spammed. Deprecation may be possible but is unlikely at a first discussion or if it's easily manageable (there are few citations at current time). —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
The external link might be a BLP violation. See the follow-up story from BBC which states, "EU Chronicle was born in May this year when EP Today, a site flagged in the previous disinformation report, was simply discontinued and renamed...A group of MEPs appear regularly in the investigation. One of them, French MEP Thierry Mariani, has written two op-eds for EU Chronicle and was also part of a controversial visit to Indian-administered Kashmir last year...Two other MEPs named in the report - Angel Dzhambazki from Bulgaria and Grzegorz Tobiszowski from Poland - denied having written op-eds that were published on EU Chronicle." So it seems uncertain whether those who have articles attributed to them have truly written them, I'd think this at least needs a secondary source for any kind of inclusion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Interesting read and rather concerning. WP:ELNO has criteria 2 that may justify removing external links as well: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." —PaleoNeonate – 05:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Stylist magazine

Stylist (magazine): What say ye, for TV/film reviews? SN54129 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a reliable source for their opinion on a TV/film. However they're not known for their reviews and don't have a real standing on them, and I wouldn't put a review from them over a review from the New York Times, or one of the many other specialised and renowned movie review sites and papers. Canterbury Tail talk 20:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Much like the user above, I wouldn't use this magazine to substantiate extraordinary claims or denote notability on its own, but for uncontroversial reviews it seems like a pretty decent, fitting source. --DannyC55 (Talk) 20:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, thanks both! SN54129 12:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Play by play accounts - primary?

Are play by play accounts that don't contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, such as this one, primary or secondary sources? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a primary source; which is still useful for adding information to articles, such as the results of specific plays, because that's a reliable primary source, but it cannot be used to provide interpretation of the information, nor can it be used to establish notability. --Jayron32 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

NYT a reliable source on 2022 Karnataka hijab row

There is a dispute whether the following is reliably sourced:

According to the New York Times, the college banned the hijab after consultation with a BJP politician.[3]

This is based on the NYT article which says:

Government Women’s PU, moved in January to ban it on campus, saying it violated the school’s dress code. The school issued the prohibition after meeting with a local lawmaker from Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP.

Kautilya3 said "all information from NYT about the so-called "ban on hijab" at Udupi is to be rejected because NYT didn't go to Udupi and check anything. The information they give is contradicted by numerous local sources." When I asked which local news sources contradicted this info, Kautilya3 gave this response, but I don't see the contradiction.

I'm not sure if the NYT authors went to Udupi, but one of the article's authors (Suhasini Raj) seems to based in India. On the same talk page, DaxServer also dismissed France24, Washington Post, and Al-Jazeera as sources because these newspapers don't have a base in India. So the first question is: are reputable international newspapers reliable sources for events inside India? The second question is whether the NYT article can be cited, with attribution, for the claim written above? Thanks, VR talk 02:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

First, yes, reputable international newspapers are reliable sources for events inside India. However, looking at this specific quote, I am not convinced its inclusion is WP:DUE; it is very vague, and the NYT only implies that the two are related, they do not state it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • This issue has been going on since early January and there has been regular coverage in the local newspapers, including the reputable ones like The Hindu and The Telegraph (India). All the requisite information about the developments is already in the article sourced to these papers. The OP is trying to add gloss in a pointed form, which he finds in NYT and other foreign newspapers, which are playing a catch-up now after it crossed their threshold of interest. Those of us that have been the following the developments from the beginning don't find the information in foreign newspapers accurate enough to use. So as per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, we find them to be of lower-grade if not totally unreliable.
  • For the particular piece of information that is at issue here, the context around the quote from NYT makes it clear that they are reproducing information from the students that filed a court case and their lawyer, who are certainly not disinterested sources of information. It is contradicted by multiple local sources. For example, Ghazala Wahab, an acclaimed author herself, writes:

Let’s go back to the beginning. In an interview to The Quint, one of the girls said that they didn’t wear the hijab in their first year because they believed their parents had given an undertaking to the college.[1]

This suggests that what has been termed the "ban" on hijab has been in effect for at least 1.5 years before January 2022. According to another local newspaper:

A few months ago, a group of Muslim girls studying in the Government PU College in Udupi had sought permission to wear the hijab inside classrooms. This was one of the few colleges that had banned the hijab.[2]

This also suggests that the "ban" has been in effect well before the present controversy. The Telegraph wrote:

Ahmed, Udupi district president of the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike, a voluntary organisation that works to protect the Kannada language and culture, told The Telegraph that the college had earlier too barred some other hijab-clad students from their classes.[3]

  • Similar issues have cropped up with most of the other foreign newspapers as well, despite their prominence otherwise. These disputes are complicated and elusive. The careful narrative that we are able to build using the local on-the-spot reports is getting repeatedly messed up with tidbits from foreign papers which employ vague language like "one college in X district" or "one politician from Y party" etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Even if NYT's article is based on the claims of the affected female Muslim students, why should that view not be in the article with proper attribution? The criteria for DUE-ness is "have been published by reliable sources", and NYT should be regarded as a reliable source.' Also, the claim that a BJP politician had some involvement is by no means WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Deccan Herald wrote:

The decision of the Udupi government college to not allow some hijab-wearing Muslim students to attend their classes is the most recent example. The chairman of the managing committee of the college, a BJP MLA, defended the decision claiming that it is being done to ensure uniformity.Jan 21 article

.VR talk 04:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ghazala Wahab, Why the hijab row is not an identity issue, Mint Lounge, 9 February 2022.
  2. ^ Vincent D'Souza, Uniform not must, says PU dept website, contradicts Karnataka govt stand, The New Indian Express, 10 February 2022.
  3. ^ K. M. Rakesh, Hijab-clad students denied entry to classroom in Udupi PU college, The Telegraph (Kolkata), 2 Jan 2022.
That article concludes with Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH. You could attribute it to Apoorvanand, though whether it would be WP:DUE is unknown. It is better than the NYT source, as it is less ambiguous. BilledMammal (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • For part two, No. The correct information, which can be cross referenced from Indian Media, is that the BJP member was also a member of the college CDC, which is the committee which would decide the dress code. This would be an inaccurate portrayal of events, almost as if the decision was based on the inputs of the MLA, and not the CDC.
  • For part one, its less of a direct answer. I think that foreign media can be used, but in cases that are politically divisive, the usage should be kept to a minimum. Most foreign media houses are not the most precise with the statements they make, and are more often than not a summary of already available Indian sources. However, in non controversial areas, direct quotes, or factual information, they can obviously be used. Otherwise it should be taken up on a case by case basis by the editors involved. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • If the MLA (lawmaker) is a member of the college CDC, and the decision was made by the CDC, then this implies the MLA influenced the decision. Thus, NYT is correct to say "school issued the prohibition after meeting with a local lawmaker". Is your contention that we should mention the decision was taken after inputs from both the MLA and other members of the CDC? If so, I'm amenable to that. But we have NYT and DH articles that say the BJP MLA played a role, so that should be included, with attribution.VR talk 19:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • The NYT article implies, but does not say, the BJP MLA played a role, and the DH article is an opinion piece that DH added a disclaimer to. BilledMammal (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
      • The NYT wrote "The school issued the prohibition after meeting with a local lawmaker from...BJP". Is it ok to paraphrase this as "According to the New York Times, the college banned the hijab after meeting with a BJP politician"? Or do you think that is a misrepresentation? The above evidence shows that this is not an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim by any means. CapnJackSp confirmed that, according to local media, the MLA was indeed a part of the body that made this decision. The DH oped authored by Apoorvanand seems to be of a similar quality to the Ghazala Wahab oped cited above.VR talk 20:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The MLA was but one of the members. It is not unusual for colleges to have prominent locals as part of various committees. The sentence makes it seem as if there was a meeting with the MLA, and not a much larger meeting where the MLA was one of the members. More accurate would be "The college banned the hijab after conducting a meeting of the CDC, whose members included a MLA from the Bharatiya Janta Party." I see no reason for us to stick to NYT here, or even as an attributed source, when we know they present a misleading version of events.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with that proposed wording, and I believe it is accurate to the best of my knowledge of the events, but you do need inline citations to reliable sources for it.VR talk 03:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
That wording would be misleading actually, the MLA isn't just a member of the CDC, he is the chairman. His vice-chairman is from his party as well. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure, then "The college banned the hijab after conducting a meeting of the College Development Committee, whose chairman was a local MLA from the Bharatiya Janta Party.". My issue was with the sentence making it seem like the MLA just jumped in on his own, when its the due process being followed.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure that may be an issue, so can you provide an RS which states that it was done through a CDC meeting and that "due process" was in fact followed? The NYT source doesn't verify it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Chairing a meeting of parents of the over 1,000 students on Saturday, Udupi MLA and Chairman of College Development Committee K. Raghupati Bhat said that the college will continue with its uniform code, which includes a veil, as has been decided by the committee. . . . Therefore, there is no question of accepting the demand of the six students to allow them to wear hijab.[1]

This was the closest thing I could find to a reliable source indicating that the decision was taken by the committee, which was then reiterated during a meeting with the parents. But it doesn't say anything about the process followed by the committee.
PS As is apparent from the above extract, the article/MLA makes a distinction between 'veil' and 'hijab'. I am of the opinion that the 'veil' here, is referring to the dupatta provided by the institute as a part of its uniform. Rockcodder (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "College in Udupi decides to continue with dress code". The Hindu. 2 January 2022. Retrieved 15 February 2022.
That's just quoting Bhat, it also doesn't verify that the meeting between Bhat and the principal was a CDC one. Per WP:V, any content in articles need to be directly verifiable and should not be derived from synthesis of sources. If no one source is talking about the process or can support that the ban in the school was implemented after a CDC meeting, then the proposed line can't be included, just represent the NYT article as is. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Rockcodder's interpretation that the "veil" in The Hindu article means dupatta. The committee is the responsible body for deciding the uniform. In multiple places, it has been said that the uniform has been the same for 35 years. We can't be sure whether hijab was disallowed for all these 35 years, but certainly for the last 1.5 years when these students were in the college, it has been the same, according to Raghupati Bhat.[1] So, nothing new was decided at any time recent. NYT's information is quite ill-informed. Nothing based on the quoted passage above can be included in the article, with whatever wording people might think of. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Before hijab standoff, an anti-rape protest, faith, political rivalry, Indian Express, 11 February 2022. Quote: "Speaking to The Indian Express, Hazra Shifa, 18, one of the six girls who are now insisting on wearing the hijab to their classrooms, said that when they joined the Udupi PU College (Classes 11 and 12) in 2020, it [the College] told their parents about the no-hijab policy.
The NYT and similar publications are reliable sources for news. Furthermore, when citing facts in news reports, the name of the publication should only be in the footnotes. We would not say for example that Joe Biden was elected president of the U.S., according to the New York Times, because it would cast doubt on his election.
However in this case, the Wikipedia article implies that the decision was made because or partly because of the influence of the BJP. That's an opinion that would need to be explained. The source cited is not clear whether the legislator recommended for or against the ban. It doesn't say if they were acting on the instructions of the BJP or of their constituents. It doesn't say if the consultation made any difference or how they would know that.
TFD (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The NYT article says that the ban was instituted after the consultation? Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Fact Based America, or FBA News

https://fbanews.org/

I came across this news website making pretty bold claims of being "unbiased", "depolarizing", "just the facts", yada yada yada. I gave their front page articles some quick glances and made some hasty "fact-checking" through Google, and so far their stories look legit, but it is a quite obscure website. I can't seem to find any information on them or their writers anywhere on the internet, which to me is a red flag. I'm not sure if this should be considered a legitimate news outlet or a glorified news aggregator, so I'd like some input. --DannyC55 (Talk) 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't tell you how to regard the site, but I would certainly say it does not count as a reliable source at this time, as I can't find much of anything in the way of editorial process and I am unaware of a reputation for accuracy. It's possible I am overlooking one or both, but from my brief look, I'd say not a usable source here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Their about us page contains almost no useful information about their staff, their editorial policies, etc. etc. It makes the entire website seem like a project of a single person, which is NOT a hallmark of reliability. Being a reliable source is more than merely reporting the same things actual reliable sources report. It also means having a sound reputation among reliable sources and having editorial policies that ensure reliability. I see nothing like that here. --Jayron32 14:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Not at present. BUT they look pretty new. Who knows where they are going. I would not want this discussion to be binding on editors who might come back to it a year from now. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:NEWSORG, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. This is a less-established outlet at best, though it is a non-expert group blog at worst. I’d probably avoid it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Lacking bylines is definitely a red flag, as is the whole 'unbiased' and 'just the facts' schtick (good journalists know everyone has a bias, whether they want to admit it or not). I can't imagine a time we'd need to cite such a site like this, and couldn't find a significantly more reliable source for the same info (if we couldn't, that would be another red flag). Bakkster Man (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hindu World, An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. 2 vols. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1968) by Benjamin Walker

Source:Hindu World, An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism, also this "Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. In Two Volumes. Volume II M-Z , Routledge[1]

Please see Information here: Religious Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , October 1969 , pp. 126 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S003441250000408X Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Article: Vaidya (may be renamed to vaidya(profession) if there is consensus or possibly "Ancient Ayurvedic Physician"(new page)

Content: The section on Physician on page 236 an subsequent pages. Link is in the reference

It has good reviews by Ninian Smart. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

LukeEmily, is there a dispute over its use? Its an old tertiary source published by an academic press. If there are more recent scholarly sources and secondary ones, they should be given preference but other-wise it is usable though I wouldn't cite a teritary source, particularly one that's from 1969 for anything which could be remotely contentious. However it does over-ride anything that has not gone through legitimate peer-review. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Tayi Arajakate, no dispute yet but it does have some contentious content. Thank you for your input. Will avoid it for anything contentious. Thanks, LukeEmily (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Benjamin Walker (9 April 2019). Hindu World: An Encyclopedic Survey of Hinduism. In Two Volumes. Volume II M-Z. Routledge. p. 236. ISBN 978-0-429-62419-3.

The argument is being put forward that the spam blacklist can only be used for actual spam sites, thus not for sites deprecated for other reasons, eg OpIndia. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that discussion just regarding the meta spam blacklist? Enwiki's spam blacklist is distinct from that; it only affects enwiki, so discussions regarding the meta spam blacklist don't affect what we do with our own spam blacklist. (And it's at least reasonable spam blacklist to be slightly less restrictive, because the impact of listing something on enwiki's spam blacklist is lower than listing it on the meta blacklist - affecting only enwiki rather than all projects.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Good point but I still think refusing to add something to the only available blacklist just because it's not spam is wrong, and is being argued by people who have made the same argument here, that if it isn't spam it doesn't belong on our blacklist. Doug Weller talk 12:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe the phrase "deprecated for other reasons" does not apply to that discussion, since it contains zero occurrences of the word deprecated and participants may be unaware of use of deprecation to justify blacklisting, e.g. for ancient-origins.net. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like that entire discussion (and to a certain extent this one, too) is a distinction without a difference, since the list of types of spam on WP:SPAM consists of examples and is not exclusive. If a source is being added constantly, indiscriminately and without regard for its obvious unreliability on the points it's being cited for (or its obvious unsuitability under WP:ELNO, for external links), then it is being spammed. Spamming isn't solely about WP:COI editors or promotional material - if people are posting a source everywhere just because they think it's cool, and are ignoring people telling them to stop, then they're spamming it. If people aren't continuously adding it then of course there's no need for it to be added to the spam blacklist, but that has less to do with a strict red-tape definition of spam and more to do with the fact that the spam blacklist is a last resort - if people trying to add a source are rare enough that it's debatable whether it counts as spam, then do we really need to worry about it? --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Primarily the "people trying to add a source" were indeed rare, User:ancientoriginsnet who had already been blocked years ago. There was no good excuse for the blacklist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliability check

Please, someone, confirm me the reliability of this book.thanks Nobita456 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The journal title does not appear on Ulrichsweb. There is a similarly-titled journal called "Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology," which started publishing in 2004, but I don't have enough information to say whether the Bangladesh Journal of Sociology is a print ancestor of the Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. --Reedside (talk) 00:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

GameRant

Is GameRant reliable for entertainment news? Here is there about page, where they list their staff. It also looks like they fact-check their articles. I dont know if this helps but it seems like MetaCritic uses GameRant's reviews. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 00:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh I am going to assume they are definitely reliable now as they are owned by the same company that owns Screen Rant (see this). ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 00:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I would say they would be an acceptable source for video game and entertainment-related topics; keeping in mind that I would not consider them a high-quality source for contentious or possibly-defamatory claims about living people, and would use them only with great caution in that arena. Basically, if the only place you can find something negative about a living person is GameRant or ScreenRant, it isn't WP:DUE in Wikipedia content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Gotcha. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 01:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Really bottom of the barrel as far as entertainment sources go, I would suggest using pretty much any other mainstream entertainment publication over using GameRant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

laprogressive.com

I don't know that this has ever been a reliable source, despite it's extensive use on Wikipedia. However, wahtever it's iteration and ownership is now, it is not a legitimate source. It is effectively blackhat SEO/pay-for-publication. See for example this article written by Sejai Desai - a non-existent made up person, with a made up bio and photo from a stock image website. There are several such instances and they allow extensive publication by "guest" and "contributors" without distinguishing that they are not their editorial staff (which I also question the legitimacy of.) This should probably be deprecated as it has no value to the encyclopedia, much less any BLP. CUPIDICAE💕 16:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Best coverage I can find is in the context of their denial of the Uyghur genocide, from Vox (website): "In April, a small left-wing blog named LA Progressive began to publish articles denying the persecution of Uyghurs in Xinjiang ..."[4] (four paragraphs, too long to copy paste all of it). So I would say thats a strong indication that they are generally unreliable or worse, Vox puts them in the same category as The Greyzone which is deprecated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: the reporting your are referencing is from Coda Story, which is WP:GREL on RSP but is editorially separate from Vox as far as I can tell. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Mhawk10: You are entirely right for some reason I thought it was a Vox branch but Coda Media appears to be entirely independent, my apologies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
From its about page:

In 2008, Dick and Sharon launched the LA Progressive — intentionally bringing to the fore the progressive voice in Los Angeles. Their mission was and is to provide a platform for progressive thought, opinion and perspectives on current events.
The LA Progressive openly and unapologetically supports and employs advocacy journalism. We believe the media not only informs the public, but it also works towards engaging citizens and creating public debate. We embrace the idea of civic journalism and reject the idea that objective reporting is even possible. We don’t believe that journalists can be objective spectators of politics and we don’t pretend otherwise.

As bolded, the site provides thought, opinion and perspectives, but “news” isn’t actually found anywhere in that list. Phrased differently, this isn’t a dispassionate news source—it’s a partisan opinion site that is described as a mere blog by reliable sources. It certainly isn’t a WP:NEWSORG and it does not appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. As a result, I do not think the source is reliable for reporting facts. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
To add on, it’s probably useable in an WP:ABOUTSELF context for its owners and for the opinions of those who blog on the website, but for BLPs that’s the only way I see this being useable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I see this source cited often. Looking into it some more, it's more of community political group blog than anything else. Besides the Coda Story, Politico reports that they made unsubstantiated claims about Sarah Palin[5] and the Los Angeles Times reported a woman used LA Progresive to allege a couple broke animal cruelty laws (officials "found no evidence of animal abuse") [6]. Definitely not an RS.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to note frequency, it isn't cited super often (I see 61 in this search), but there are a number of WP:BLPs in that list. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

GNIS not as appropriate for locations as one might think

See Wikipedia:Reliability of GNIS data#Reliability of locations. This was not covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 357#RfC: GNIS. Uncle G (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah. Perfection is not the same as reliability. Location data is generally reliable in GNIS, the occasional typo notwithstanding. The rest of that section is mostly about different conventions for defining locations and features; it's not that GNIS is unreliable, its that it uses a different convention than various Wikiprojects have used. --Jayron32 14:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The precision of GNIS seems to be better for some areas than others. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acodale, Virginia. I've yet to see GNIS coordinates be off by more than a mile, but they do every so often get something onto the wrong side of the river or make a second or third decimal error. I'd say it's generally okay enough for coordinates but use common sense of something seems off and if RS conflict with GNIS on coordinates, it's probably best to ignore GNIS. Hog Farm Talk 14:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Times of Assam

Hi Folks!! Is this reliable? Times of Assam. It has a odd declaration up at About. It is related to a query at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah scope_creepTalk 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe? I had never heard of Times of Assam before so I tried searching for secondary coverage and it seems to be a newspaper that is at least recognised. For instance, there is an editorial in The Sentinel which mentions it in a list of newspapers, Firstpost has used it as a source for a story on insurgency in Assam, a Reuters Institute paper (p.16) uses it as a citation and a couple other examples. There is not much though even after considering the poor indexing of news sources from Northeast India. The web design and the about page is poor but that is not uncommon for the region. I don't see any red flags in its news pieces but I'd be a bit wary of using it, Assamese press does not have a good reputation, it suffers from the same endemic issues that much of the Indian press in general has and perhaps to a greater extent, i.e sensationalism without basic fact checking, undisclosed advertorials and private treaties, excessive reliance on government ads, etc. Tayi Arajakate Talk 22:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the search @Tayi Arajakate: I see in the Sentinel article, regarding the first monthly magazine they had, was called Arunodoi which is very close to the former name of editor in question at COI. Does anybody else have a view? scope_creepTalk 01:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Just a note though, the monthly magazine Arunodoi was shut down in 1883 and has no relation to Times of Assam which was launched in 2010. The parent company of Times of Assam is named Arunodoy Consultancy Services which is a possible indication of COI, with the caveat that this is a somewhat common term. Tayi Arajakate Talk 03:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
(Adding a specific example, found out in the COIN discussion linked above, about the issues Tayi outlined)
Snapshots (Oct 2020, Apr 2021 and 3 Nov 2021) of a 2019 Times of Assam article about an IPS officer show that the article copy was silently updated to include two paragraphs on schooling and early career (lines starting worked as a Lecturer at Bajali College ... and secured 9th Rank in his HSLC examination ...) sometime after 3 Nov 2021. A curious caption for a photo, Permitted for Wikipedia.org to use, was also added. A wikipedia article on the officer was created on 10 Nov 2021, which used both that photo and schooling/rank details, referencing the updated ToA article. Hemantha (talk) 05:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
A TOA interviewer/Chief Editor states in 2018: We understand, the Jewish community is having formidable control over the American and even the global economy. (archive.today link). Beccaynr (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Historian check

Please see this. does the author fits under the category of a historian? Nobita456 (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nobita456: It quite clearly says sociology (of religion), so no, what you have there is a sociologist. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
However, in that the research eyes historical developments, it could shed light on historic topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Iskandar323 please check this WP:HISTRS.and tell me can I use it in history related articles? Nobita456 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You can use any reliable source in history related articles, we don't have restrictions around that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back This is what I wanted to know, is this book reliable? auther has Phd in pol science doest that make him a historian? Nobita456 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nobita456: The book is reliable. It is printed by a reliable publisher, Brill, and if you look at the opening pages has also been determined to meet certain guidelines as a library resource. However, the author is still a sociologist/political scientist, not a historian, by profession - though as @Horse Eye's Back notes, this should not be of concern, as it is reliable regardless. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't have the background to be able to tell you that for sure, in general I would assume that a book published by Brill and written by a Phd would be a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the process to verify the inclusion of a source if it is from a master's thesis?

I am questioning the verifiability of a source listed for Lakeview Academy and would appreciate advice on how to proceed. The first source cited (by Monica Blair) [1] is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines as it is a master’s thesis and is not shown to have “significant scholarly influence.” As the source does not meet Wikipedia's guideline, [2], would it be safe for me to remove the citation from the article or is there a process for its review? Thank you for any direction you can give. --Smileykaye (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)----17:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Smileykaye (talk)

Smileykaye you do not have to get prior approval to remove non-RS sources. WP:BEBOLD (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Buidhe:Thank you for answering my question. Do I only remove the cited source as a source or can I also remove the content that used the source? --Smileykaye (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Jumping in here—it’s totally fine to remove content that isn’t cited to reliable sources, as well as the reference to the unreliable source, when you can’t find a reliable source that says the same thing. On the other hand, if you can find reliable sources that say the same thing as the unreliable source, then it might be better to discuss the removal. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. It's all a bit muddy because I work for a school. A statement was made about the school and a master thesis was cited as the source. A second source, a book,is used to reinforce the thesis and statement. However, the school is mentioned only once in the book and the book cites as its source an unpublished/self-published source that was written five years PRIOR to the founding of the school. We want to question the validity of both sources but because I work at the school, I cannot get those who have bookmarked our page to get passed the fact I work for the school. Any suggestions? --Smileykaye (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Make a specific request on the article talk page with {{COI edit request}}. Be sure to provide a succinct rationale for the request you are making and to ensure that the request complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also be sure to be specific in you request—note what words you want taken out and what words you want to replace them, complete with citations—so that editors don't reject the changes as too vague to be actionable out-of-hand. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Smileykaye: The book by Winfred Pitts was published by University Press of America, which, as far as I know, makes it a reliable source. It is to be expected that authors of reliable sources have used sources we could not use, as it is understood that the authors of reliable sources have analyzed and interpreted the sources they use. In my opinion, the sentence for which Pitts's book is cited should stay in the article. While not germane to this noticeboard, I will also note that, in my opinion, the article about the school fails to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline, and might be deleted if nominated for deletion. - Donald Albury 21:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/blair_monica_k_201505_ma.pdf
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreliable_source%3F

Punknews.org

I would like some input on the general reliability of Punknews.org. A previous RSN discussion (albeit a decade old) seemed to conclude it was only good for reviews. As such, I removed a suggestion to use Punknews for updates on Gorilla Biscuits. I was met with strong resistance, claiming Punknews is reliable. I was further told Punknews is worthy as a citation because it is used in a featured article candidate (namely Tell All Your Friends). Instead of coming here, DannyMusicEditor and MusicforthePeople opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:ALBUMS#Reliability of Punknews.org. There you can find a resume of past and present contributors to Punknews.org. Despite the arguments made for editorial oversight for what I view as an open site for anyone to publish, the editors were defending this and this as reliable for their FAC (Tell All Your Friends). NB I do not know why these two editors seem to work in tandem. --SVTCobra 22:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Is there something inherently wrong with working together? We just like a lot of the same music. You're also taking my comment out of context - I linked you there because that was where we were told to bring it to the WikiProject for a more thorough discussion. As for why we didn't come here, why do you phrase that like it's wrong? There's more than one place you can go. Taking resources that cover the WP's scope there for discussion to add to their source list is quite common. dannymusiceditor oops 23:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Copied my comment from the discussion above: Unreliable. I read Punknews now and then but I've never paid attention to their writers or policies. I just kind of assumed that they were reliable. But now that I'm seeing the lack of writer or editor bios, listed journalistic training or experience, or editorial policies, I can only consider the site unreliable. Jesus, they have a writer named "renaldo69". The only positive is that they have a masthead, but it doesn't help because all of their bios are blank. On the "list of credentials" compiled above, none are contributing editors. One is the founder, and his "experience" is writing a whole seven reviews at Exclaim. Woodroar (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Woodroar: I found this, which at least confirms Gentile to be an editor, as far as the list of credentials is concerned. In regards to renaldo69, that is his name[7]. MusicforthePeople (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think this helps the case for PunkNews. John Gentile's own Muck Rack page says he's a writer but the PunkNews about page and your linked article says he's an editor. So which is it? Also note that he wrote at Rolling Stone Italy, which syndicates articles from the U.S. edition but is otherwise run by a different publisher. As for Renaldo69, the fact that PunkNews allows pseudonymous writers is kind of a joke. That should be immediate fail criteria for reliability. Woodroar (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I will not contest the above oppose at this time, but I have issues with the way this was presented. A website with this many staff involved in publications much higher regarded (and clearly marked staff content) should absolutely have an editorial board, which acts as a filter for any contributions sent to them. The staff won't post just anything, this is a serious site for music journalism. They must do their due diligence. Obviously, anything blatantly user-submitted and not marked as official staff content fails WP:USERG, but I do not think it is fair to blanket-treat this as an "open site for anyone to publish". I ask: if a staff member, part of this filter, directly endorses a submission by publishing it, what is the difference between something they originally published? dannymusiceditor oops 23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It means they're not there now. So? What does it matter if they're not there anymore? If they've moved on to another publication, it just reinforces their contributions, if anything, from my perspective. dannymusiceditor oops 00:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable as has a professional editor set up. The alumni is of course relevant to the work they published there before leaving. We need to see examples of any unreliability rather than generalised assertions, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Unreliable except for quotes and attributed opinion/reviews. The site does not appear to have the editorial controls or the reputation for fact checking/accuracy expected of a reliable source. Contrary to what Atlantic306 asserts, the burden is always on the person asserting that the source is reliable to establish that it is; we don't presume everything that everyone ever writes is reliable unless proven otherwise. On the contrary, sources need to meet standards of reliability before being acceptable; this one does not. --Jayron32 18:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: Would you mind elaborating specifically what makes you think they don't have editorial control or sufficient fact-checking? I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just not understanding why people are saying that. I see you mentioned these problems, but the rest of the comment is talking about the one reliable vote. dannymusiceditor oops 02:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Are they cited by other sources? What is the reputation of the people that write for them? What is the reputation of the editorial staff? What do other sources say about them? If you can provide some answers to that, it would answer those questions. --Jayron32 11:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've used the staff reviews and removed the user ones, as that's what Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources has advised. Does Punknews.org actually report original news or publish longer features? It's not great to cite any rewritten press release; sites like Pitchfork, Exclaim!, The A.V. Club, etc., certainly use/have used this "model" of journalism as well. I read it months ago, but I remember Sellout, for example, referencing Punknews.org, so perhaps things aside from the staff reviews have reliability? Caro7200 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica RS?

For the Bezoar Ibex, I used the Encyclopaedia Iranica as a source for the Characteristics section because it is listed as an RS. However, is it reliable? It seems to be a tertiary source (like Britannica, which is rated marginally reliable) and previous arguments have been made that, as a specialised encyclopedia, it is more accurate than Britannica and relatively scholarly. However, there are numerous instances when it is unreliable:

1. Iranshenasi: The article is unencyclopedic and states that "A remarkable aspect of Iranshenasi has always been the care that the editor, Jalal Matini, gives to ensuring that articles are free from errors of fact or of typesetting." This is extremely positive, and also this paragraph: "Though that number is no more than a few hundred, the journal’s influence is much greater than the number might suggest. First, most research libraries in the world that have a Middle Eastern or Iranian section are subscribers. Second, it is considered to be one of the most authoritative scholarly journals on Iranian culture and literature."

2. Persian Ibex: The article uses inconsistent formats, e.g.,

"In pre-Islamic Iran the ibex was a source of meat and secondary products such as horn and hide. In addition, it appears in the iconography of many different periods in a wide variety of media. The ibex was hunted in Iran from the Middle Paleolithic period onwards..."

"Steep, rocky slopes and sheer cliffs are the preferred habitat of the Persian ibex. They will, however, frequent gentle slopes, rolling hills, and adjacent plains in order to feed and obtain water, particularly when these include sections covered with shrubs and trees. However, they are always within safe distance of their refuge, rocky terrain and cliffs. The breeding season begins in mid- to late November in northern Persia and up to two months earlier in the south. This is the time when rival males engage in fights, some quite serious, over the possession of a harem. The kids are born from early to late May in the northern regions, and mid-February to early April in the more southern parts of their range. Twin kids are usually produced, but sometimes only one, and more rarely, three.

Until the revolution of 1979, the ibex was found in almost all of Persia’s mountainous areas with rugged cliffs..."

3. ṢABĀ, ABU’l-ḤASAN

Fundamental spelling errors, such as the use of double-spacing after full stops, e.g., "His father, Abu’l-Qāsem Kamāl-al-Salṭana, a medical doctor, was an amateur musician and poet. He descended from a long line of distinguished court physicians, all of whom were also known for their artistic talents (Mašḥun, p. 589)." But this line is normal: "ṢABĀ, ABU’l-ḤASAN (b. Tehran, 1281 Š./1902; d. Tehran, 29 Āḏar 1336/19 December 1957), Persian musician and music educator (Figure 1; Figure 2). He excelled as a performer and teacher of the violin, setār, santur, and tombak (tonbak; see IRAN xi. MUSIC, DRUMS)."

The article also takes you to an incomplete page here: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/saba-zard-malijeh

Even on WP, those fundamental issues would likely not persist for so long, since the Persian Ibex article has not been updated for ten years. On top of that, the website seems fairly dated and does praise itself extremely glowingly "In addition to the remarkable breadth and balance of its topical and chronological coverage, the Encyclopædia Iranica has also been extremely successful in maintaining the highest scholarly standards, with many articles being the most comprehensive and authoritative treatment of their subjects currently available, while at the same time making the articles accessible, unintimidating, comprehensible, and relevant for non-specialists." Tertiary sources are only listed as marginally reliable (e.g., Britannica) but this one is said to be generally reliable despite loads of errors. Could someone please comment if this is a reliable source that I should use? This is my first time at the RSN so many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In general, I think almost all subject-specific reference works are probably more reliable than Britannica. In particular, Iranica has a named editorial board with apparently appropriate subject matter experts, and gets approving mentions in academic articles and reviews. On the other hand it... is sometimes inconsistent over whether it uses single- or double-spaces after a period? I'm not seeing a strong case not to consider it reliable here, with the caveats already mentioned at WP:Tertiary. Reliable sources aren't expected to be 100% perfect or error free, and the errors you have mentioned seem totally minor. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help- VickKiang (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

After further research and fact-checking, I still have some doubts regarding factual errors. For instance, the length of the Kabul River is typically listed around 700km in dictionaries and upon a quick search on Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&as_vis=1&q=kabul+river+length&btnG=). However, Iranica states 350km. While it lists its editors and contributors for Kabul River (Andreas Wilde) is not on the Consulting Editors or the Editors list, so his credentials could not be determined. This is the case with many other contributors. The editorial process seems also widely inconsistent, it states that the Chicago Manual of Style is usually followed with in-house guidelines, but numerous grammatical errors do not show this case. In Afghanistan Economy, there are also factual errors, it states that D’Afḡānestān bānk was established in 1938, but the official website (https://www.dab.gov.af/dab-history) and even the bank's photo claims the date as 1939, not 1938. Despite that RS is not infallible, in my opinion, I am sure that there are heaps of more errors on Iranica.

Iranica is also severely outdated, as most of the stats for this page (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/economy-xi-in-modern-afghanistan#prettyPhoto) is from 1989 (30! years ago). Further, there is no discussion after 1995 on the economy. The discussions cited throughout Kabul's modern-day is at newest from 2006, which is 15 years ago (https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kabul-iv-urban-politics-since-zaher-shah). This, coupled with the fact of some contributors without clearly listed credentials, factual errors, unclear adherence of its editorial policies, and it being the tertiary source leads me to believe that its quality is about the same as Britannica (which is middling in quality). Please look into this. Thanks for your help- VickKiang (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment: River length is not a good example of inaccuracy, as this can vary tremendously depending on the methodology, e.g.: where is begins and ends, what is considered the trunk and what is considered tributary, whether and which tributaries are counted, if straight lines are drawn or meanders are meticulously measured. Corporation founding dates can just as easily vary based on the distinction between incorporation and regulation/licensing, such as formal licensing for financial services in the case of banking. This could well be the case here. There is no reason to assume that an official website is any more accurate on such matters - in fact, corporations often obfuscate their own origins for a variety of public relations reasons. Material being outdated is a far more relevant rational for the inclusion/exclusion of its content, but can very readily be handled on a case-by-case basis by cross-referencing sources, as you have just shown. Tertiary sources are always a starting point, not the holy grail, of information sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and help, agree with the outdated note- VickKiang (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Encyclopædia Iranica is generally very reliable. As has been mentioned, RS are by no means infallible. Many contain errors, and they should always be checked against other RS. For encyclopedic entries, it's also always relevant to check the scholarly expertise and reputation of the individual author. Finally, Encyclopædia Iranica has a strong historical focus, and may be a bit out of its depth on non-historical topics (I have occasionally found this to be the case). Context matters. But when all is said and done, Encyclopædia Iranica is a very high-quality, subject-specific, academic encyclopedia. It's very often an excellent source. Comparisons with Encyclopædia Britannica, whose articles regularly are of questionably quality, are not at all appropriate. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed response- VickKiang (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Jrank.org

Jrank.org HTTPS links HTTP links citations look like a mass copy-paste of copyvio contents. Possible candidate for the spam blacklist? - Amigao (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Jason Hickel

Material from Jason Hickel's 2020 book Less is More has been removed twice [14] [15] from Criticism of capitalism by User:Volunteer Marek on the grounds that it is UNDUE and FRINGE. I restored it once [16] arguing that Hickel is "a notable anthropologist associated with the London School of Economics and hardly fringe. With proper attribution to source, it is certainly DUE for this section of the article. We can take to WP:RSN if necessary. Mass deletions of reliably sourced and properly attributed material with baseless accusations of "FRINGE!" is not a constructive way to edit IMO." I stand by those words. It should be noted that he is not just an anthropologist but an economic anthropologist, and also a Fulbright scholar and a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. This not only makes him a notable scholar but one who also specializes in the study of global inequality and political ecology, making him more than qualified to be cited as a source in a sub-section of an article on the criticism of capitalism (it's not like the material was shoehorned into the lead of the capitalism article or something, which would be undue.) Given that, and that there is proper attribution to the source so as not to be using Wikipedia's voice, I fail to see how the source is unreliable or fringe, or that this is somehow undue. He also regularly writes columns for The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy and other media outlets, further demonstrating his notability.

Marek makes the argument that "wikipedia is not a platform for publicizing fringe views like de-growth." First of all, Wikipedia has an entire article on the subject of degrowth. Secondly, the concept is not even discussed in the material provided from his book, which is why the chapter title (Capitalism: A Creation Story) is included in the citation. If that is the issue, his previous book The Divide could also be cited as it discusses some of these issues as well. It is also worth mentioning that Less is More was selected as one of Financial Times' books of the year for 2020.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: Wow, almost 48 hours in and nothing. Okay, perhaps I should have just come out and asked: is Jason Hickel, an economic anthropologist affiliated with the London School of Economics, a reliable source for criticisms of capitalism? I believe that he is reliable and notable, and I think the case I made above establishes this. But if that isn't enough, here is a google scholar search on him.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Final EDIT if no response: Wow, this is a head scratcher. I'm going to assume one or all of these are true based on the lack of response here: 1) editors have no interest in this, 2) they don't know who Hickel is and don't care, and 3) there are no strong objections to using Hickel as a source for criticism of capitalism (otherwise there would have been a response). A fourth possibility is that not enough editors have seen this. As such, I am considering restoring this material (with slight modifications, including adding a second source: Hickel's 2018 book The Divide for reasons mentioned in my first post) in the next few days (giving it some time based on the fourth assumption). I do not believe the source is FRINGE! or that the material is undue. Incidentally, even if the sourcing and material were fringe, that alone does not justify arbitrary deletion, given policy per WP:FRINGE states that "Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." Hickel is a notable academic, as I have established above, and his books Less is More and The Divide were published by respected publishing houses, Penguin Books and W. W. Norton & Company respectively. As such, there is no legitimate justification, as of yet, for the removal of this material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Buffalo Chronicle

The Buffalo Chronicle has been disputed as a non-reliable news source by multiple publications. See below articles from BuzzFeed News and BBC News raising issues with this news source:

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-55005815

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/matthew-ricchiazzi-buffalo-chronicle-trudeau-claims

Multiple news publications that would otherwise be considered credible, such as the Independent (in the UK), have cited the Buffalo Chronicle for some of their information. Most notably, the article for Ruth Bader Ginsburg was previously citing an article from the Spokesman Review, which itself cites the Buffalo Chronicle for its claims. However, just because a credible news source cites a noncredible one, doesn't mean the information suddenly now has credibility. It's still ultimately being sourced from a nonreliable source, even if indirectly, regardless of whether it's intentional or not.

The article for Ruth Bader Ginsburg has since been updated to remove the citations from this source. It was citation 120. However, the issue may appear again, as many articles on the web, from other publications, appear to be citing the Buffalo Chronicle, despite the issues raised regarding its credibility by publications such as BBC News.

I believe the Buffalo Chronicle should not be allowed to be used as a source, both directly and indirectly. I believe the two articles from BBC News and Buzzfeed linked above provide compelling evidence as to why. Historiantruth123 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

However, just because a credible news source cites a noncredible one, doesn't mean the information suddenly now has credibility. I disagree. If a reliable source decides to republish the information, we can assume that they've done sufficient due diligence to determine that the information is correct. I have no opinion on the Buffalo Chronicle as a source, but if another reliable source republishes information from there, then it's perfectly fine to cite to that reliable source for that piece of information. Mlb96 (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

If an RS cites a non RS for some information, we can assume they fact checked it, or at least reviewed it. If, as you believe, Buffalo Chronicle is noncredible, then you must show examples of them publishing false information. Pious Brother (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

One needs to be REALLY careful how the text in the RS is written, however. If the text says "As first reported in the Buffalo Chronicle, yada yada yada", that's a different statement than "The Buffalo Chronicle reports that yada yada yada happened". The first places events in chronological relationship, but lets the "yada yada yada" stand on its own; the reliable source is still stating the "yada yada yada" in its own voice. The second does not do that because it establishes merely that the Buffalo Chronicle has reported something, not that the thing stands on its own. It seems like a small thing, but these small things matter. --Jayron32 13:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Buffalo Chronicle should not be used in any way, shape or form. It is 'satire' that fails to disclose itself properly. Here is an explicit example of their fake news.
Buffalo Chron: https://buffalochronicle.com/2022/01/19/lanza-backs-hochuls-plan-to-make-staten-island-a-stand-alone-municipality/
Rebuttal: https://www.silive.com/news/2022/02/i-wish-it-were-true-but-its-not-says-sen-lanza-about-false-staten-island-secession-from-nyc-report.htmlSlywriter (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
If the website has been taking payments to make positive or negative stories about political candidates, doesn’t have substantial editorial review, and doesn’t have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it isn’t a reliable WP:NEWSORG. That Buzzfeed News piece is also in The Star, for those with a subscription, and it’s important to note that both newsrooms were involved in the investigation that uncovered the 2010 emails. The Buffalo Chronicle published what it says are the interview questions it was asked and their response to them, but I don’t find the responses to be persuasive enough to significantly bring into question the reporting from The Star. For what it’s worth, The Buffalo News is the established local newspaper and seems to be a much better source for local reportage. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The Buffalo Chronicle appears to be considered generally or thoroughly unreliable, and should not be used as a source, e.g.

  • AFP, Oct. 9, 2019: The Buffalo Chronicle, a US based online media known to peddle fabricated stories involving Canadian politics...
  • BBC News, Nov. 21, 2020: News integrity website News Guard says Buffalo Chronicle "severely violates basic standards of credibility and transparency"...
  • BuzzFeed, Oct. 18, 2019/Toronto Star, Oct. 18, 2019:Since the beginning of the year, the Buffalo Chronicle has published unsigned articles based on unnamed sources that allege backroom dealings at the highest levels of the Canadian government. Several of the stories have been deemed false or unsupported by news organizations, including the Agence France-Presse, which was contracted by Facebook to debunk fake news., Oct. 29, 2019: An American website that pumped out uncorroborated articles about Canadian politics during the federal election campaign was allowed to promote its content via paid ads on Facebook despite the fact that its articles have been repeatedly deemed false by news organizations, including by one of Facebook's own fact-checking partners.
  • National Observer, Oct. 10, 2019: ...the Buffalo Chronicle, an American website known for publishing false stories about Canadian politics mixed with wire copy, upped the ante in an unsourced article published with no byline.
  • Patch, Jan. 13, 2022: No, Madison Square Garden Is Not Moving To Hell's Kitchen, The story appeared Monday on a website called The Buffalo Chronicle, [...] Though its name evokes the title of a stalwart local newspaper, the Chronicle is in fact a known purveyor of fake news, having sown misinformation about the 2020 U.S. Presidential race and conspiracy theories about Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Next Avenue

Am wondering if the website Next Avenue can be considered a reliable source for information within a BLP. Article: Morrison Polkinghorne, url of source is here. Appears to have an editorial staff, is published by PBS, and claims to adhere to the PBS Standards and Practices (which looks like it means this source qualifies as generally reliable). I was not able to find any discussion of it in the archives. What do others think? A loose necktie (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? I'm curious to know why you think this rates an RfC. Edit war? — Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
A previous editor of the article, Vexations had marked the source as possibly unreliable. A loose necktie (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I felt that WP:FORBES applied there. The actual source is not Forbes, they just republished https://www.nextavenue.org/cambodia-second-act-business/. It would be better to cite the original and consider whether THAT is reliable. Note that the article is part of "America's Entrepreneurs," a Next Avenue initiative made possible by the Richard M. Schulze Family Foundation and EIX, the Entrepreneur Innovation Exchange. Vexations (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
That is what we are doing here. The source in the article has been changed to indicate its origin. WP:FORBES may have seemed appropriate at first glance, but that is no longer at issue. The question is, is Next Avenue reliable? Is that not what we are now discussing? A loose necktie (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is IslamQA.info a reliable source?

Specifically for a articles relating to Islamic belief. Eg this article there is used for this note.[According to at least one Salafi/Wahabi scholar, Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, "Allah supported the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with physical miracles, with which he challenged his people. Among the most important of these were the splitting of the moon and the Night Journey to Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem). They were unable to match these miracles, and so they were a decisive, divine testimony to the truth of his Prophethood (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).] at Miracles of Muhammad. Doug Weller talk 13:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Per their about us, These answers are supervised by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid; per our article on him he is a respected scholar in the Salafi movement, which could suggest that there is a suitable level of editorial control. They have also been cited in The Lancet , and a search for references to IslamQA or Al-Munajjid on JSTOR turns up 438 results; a quick sampling suggests that most of these references support a statement about Islamic belief. I suspect they can be considered reliable. BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal: thanks. Raises the question though as to whether it’s a reliable source only for Salafi related issues, all Sunni issues, or also Shia issues. In this specific case it does look reliable. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    When cited, it appears to be about Islamic belief in general, rather than just Salafi or just Sunni, but I assume that some answers only apply to the Salafi or Sunni perspective. It might be reasonable to consider the weight of the claim; for less significant claims, they can be considered reliable for Islamic belief, while for more significant claims they should only be considered reliable for Salafi belief. BilledMammal (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    No disagree. it’s a sectarian Salafi source and certainly should not be used as source for “Islamic belief in general”. It most certainly is not “mainstream” Muslim - Salafism/Wahhabism is not mainstream and is controversial both within and outside Islam. It is however, the most prominent English-language mouthpiece for Salafism. So per Apaugasma below, it is a good source for Salafi belief - but should be used with care for only that purpose. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
    I was leaning that way, but the fact that reliable sources appear to use it generally raised questions. BilledMammal (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    @BilledMammal the article on the founder raises huge questions in its own right. Half of the article is referenced back to Islam Q&A and the fact that they are a respected scholar hangs on the flimsy evidence of one article on Al-Jazeera. It should be noted that Salafis reject almost the entire Islamic scholarly tradition including Ash'arism and the other orthodox theological traditions of Islam. Islamic legal scholarship is also highly interpretive, which means if one Sheikh is editorially controlling a platform, it is likely to be reflective not just of only 21st-century Salafism/Wahhabism, but the specific views of the founder. I would expect to see a board of editors to assert the claim of editorial control. Furthermore, if this website it simply stating opinions on subjects from a specific viewpoint without significant contextualisation, self-reflection, contrasting of alternative viewpoints or other forms of analytical standpoints then can this source even be considered to be secondary? If it is the pointed mouthpiece of one legal scholar, might it not be closer to primary or even self-published? In terms of JSTOR hits, the potential risk that I see is that Islam Q&A's outsized online presence might well have led well-meaning third parties to believe that it is more representative of Islam as a whole (and less specifically Salafi) than it actually is, leading to outsized referencing in other material. I would therefore not necessarily take numerical hits at face value without closer inspection. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • IslamQA.info is only representative of the Salafi position, which is an ultra-conservative religious point of view. As such, it is not in any way disinterested/independent with regard to Islamic belief in general and should only be used as a primary source. The way it is cited at this time in Miracles of Muhammad to illustrate a general point about the Islamic view on prophetic miracles is therefore inappropriate, though not too far out of line with the quality of the rest of the article as it stands. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • IslamQA.info (not to be confused with IslamQA.org) is a good source on Salafi beliefs. Because otherwise reliable sources may misquote Salafi positions, so its always good to check a claim about Salafism using the website. IslamQA.info also summarizes the positions of some medieval Sunni scholars (Malik ibn Anas, Abu Hanifa, Ibn Taymiyyah etc), and AFAIK they've never been accused of misquoting them. The website should never be used as a source, not even with attribution, for anything relating to non-Sunni Islam (Shia, Ahmadiyya etc). The website's "QA" format is meant for general public consumption, it is not scholarship (kinda like popular history vs academic history). If good scholarly sources exist on a topic, they should be preferred over IslamQA.info.VR talk 05:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • As Apaugasma stated above that "IslamQA.info is only representative of the Salafi position". I don't feel it is fine to cite it outside this realm. In general Islamic academia, there's much Sunni-Salafi controversy. So, no to its usage in general but okay if cited as an attributed opinion wherever necessary. ─ The Aafī (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment It is a Q&A and is unreliable. scope_creepTalk 18:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I am very new to the RSN but edited the article on Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid a couple of times, so please correct me for anything wrong. In my opinion, this source is not reliable. From what I can gather, the Al Jazeera article is not written well, only citing four sources, with the only one related to Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid a source from islamqa.info by Al-Munajjid himself, which is unreliable; so this claim that he is well-respected seems dubious. The Lancet Journal cites islamqa.org, a different source with the author being not Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid but a different author (see link: https://islamqa.org/hanafi/seekersguidance-hanafi/32700/). There are also only 26 sources citing this website from JSTOR. Also, the number of citations based on a quick search on JSTOR is not necessarily a great indicator since The Daily Mail, an atrociously unreliable source, has some citations (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=dailymail.com&so=rel). Plus, I looked up the first matching source of the online journal that cites islamqa.org and it also has fairly poor sourcing (e.g., source 35 cites a Facebook post?) With the credentials aside, this seems like a self-published source without any peer review or formal editorial process listed (see this Wikipedia archived discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_283#IslamQA), the only possible explanation is that this person is established and professional, which is unclear since there are few actual coverages of the website or the person directly, and 26 searches, some of them not being actually relevant, is also not a great indicator. Even if this is reliable, it is likely a very restrained source that is certainly not mainstream and could only be used for a very narrow field. Once again thanks for your help and if I said anything wrong please point it out. Many thanks- VickKiang (talk) 04:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that earlier discussion that without proof of strict editorial controls, the best we can likely conclude about Islam Q&A is that it is essentially akin to a self-published blog. The other details in that discussion should only add to the reservations. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Now I've seen that Muhammad Al-Munajjid never even studied Islam in a formal institution or received accreditation as a scholar, so what we are discussing here is a Q&A by a person with no acknowledged expertise in the subject-matter area. So junk. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I think WP:USEBYOTHERS would be relevant here, given its broad use as a source on Islamic beliefs in reliable academic sources. BilledMammal (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and suggestions. In my opinion, is its use in RS really 'Broad'? 26 is not broad in my opinion, considering that of those results here (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Islamqa.info&so=rel), some does not even cite this source. Thanks for your help-VickKiang (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your search is too limited; I can't recall the exact text of mine, but it produced considerably more results, most of which were relevant - although the fact that I am now unable to find the correct search suggests I might have been incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hyperallergic

Is this source reliable for the statement it's supporting? I'm trying to establish that Trinidadian rapper Nicki Minaj's third album The Pinkprint (2014) was critically acclaimed given that a large number of sources report the album as such. This source, despite having its own article, has been reverted by an editor stating it as such as unreliable and non-notable without any basis.

As I can't find any mention of it in the list or the noticeboard archives, I'm coming here to ask if this source is appropriate for the content in this article? Thank you. shanghai.talk to me 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai I think it's fine in this context (mostly based on it's WP-article), but WP:OVERCITE may be an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, Not really, as there is an editor (with a history of bias against Nicki Minaj and Minaj-related articles that other editors have called out) that insists it is not enough sources. But your answer is appreciated, this source should probably be fine. Additionally, I think that because of the opposition from this editor, the amount of sources that cite her critical acclaim are important. shanghai.talk to me 16:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC Daily NK

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Finding consensus as No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: which is a conclusion that is going to be unsatisfactory to everyone. Even me. Sheer counting bolded words at the beginning of opinions, we have 1 for "reliable", 2 for "use with attribution", 3 for "not reliable". So it's tempting to close with a "no consensus" right there. But, honestly, the most useful opinions come from TheGEICOgecko, Chillabit, and Dunutubble who did not put bolded words in front, but all gave thoughtful discussion with many sources. Basically, it's "additional considerations apply", where the considerations are:
  • The Daily NK has been shown to be wrong multiple times;
  • however, it has noticeable WP:USEBYOTHERS by some of our most reliable sources, not to mention the South Korean government, which you'd think would be the most interested;
  • and in its area of focus, North Korea, what are usually our most reliable sources - CNN, the New York Times, etc. - have been shown to be equally wrong.
The Al Jazeera article cited by TheGEICOgecko basically says that, among others. Honestly, it looks like reasoned consensus, as phrased by Chillabit, Dunutubble and others is that for the area of North Korea we should treat all sources with a great deal of skepticism. Including, but not limited to, DailyNK. There isn't really a box for that in RSNP, the closest we have is "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply". Certainly we don't use Daily NK alone for information in Wikipedia's voice, but does that mean "don't use" or "use with attribution"? It has to depend on the specific instance. That's not going to be an easy rule to follow, but a) we don't really have the option to write nothing about a nation of 25 million people that regularly makes front page international news, yet b) to be absolutely safe we'd basically have to do that, because there are no good sources. DailyNK seems as good as any, which isn't very. (There are plenty of worse ones!) We are here to present the world's knowledge, and the world talks a lot about North Korea, but what it says is often wrong. So that's what we're left with, an unsatisfactory conclusion. Sorry. --GRuban (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Should Daily NK (website link) be considered an unreliable source? I noticed that Daily NK is used a lot in the article COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea, and noticed that it seemed to somewhat contradict the World Health Organization about Covid-19 in North Korea during April 2020, not a complete contradiction, but Daily NK reported a positive case from a dead North Korean defector, while a WHO representative reported 100% negative cases. Additionally, I could not find any other sources that confirmed North Korea is lying about cases, implying that Daily NK has not been able to show definitive evidence of anything.

Doing some more research into Daily NK, I found this article that also points to the unreliability of Daily NK and it's influence on misinformation in the Western world: Al Jazeera article.

Additionally, here are some Snopes articles, all which points to the unreliability of Daily NK: Heart surgery, Skinny jeans, Coronavirus

While it appears that Daily NK is not often being debunked, it appears that there is also no reason to particularly trust them as a reliable source. They use anonymous sources without further fact-checking (though I haven't found anything about them using defectors in particular as sources). While the number of sources that questions its reliability/call it unreliable seem a good bit limited, I have not been able to find a single source that confirms it as reliable. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: See our "media coverage of North Korea" article for some general considerations about the topic. Given what all is laid out there it would come as no surprise if all sorts of otherwise reliable media outlets failed fact checks on the subject of North Korea. In some ways it's the simple nature of the situation. It can be difficult to accurately ascertain basic information about North Korea. This has probably only been exacerbated during the pandemic: the amount of defectors (who could constitute sources about what is happening throughout the country during the COVID-19 pandemic) radically dropped in 2020. Restrictions on foreigners (who could likewise be sources in some cases) entering the country have also radically increased: they were disallowed from entering the country since at least mid-January 2020 (1)(2). Since at least early March 2020, North Korean border guards have reportedly collaborated with Chinese police to keep people from crossing the border, shooting anybody attempting to cross (1)(2). Situation has evidently persisted to this day.
Even foreign diplomats, who occasionally constitute sources about what's happening in North Korea, have been subjected to various restrictions there such as 30-day quarantines, and many left the country entirely (1). Cargo shipments by freight train between China and North Korea entirely ceased for about 17 months (between mid 2020 and January 2022) (1)(2), and humanitarian aid has even been held in quarantine for months on end (1).
This is all to say that many of the inherent sourcing problems outlined at the media coverage of North Korea article have only worsened during the pandemic due to the government's pandemic restrictions. What was already a bad reliability situation seems to have worsened significantly. Unfortunately contradictory sources are common when it comes to North Korea. This report in NK News (quoted here by The Guardian) was somewhat critical of the usage of "rumors about North Korea based on anonymous sources" in mainstream media.
With this specific instance, the Daily NK's report (which is based on an anonymous source) does not even appear very confident that this suggests COVID-19 deaths. The wording is rather flimsy (e.g. "may have been caused by the novel coronavirus", "what appears to be COVID-19 infections") and it even describes the military report as originating from "data on the number of soldiers who had died after suffering from high fevers stemming from pneumonia, tuberculosis, asthma or colds". This could be euphemism, but that's of course speculative. The WHO report about 709 negatively-tested cases is apparently from Dr. Edwin Salvador, a WHO representative residing in North Korea (1)(2), who appears to be receiving weekly reports from the country's Ministry of Public Health.
Some other context worth noting: Daily NK is described by Vox as "a South Korean outlet run by North Korean defectors". According to The Atlantic in 2011, Daily NK then received notable WP:USEBYOTHERS and reportedly was used by South Korea's National Intelligence Service as a source of information.
IMO, a lot of the above has to inform a discussion about any source on the COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea, or for that matter, a lot of North Korea reporting in general post-2020. --Chillabit (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say that I agree generally with Chillabit, although I would like to add that here is my own personal analysis of the sources:
The first two Snopes links say that the reports are unconfirmed, and not necessarily false. The first one is even labelled as "still developing," meaning it could change in the future.
The third one never even outright says the Daily NK is wrong. It just says the Daily claimed a certain amount of people died. In fact, the article given clearly says that this was a claim coming from an anonymous source. It says "A Daily NK source inside North Korea’s military reported on Mar. 6 that the military’s medical corps had sent a report detailing the impact of COVID-19 on the country’s soldiers to military leaders."
As for Al Jazeera, Mr. See Wong Koo never says that the Daily NK publishes false information. He says that CNN uses it the wrong way and distorts their reports.
Building upon Chillabit's argument, I would like to note that their FAQ, which in addition to explaining the problems it faces, clearly outlines that it has reported factual content far before Western sources picked it up, and provides a list of such cases.
The only place where I disagree with Chillabit is when he implies that the website is run by defectors. The Site's president as well as editor-in-chief hark from South Korea. They do use defectors at times but as their website outlines they are not a defector-run source. Dunutubble (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Definitely not a unique fluke from Vox, I could have sworn I read that elsewhere as well and sure enough a cursory search brings me the BBC and the Times among others saying the same thing, that Daily NK is run by defectors. Leaves me to speculate if somebody along the way misstated Daily NK's reliance on defector-journalists as being "run" by them, and if that just got continuous repetition in the media afterward. --Chillabit (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Dunutubble, yes, I'm sure that Daily NK reports true information far before Western sources, but that's because they report on one specific topic that Western sources do not put resources towards. But it doesn't make it a reliable source for them to sometimes report truth. I think that WP:QUESTIONABLE might be relevant depending on how much they are willing to trust anonymous sources without confirming their veracity. Since there seems to be no evidence that Daily NK has provided, then this may make them unreliable, since it doesn't seem that they have fact-checked via reliable methods.
Chillabit is there currently some kind of formal guidance about sources on the topic of North Korea, like WP:RSPSS? If not, would it be possible to discuss doing something of the sort with an (or this) RfC? Like you said, it seems that perhaps sources about North Korea should generally be considered with a lot more scrutiny, even when reliable sources like CNN or BBC report on the topic. Since there is a lack of information, perhaps there should be an expectation for sources to also provide evidence (or otherwise, the information seems like the kind of information that is more easily accessible), rather than just providing information. Bear in mind this train of thought is not guided by any of the guidelines or policies, albeit indirect connections to generic guidelines/policies like WP:Reliable Sources or WP:Verifiability, but it seems that something should be done to address the higher risk of sources' unreliability about North Korea. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Use with attribution pending the development of an actual policy. One of the criteria in WP:RS is having a corrections policy. On their site, I did find the following[17]: Daily NK welcomes complaints about errors that warrant correction. To report errors regarding our coverage or to send feedback or story ideas, email us at dailynkenglish@uni-media.net. This is evidence that they are trying to get the story right in this difficult area. That said, I would strongly support the development of a policy for this type of situation. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny:, you mean a policy specifically dealing with circumstances where reliability is inherently uncertain? Also, it does seem to me too that they are trying to get the story right. But I do not believe them welcoming complaints increases their reliability enough to be considered provably reliable. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheGEICOgecko: Yes, that is what I mean. North Korea is probably the most extreme example of this, but there are others. What are conditions inside of China's Uighur camps, for example? Or how many Russians died in WW2? Or in the Gulags? Adoring nanny (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: yeah, it seems that the policies and guidelines, or at least WP:V and WP:RS, does not properly address this problem. It seems the closest mention of this problem is WP:RSCONTEXT, which generally says that context matters when considering whether a source is reliable; however, it seems that discussing specifically about the sort of uncertainty such as much news about North Korea would help. Though, how exactly would I go about this? Should this go in the Verifiability policy or Reliable source guideline, or maybe even be a separate guideline altogether? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@TheGEICOgecko: I don't know the answer to the "how". Adoring nanny (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Reliable. For a small specialized outlet, they seem to do a solid job. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Unless you are an expert on North Korea, how did this conclusion seem to you? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    Are you an expert in North Korea and can you explain why this source seems dubious to you? Can you give some examples of them publishing false information? Pious Brother (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Not reliable, while it is often used by other media as a source, I don't believe that makes it necessarily reliable; an economic analysis on 38 North last year notes that "the reader should note that much of the data in this article comes from sources that cannot be independently verified". Generally, other sources should be preferred over Daily NK and if it had to be used, it should be attributed to the source. The lack of fact checking is mainly because few organisations focus on reporting from North Korea.
However, the "death scare" of Kim Jong-un did result in a worldwide focus on North Korea, if only for a short period of time. Although its initial report was based on a 'single source', it would appear that the source was completely incorrect. [18] Instead, it was far more likely that Kim was elsewhere, as shown by satellite analysis. [19] This shows that while it can be reliable at times, it isn't always so, and an attribution is necessary. While it was noted that this was a single source, their decision to publish it anyways questions their reliability, and they only clarified that it was a single source after it had picked up significant mentions in other media.
It should also be noted that when correcting incorrect translations, Daily NK only noted the correction on one article, whereas multiple articles had this issue.[20]. While this was a minor issue of losing nuance, the report was quickly used to translate as 'shoot on sight' by most other media sources.
They also failed to notify their users of a potential hack of their website, instead claiming it did not affect most people, and targeted only the staff. This was not corrected even after being called out. Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

John Henry Hutton, 1961 book by Oxford University Press

This book (fourth edition) written by John Henry Hutton (British Raj administrators) was published in 1961 but the original book first edition was published in 1946 (Raj era) see. The fourth edition has some extra pages but the majority of the contents match exactly the same as the 1946 edition. Is this book usable under WP:RAJ for caste-related article?? sitush said Raj-era books are not reliable and also he pointed out books written by British Raj administrators are also not reliable. Nobita456 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

yes it is reliable and it is not WP:RAJ.Pasting from there. Book edition is published in 1961(post Raj)- note it is not a reprint. Publication is Oxford Univerity Press, the author was a professor at the University of Cambridge. Definitely very high quality source. I answered on the talk page and you agreed and so did Ekdalian and Satnam2408. Here is the slightly modified quote from the talk page: John Henry Hutton was a professor/anthropologist at Cambridge - when he published the 1st edition in 1946. But the book cited is the third edition, published in 1961 (Hutton, John Henry (1961). Caste in India: Its Nature, Function, and Origins. Indian Branch, Oxford University Press. p. 65.). see here https://www.indianculture.gov.in/ebooks/caste-india-its-nature-function-and-origins. First edition(1946), 2nd edition(1951), 3rd edition(1961), 4th edition(1963), Hutton died in 1968 after which the book was only reprinted (not a new edition) in 1969. Given that the book in the citation is the 3rd edition by the Professor of Social Anthropology in the University of Cambridge and he published that new edition post independence by Oxford University Press, it is not WP:RAJ. The first edition is irrelevant as this is a new edition, not a reprint. Even the number of pages is different the latest edition has about 30 more pages than the 1st edition. So definitely different books. It is up to the professor to decide how much or what content to change. 30 new pages is a big change anyway and even if it were a 1 page change, it is still a new book(not a reprint). Anything, anyone authors in 1961/68 and published by OUP cannot be considered WP:RAJ.LukeEmily (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes LukeEmily I got your point.but the contents are same like raj era edition.so it is not reliable.Hutton is also a raj era administrator,it makes it more waek.lets wait for others opinion.just because it has a new edition doesn't mean it will not come under the category of raj era.wait for others to make comments. Nobita456 (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems fairly obvious that the original year of publication matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, In a reprint yes, the original year would matter for determing reliability - but this is not a reprint and the author is a scholar not an ignorant Raj era ethnographer. The scholar updated the information in 1960s and republished a new book (or he would have simply reprinted it) or he would not have added a edition. This means these are his views in 1960s. Plus it is oxford university press and the author is an academic scholar. Unless I am mistaken, Ekdalian added the source. Sitush has discussed reason for rejecting Raj era ethnographers(no academic training etc.) and if you read the reasons carefully Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable? Thanks,LukeEmily (talk)
bonadea, care to comment? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång rightly said. LukeEmily it doesn't matter,the contents are same. Sitush also told us to avoid raj era administration sources because they were not indipendent to do their research.they wrote exactly what british government wanted them to write. page number can differ for many various reasons,but if you match the editions you can find the books are exactly same. Nobita456 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't know that this book is exact copy of the previous raj era edition(at least a number of pages, I have gone through). I have gone through the concerns related to raj era sources as pointed out by sitush There is a world of difference between mentioning Rose and citing him as a reliable source. I'll try to deal with this over the weekend, if people can wait that long. As I said on the linked talk page, there is a widespread consensus that we avoid these Raj "ethnographers", who were actually gentleman-scholars documenting things as a sideline to their main functions as civil servants of the British Raj. People who go around using colour- and nose-charts to assess the ethnicity of people do not deserve too much attention and, indeed, do not get it except in a historiographical context. Alas, historiography and fact tend to meld into one when it comes to caste-related articles. FWIW, Ibbetson, on whom Rose and McLagan based their work, admitted that his findings were inadequate. I personally never have used such type of sources.However, if modern schollars also agree in a particular issue by citing these sources, then it should be a valied analysis. Thanks.Satnam2408 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Nobita456, you said :Sitush also told us to avoid raj era administration sources because they were not independent to do their research. This is not any such source at all. He wrote it as a professor in Cambridge in 1961 not as an administrator of the British govt. If a book published by Oxford University Press in 1961 written by an author who was a professor in Cambridge in unreliable, what can be more reliable? He left his Indian job in 1936. What he did before 1961 hardly matters given that he was an academic even when he wrote the first edition of the book.LukeEmily (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Sitush clearly said raj era sources written by british administrators are clearly not usable.it doesn't matter where they live that time.same lines are there in both editions which you want to include for that article hence making the content originally written in raj era. Nobita456 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The expression "Raj era," in respect of "caste," and other social-science-related topics on India, refers to the period before the end of the first world war, and specifically to books written by British civil servants in India, some of whom had attempted to use dubious ethnology categories. But even they are not entirely unreliable, as they made a tremendous effort to document caste behaviors and customs, even if they got the analysis wrong. In any case, it does not apply to British academics, such as Radcliffe-Brown, or Evans-Pritchard, W.H.H. Rivers, or statistician-geneticists such as JPB Haldane (who eventually became an Indian citizen) or Ronald Fisher, or Maurice Dobb, or Joan and EAG Robinson, many of whose students were on the forefront of post-colonial Indian research in sociology and economics and related fields. Among them are G. S. Ghurye, MN Srinivas, PC Mahalanobis, Amartya Sen, ... in a long list. It is a qualitative characterization, not bounded by date of the end of the Raj, i.e. August 14/15 1947. You'll have to read the books. Perhaps a good place to start would be Susan Bayly's book. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Apologies. I did just look at the book, i.e. Hutton's. Although it was last revised in 1963, its Part I, e.g. "Racial element in India's population," is nonsense from a present-day Human genetics perspective. But that has little to do with Raj-era necessarily, but perhaps the available early 50s Physical anthropology of India as opposed to the Social Anthropology. In Part II he references some major anthropologists of caste such as Edmund Leach, Kim Marriot, Iravati Karve, and so forth, so that should be better. It probably still is somewhat dated. So the question arises, why are you interested in a somewhat dated book? I mean if you were reading about the environment, you wouldn't be reading a book from the 1960s. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you flower and flower,for making another point.no doubt this book is too old, and almost a copy of 1946. Nobita456 (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Welcome. Yeah, I'd say so, but not, as I say above, for reasons related to the Raj. Most fields in the social sciences (and archeology, biological anthropology, for that matter) have changed radically in the last 50 years. The more modern books are generally better. They don't have to be 2022 models, but published after 1980 say (interpreted judiciously). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying Fowler&fowler and investigating this. Nobita456, as he says, it does not fall under WP:RAJ. But it is not too modern.LukeEmily (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
And thanks, in turn, for that link. I had forgotten Sitush has written a nice essay on it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
No luke he didn't say it is not raj era. and other editors raised serious doubts about this book.Fowler&fowler check the contents of the fourth edition it is exactly same like the 1946 edition. and check the essay of Sitush provided by Satnam.no doubt this book is not reliable. Nobita456 (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
His quote But that has little to do with Raj-era necessarily, but perhaps the available early 50s Physical anthropology of India as opposed to the Social Anthropology. In Part II he references some major anthropologists of caste such as Edmund Leach, Kim Marriot, Iravati Karve, and so forth, so that should be better.. And we are using part II. That makes it reliable as we use Karve also all the time.The source was added by Ekdalian, so let's wait for his comment.LukeEmily (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
He wrote that before reading the essay by Satnam about British administration. let's wait for what he thinks. Nobita456 (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I did say that (what LukeEmily attributes to me). I wrote the WP articles Kurmi and Jat people with Sitush, so I am well aware of that essay's general contents although I had forgotten about its existence. A book published in 1946 by a British academic on caste (even if he had been a civil servant in India earlier) is not really a Raj-era book, and even though it is published before the end of the Raj. "Raj era" in the social sciences was a frame of mind, an ideology, not necessarily a specific time in India's history. I recommend Nobita456 that you read Susan Bayly's book on Caste and Society to get a general background. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler recent books by modern scholars did not give the same opinion like Hutton.in that case which books or journals will get more preference? can someone counter modern scholars with this old book? Nobita456 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything has been well covered by LukeEmily and Fowler&fowler; thanks both for your valuable input. Nobita456 is here to push his own agenda; the last input from admins(s) is they are on the verge of being topic banned! I don't consider Nobita's comments as neutral, and completely disagree with them as far as this source is concerned. This does not fall under WP:RAJ, and the reasons have already been very well explained by two senior editors above. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ekdalian You cant use this old source against modern scholers and the source itself is a matter of doubt. wait for the comments of other editors,and don't do personal attacks. Nobita456 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Why are you, @Ekdalian:, attempting to use Hutton's book, and also misinterpreting me when I said, it should not be used as it is old-fashioned from today's perspective? I haven't given carte blanche for using it; rather, exactly the opposite, I'm suggesting that you use Susan Bayly, and if it is not referenced there, then don't add it. It means your factoid is not notable. So, now what are these articles, so that the discussion can be moved elsewhere? Looks like the usual India-related problems on caste. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to use this book,for me this book is too old. Ekdalian and luke wants to use this book.I used modern sources to edit on Baidya article (check it) Ekdalian reverted my edits and provided this old book to describe the caste ranking (which also this book didn't mention) at the talk page of that article (kindly check it).He is a POV pusher. all modern sources and scholers mentioned Baidyas are inbetween Brahmins and Kayasthas but ekdalian cant accept it.Nobita456 (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry Fowler&fowler if I have misunderstood you. No one has a veto power here. As LukeEmily has clearly explained, I completely agree that this is a reliable source no doubt & it does not fall under WP:RAJ. Moreover, I am not trying to prove anything, rather some sources have been discussed on the article talk page to counter Nobita's POV. Let the discussion continue. You may check the ongoing discussions at Talk:Baidya (last section) and the recent revert in order to understand the context. Would be glad if you can comment and express your opinion in the relevant talk page mentioned. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Next time, @Ekdalian:, please don't make irrelevant comments such as, "Nobita456 is here to push his own agenda; the last input from admins(s) is they are on the verge of being topic banned! I don't consider Nobita's comments as neutral, and completely disagree with them as far as this source is concerned." Our concern here is to evaluate a source. I hope that is clear. If I were you, I'd scratch the nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I'd also suggest that we close this discussion here. Nothing is gained by hearing more from editors who are engaged in various POV battles on some caste-related pages in India. The standard tertiary sources on caste such as Susan Bayly's say little on the Baidyas, only that along with the Bengali brahmins and Kayasthas, they were disproportionately represented in the young men who availed of English-language education after the universities were opened in British India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I am 100% in agreement with Fowler&fowler. Ekdalian, I also feel that you should scratch that comment on Nobita456, as this section is only for discussing sources not editors. But let us close here.LukeEmily (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I am agreeing at large with Fowler&fowler. I was also in doubt with this source. Thanks Satnam2408 (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • LukeEmily we should not use Hutton.please remove them from Kayastha page,Susan Bayly and even no other modern scholers support hutton's views,hence it should not be used as advised by Flower and Flower. If you can find modern source that supports Hutton than you can add them.Nobita456 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't care either way. If everyone else including EkDalian agrees, we can remove it. If I understand the situation correctly, the source supports EkDalian's view that Bengali Kayasthas are second in hierarchy(and implicitly Baidya's are third), but contradicts your view that Baidya's are second and Kayasthas are third. Just discuss on the talk page of the respective castes. I am still not convinced of either POV and I have seen multiple sources that contradict each other. Honestly I am surprised that there are discussiions on who is 2nd and who is 3rd in 2022. As Fowler&Fowler said I'd also suggest that we close this discussion here. Nothing is gained by hearing more from editors who are engaged in various POV battles on some caste-related pages in India. Let's respect his seniority and expertise and close the discussion here. You can continue any discussion on the talk pages of the respective castes with EkDalian or TB. Best wishes.LukeEmily (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Flower said that not to use that.other editors raised serious doubts regarding that.so we should remove it.please give the sources that says Kayasthas are second in caste ranking at the talk page. Nobita456 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Fowler&fowler, LukeEmily & all, honestly speaking, I am a bit fed up with socks, and lost my temper; that cannot justify personal attacks on a discussion related to source. I am really sorry, and have scratched the same. LukeEmily, I am least interested in proving who's second & all, and that's what I have mentioned at Talk:Baidya. Ekdalian (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

If a book published by Oxford University Press in 1961 written by an author who was a professor in Cambridge is unreliable, what can be more reliable? A book published by Oxford in the 21st century would be more reliable. WP:AGEMATTERS. 1961 is too old. Levivich 21:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you there Levivich.LukeEmily (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure we should be citing British "anthropologists" on social groups. Especially if their work was based on observations made when they were "political officers" and "deputy commissioners". Regardless of when their work was published. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand the subtleties of Raj-era historiography or why Raj-era scholarship is banned. But if the 1961 edition is the same as the 1946 edition except an extra chapter or two was added, I would consider it a reprinting that added some extra content, not a revision based on new research. Thus the ban would still apply. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

    • Would request all to read the explanation given above by LukeEmily why it does not belong to the category of WP:RAJ. Also, as mentioned above, John Henry Hutton was a professor/anthropologist at Cambridge when the book was first published, not a British Raj ethnographer. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I think they gave their opinion after seeing the whole paragraph. regendspark and Compassionate727 both are so experienced in my opinion,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Ekdalian, it may technically not be WP:RAJ. But I think Compassionate727 and RegentsPark are also making valid points. As RegentsPark says, the book (originally 1946) may simply mirror his views during the Raj rule. This is a gray area for me. If the author were not originally an administrative official in India, it would be a lot easier. For example, consider this extreme example. Imagine a Nazi getting a degree in history. Would his books as a historian on Jewish history be reliable? Is there a more modern source?LukeEmily (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Ideally, we should look at the sources he is referencing. Is he referencing Raj era census (written by himself) or some later research?LukeEmily (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC - Who's Who (UK)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Marquis Who’s Who. Which of these best describes the reliability of Who’s Who (UK) HTTPS links HTTP links, which is currently listed as "no consensus" at RSP? (RSP entry)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Pilaz (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion (Who's Who UK)

Previous RSN discussions: Who's Who and UK politicians (2019); Who's Who publications (2022).

There are two main elements that worry me about the reliability of this source. First, Who's Who UK has a clear independence problem from its biographies, because they are autobiographies written by the nominees themselves. According to a December 2021 announcement on the company's website:

It contains more than 33,000 autobiographical entries, carefully updated for maximum accuracy from information personally supplied by the biographee.

Second, Who's Who UK also has a track record of problems with fact-checking and accuracy. A 2001 BBC piece revealed that Egyptian businessman Mohamed Al-Fayed, Anita Brookner, and Susan Hampshire had all listed incorrect birth years. Brookner was reportedly asked by the editors if she would have liked to have it corrected, but she asked to have it blanked instead. One English Lord even lied about his education by including a fictitious degree from Oxford. A 2004 investigative piece from the Spectator had the publishing director of Who's Who state:

But Jonathan Glasspool insists they can only go by what people tell them. ‘We’ve got 32,000 people in the book, and at least half the records every year are amended or corrected in some way, and a thousand new records a year. It would be impossible for us to check every fact.’

The Spectator piece also lists a range of problems going from incorrect dates of birth, to forged education records, to fake donations. Philip Beresford, who edited the Sunday Times' ‘Rich List’ of Britain’s 1,000 wealthiest people, found that only 10% of the richest people on his list were in the Who's Who. That certainly calls into question the claim by Who's Who UK that it is "the most reliable directory of the noteworthy and influential people in every area of public life". Pilaz (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to add to this: it seems that Who's Who disagrees about how many people are in its latest edition... with itself. The landing page of their website says 34,000; the news announcement for the 2022 edition says "more than 33,000"; and the about page says "over 35,000 influential people". --Pilaz (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Survey (Who's Who UK)

  • Option 3 I think the OP has laid down a case as to why this should be considered a mostly unreliable source; if the entries are self-submitted and as rife with errors as the reports above claim it is, then we should probably treat it as an unedited source, akin to IMDB, and generally recommend against its use. --Jayron32 17:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3, as nominator. The equivalent of a WP:SPS with little accuracy and fact-checking. Anything coming from this source should be cited as autobiographical, and comply with WP:ABOUTSELF. Pilaz (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 The part of The Spectator piece quoted by Pilaz above is followed by If an error is pointed out to Who’s Who they will raise it with the biographee, and Glasspool maintains that the vast majority of errors are sorted out by agreement in this way. But, to take one example, what if Jeffrey Archer insisted that his entry was correct when it wrongly states that he became a member of the Greater London Council in 1966? "We would have to take him at his word" says Mr Glasspool. Newspapers have in the past pointed out that Susan Hampshire’s entry gives the wrong date of birth. Who’os Who have written to her about this, but had no reply, so they let the current date stand. Wrong information remains in what is supposed to be a definitive reference book. If Who's Who can't remove false information if the biography subject objects I can't see how it can be a reliable source. Effectively it is equivalent to aboutself and can only be used for non self serving claims about the articles subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 unless really solid evidence emerges that they've changed their practices since the time of the reporting referred to above. I mean, Newsweek has gotten worse since 2013, so it's possible in principle that Who's Who has gotten better, right? Hypothetically, that could then lead to a case for option 2, with the "additional considerations" involving the year of publication, for example. But that's purely hypothetical. XOR'easter (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - The two issues brought forward by the OP are pretty damning in my opinion and make it clear that it can't be used as a RS when the information is (sometimes poorly curated) autobiographical writing. The comparison to imdb is fairly apt. You can probably use it to quickly find some information, but you should probably check that from a better source before committing to it. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note added to WP:UPSD as generally unreliable. Will update if the RFC closes differently. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 -(Summoned by bot) The equivalent of a WP:SPS and per PraiseVivec use it to quickly find some information, but … check that from a better source before committing to it. Pincrete (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 -- More eloquent users have outlined why it should be considered generally unreliable, and I strongly agree. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4, the difference here depends on extending the benefit of the doubt to the editors. If thats done then 3, if we're less charitable and do not assume angelic intentions then we do appear to be solidly in 4 territory vis-a-vis knowingly publishing false information about living people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Theu're often written by the person themselves, or them directly stating to a editor what they're qualifications, career and what gongs they have. scope_creepTalk 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Historian Check

The author of this book is U.A.B. Razia Akter Banu who has a Ph.D. degree in POL SCIENCE . this book used in Bengali Kayastha article to describe their origin (Aryan related stuff). is this book reliable for history-related articles? I mean except for this one no other source gives the same opinion about it. Please help me to verify if the author is WP:HISTRS or not, thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Prof. ‪Razia Akter Banu is a political historian in her own right, author of several books, and a scholar at the University of Dhaka. Being a Professor in the Department of Political Science, University of Dhaka, doesn't mean they do not qualify as a historian.
Quoting from WP:HISTRS "Historians carry out original research, often using primary sources. Historians often have a PhD or advanced academic training in historiography, but may have an advanced degree in a related social science field or a domain specific field". Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
the previous discussion was not clear thats why I relisted that.anyway thanks do doubt it is more than reliable. Nobita456 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
You didn't relist it you double listed it... The first discussion is still open above. Also that discussion was clear, you just don't seem to have liked the answer you got. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey Horse Eye's Back please don't think like this.I agree now with Ekdalian and Luke but previous discussion was not so clear to me,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
In the future please avoid opening two discussions on the same topic at the same noticeboard at the same time. Also just FYI per [21] you are in fact wrong about political science not being one of the social sciences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah that's why I self reverted that.anyway thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

theScore esports - how reliable is it?

Hey, I want to try and improve the page Ludwig Ahgren which is a BLP. There is some info sourced to theScore esports which hasn't been discussed since 2016. It's not listed on WP:VG/RS either. Is it fine to use for a BLP or not? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the only eScore link in the article, so I'm not able to evaluate it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I would say it's probably fine, since it being a subdivision of theScore means it likely has editorial integrity. There was concern in the previous discussion that point 5 of the terms of use suggests that this is user-generated content, but I don't think this is the case, I think this point may be referring to something else. Curbon7 (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty familiar with esports journalism, and I'm extremely hesitant to ever use theScore. To take Ludwig Ahgren as an example, the two tSe citations are both to videos on their Youtube channel, which is apparently their only platform at this point. It's the standard mix of gamecruft, clickbait, and the occasional long(er)form video essay, but with the added benefit that we can see exactly who's making their videos. This one is cited on Ludwig Ahgren and seems to have been written and produced in its entirety by one Senior Producer there. It's entirely just cut-together footage of twitch streams/memes and the host reading off tweets from other people. Not something that inspires confidence, especially since this producer is apparently one of their more experienced journalists. (This is where I note again that they entirely nuked their written stuff, so we can't check that anymore.) The other citation is to this, which is standard for their longer video essays and not a single one of the names in the credits (i.e., twitter handles in the video description) has done anything major outside of tSe. It still consists mostly of cut together footage from other streams and memes, and the people involved don't seem to have any particular wealth of esports-specific experience. Maybe, maybe, the long-form stuff is ok. But the market they're making vids for is clearly extremely young and I don't know how much careful fact-checking they really do. I know for myself that if I find something that only tS is covering, I usually don't write about it. Alyo (chat·edits) 09:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Alyo: This is incredibly helpful! I don't think I will include the first citation since it's probably not WP:DUE. For the second citation, A. C. Santacruz suggested below I could possibly attribute the source. Do you think that might be appropriate? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
MJL -- Sure, that makes sense to me. At the very least, tSe is probably fine for "X happened, then Y happened" sorts of statements, while on the other end of the spectrum I'd probably stay away from using them to determine notability or as a reference for "X is the greatest Y to ever play" types of things. Alyo (chat·edits) 07:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
theScore used to be very reliable a few years ago, but have decreased in quality. I'd qualify as use with attribution. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

SGTrains and Land Transport Guru

Hi there.

I propose that SGTrains and Land Transport Guru should be deprecated (or blacklisted) as sources. I have noticed in my edits in Singapore MRT/LRT articles that some users cited these sources on cruft material. While I have cleansed such cruft as much as possible, some IPs and editors continue to add such cruft and use these as citations. These websites are user-based blogs/websites and are generally unreliable as sources, and I hope to blacklist them from use by subsequent editors and users.

I hope this can be applied in general for railfan/road foamers websites that plague transportation-related articles. ZKang123 (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  • What, specifically, are the problems with these websites? Are there factual errors? Undue weight? Misleading information? We need examples of their being used inappropriately. "Cruft" is both incredibly subjective and not a reliability issue (it's a WP:DUE issue) so that is irrelevant here. From a quick look at SGTrains I found nothing that was obviously incorrect, there may be better sources out there but we do not deprecate or blacklist sites solely because better ones exist - indeed we do not blacklist anything without evidence of repeated misuse by multiple editors (if it's a single editor then deal with the editor). Land Transport Guru explicitly invites corrections, which is something we look for in reliable sources. On your last point, the answer is a very definite no - sources' reliability is assessed on an individual basis, "railfan/road foamers websites" is an extremely vague definition that could encompass such diverse sites as We Are Rail Fans (clearly not reliable), Inter City Railway Society (likely unreliable but possibly references reliable sources), London Reconnections (reliability variable), RailAdvent (likely generally reliable) and even (arguably) Modern Railways (definitely reliable). Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Tolu io

Discussion reopened at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tolu_io signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Hello, over the last two days Tolu io (talk · contribs) has gone through hundreds of Nigerian pages adding a single source at random in the introduction. While most of these references are reliable, the vast majority are not relevant or reliable to the places the user puts them. I have attempted to communicate this on their talk page but they have been combative and kept on alluding to someone instructing them to do these edits which has confused me. They have also claimed that the edits were needed to prove that the "individuals exist" which doesn't make any sense. I would really appreciate swift action here because the rapid pace of these lazy edits means that dozens of pages are being changed every few hours.

Examples of questionable edits: In the Abdullahi Balarabe Salame page, the user put a source for him killing an intruder on a sentence that describes his time as house of assembly speaker and acting governor. On the Musa Sarkin-Adar page, they put a source of a group calling on Sarkin-Adar to support a candidate in 2019 on a sentence talking about his life before politics in the mid-2000s. On the Abdullahi Idris Garba page, the user again added a political article from 2019 to a sentence talking about his life before politics. On the Julius Ihonvbere, the user put a recent article about sports policy to a sentence about his educational history. None of these are needed and it is likely that the user just searches up a name, picks any random article, and places it in any random place in the page without care for the people who might need a relevant source or those that will have to remove the problem edits. Watercheetah99 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Based solely on your description above, wouldn’t this be a behavioral issue that would be better suited for WP:ANI rather than an issue regarding the reliability of a particular source (or set of sources)? — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Quite possibly, I will enter it there. Thank you! Watercheetah99 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Isaiah 7:14

I'd like to invite anyone interested to come have a look here -- an IP, in good faith, removed a section based on the blog of a published author in the field. I undid, largely because I think the move should be discussed. If anyone has the time to share their thoughts, they would be appreciated. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

if what Ehrman says in his blog is mainstream consensus view, then there should be peer reviewed studies that state just that. If such sources are not found, including blogs is wrong, especially, if we state that this is a mainstream view. We need peer-reviewed sources for that. It doesn't matter how much someone here might like Ehrman. As far as Wikipedia is concerned anything by Ehrman represents his personal musings unless it is found in peer-reviewed sources. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
That's your opinion, not WP:PAGs. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
No @Tgeorgescu: that is exactly what the guidelines say. Refer to WP:BLOGS, I quote: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. ".. Wikipedia does not exist for us to merely ventilate our opinions. Our personal devotion to people like Ehrman is irrelevant. If something is to be presented as a consensus view then we need WP:RS. Personal blogs are NOT WP:RS. Please, familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:PAG. Thanks 65.94.99.123 (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
To tell the truth: Bible scholarship books are very rarely peer-reviewed (they have editorial control, but that's something else), except when these publish collections of peer-reviewed articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Are you suggesting that we should make up for the incompetence in a field with citing personal blogs? Wikipedia exists to present TOP LEVEL scholarship. If Biblical scholars have failed their field, it is not up to us to help them out. We cite WP:RS unapologetically. We are not interested in people's personal faith in Islam, Christianity or Ehrman. We care about sources and sources alone. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You're too extreme. WP:PAGs do not say that Ehrman is a failed scholar, quite on the contrary. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Please, read what I say. Carefully. I never said that Ehrman was a failed scholar. I said that if Biblical scholars fail to publish their viewpoints in reliable sources, then it is not up to us to fill those gaps by citing personal blogs. We care about what the Reliable Sources say, not about what is true. If Reliable Sources say that Muhammad split the moon in half, then that is what we write. If the Reliable Sources say that the Catholic Church has been wrong 2000 years, then that is what we write. We do not make exceptions for scholars we like or people we have faith in. We need to use Reliable Sources. Personal blogs are NOT reliable sources for a contentious view unless it is supported by reliable source, which, would make the citation of said blogs superfluous. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Again, that's your personal opinion, it is supported by neither WP:RULES nor established practice.
Examples: QuackWatch, Science-Based Medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
It might be worth attributing the paragraph to Ehrman, but this seems like a pretty clear example of an WP:SPS from an "established subject-matter expert"? I'm not sure why the IP is going on about the medium of the publication when we're talking about someone of Ehrman's expertise. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Alyo: I agree. Attributing sources to Ehrman specifically would be a good compromise. As to @Tgeorgescu: I would simply say that it is rude to ignore what I cited from WP:RULES and continue behaving as if it never happened. You can read up on where I quote from Wikipedia's rules. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Is there a claim that Ehrman is wrong on this point (based on actual published historical scholarship), or is this a conflict of opinion? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: The claim is that no Reliable Sources are supplied to support the conclusion Ehrman comes to. Ehrman's blog cites no sources, as far as I can tell. It represents private musings of a scholar who has, in the past, published in Reliable Sources. The burden of proof is not on me to provide you with WP:RS that Ehrman is wrong, it's on people who cite private blogs to demonstrate the Ehrman's private musings are indeed what academics believe. Being a True Believer in Ehrman does nothing for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have a choice. It is unapologetically in favour of mainstream sources. Faith in any scholar is antithetical to the whole mission of Wikipedia. Wikipedia chooses in favour of reliable sources over people's private beliefs. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
With all due respect, Wikipedia also pays attention to consensus. Cheers, all, and pray for peace. Dumuzid (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
So what do the mainstream sources say? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
65.94.99.123 What did you quote from Wikipedias rules and where did you quote it? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
If it is the quote about exercising caution, note that it does not forbid the use of blogs. The preceding sentence in the guidance states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Do you dispute that Ehrman is an established subject-matter expert, or that their work is in a relevant field, or that their work has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I will also point out while a blog may contain personal musings, by the nature of blogs they are not private musings. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Are YouTube subscriber counts reliable sources?

Since you can buy subscribers[22][23] I'm not convince we should be using them. Maybe not relevant but we won't be using Alexa counts anymore as it's being closed. Doug Weller talk 11:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

They are reliable for the number of subscribers at that point in time yes. Regardless of how those subscribers are attained. The question of 'should we include those numbers' is an editorial one, but ultimately the issue for Youtubers is that subscribers are their key metric. More subscribers = more fame = more sponsorship, exlusives, money. Certainly its relevant to deletion discussions - its often been brought up as a reason to delete/keep based on the number. Huge difference between someone who gets a mention in news with 1000 subs, and someone with 1.5 million....
Essentially your question is 'Should we trust google to accurately filter out bogus/bought subscribers' and really I think thats a level of analysis we dont want to encourage as it leads far too far down the path of original research. Subs numbers are a primary source, and reliable as far as any primary source is, and should be used only in the context in which we would use a primary source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
YouTube subscriber counts (a constantly changing primary source, if citing YouTube directly) are likely to be undue weight in the article body unless they are covered by a reliable secondary source. If a reliable secondary source states that a YouTube channel has a certain number of subscribers as of a certain time, then that secondary source can be cited for that claim. We don't make any assurances to the reader that none of the subscribers are paid for, but we don't have to. We can still report the metric as it is reported in reliable secondary sources. Issues with YouTube's subscriber model can still be covered in the YouTube article. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller, you may or may not find this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_36#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. That doesn't give me any more confidence in their being correct or encyclopedic. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
My work is done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I strongly believe that YT sub counts (or any other social media follower count) should be a figure established by a third-party and dated to when that was published by the third-party rather than polling YouTube directly, due to the gaming issue. We should never use YT counts directly unless we are talking something like "most watched youtube videos" of which those stats are essential. --Masem (t) 14:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

My comment but is non-authoritative. My argument would be: I would think it depends on who's the channel owner(s). 'cause you can have a reliable source as per Wikipedia here which is a channel owner and airs a story by YouTube. Now would that be any less credible? For example. ABCNews on YouTube? Is that any less credible as the actual ABCNews.COM? Or ABCNews's videos on their mobile device? CaribDigita (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, as it is too easily manipulated.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the context. A quote from flat earth-er is a source on what they said but not on the shape of the earth. IMO it's an acceptable primary source for what the YouYube subscriber number is. Which, per the OP is pretty meaningless information which should generally not be included in an article. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
UNsure, as it is not really edited in any way, not checked for accuracy. It is just raw (and manipulated) data, thus I think it fails "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I fixed my error. My comment was not a response to yours. But despite my abstract comment below, I agree that for all of the uses that are really going to happen, he answer is "don't use it" North8000 (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the context. A quote from flat earth-er is a source on what they said but not on the shape of the earth. IMO it's an acceptable primary source for what the YouYube subscriber number is. Which, per the OP is pretty meaningless information which should generally not be included in an article. And, regarding the baseless Wikipedia urban legend that being sourced is a reason (rather than a requirement) for inclusion, it certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Only if said in some third party document. YT is not a WP:SOURCE because it is not a work nor have an author, and directly reading the value would be WP:OR. And there is no need for OR - YT counts are commonly discussed, so should be available from a third party cite if at all significant. The method is reliable enough, although a moving target and variably inaccurate as any live reading is. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Github as reliable source for software topics

I'm currently editing Qualcomm EDL mode and I couldn't find any prior discussion if Github can be a reliable source for software topics. I am aware i iss UGC. But I consider it as factual and it is literally often the original source for software. I was so bold and already implemented it and being open for further discussion either here or on the article talk page. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_352#Github. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the primer! 👍 GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue with gitub is more about interpretation of the information in it likely violating WP:NOR (in particular WP:PRIMARY). So for non-contentious claims where we would use a self-published primary source, github is probably fine. Probably a little better than a generic blog because it has version history so it's harder to hide stealth edits over time, but the question is really which information you're sourcing from a github. Date of a software release, text of a developer announcement/recommendation, or cause of a software bug? First is probably fine, middle depends, last is probably not acceptable. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
GitHub repositories can be used as primary sources for uncontroversial claims about the software or repository itself, per WP:PRIMARY, subject to due weight restrictions. An example of information that GitHub can be used for is the type of software license that a repository uses, assuming that the cited repository can be confirmed in some way to be the software's official repository (not a fork, unless the specific fork is the software that is being covered in the Wikipedia article). Examples of information that should not be cited to GitHub are: analyses of how active the software development is (original research) and star, fork, or commit counts (reliable but undue weight if only citing primary source; prefer secondary sources).
As a secondary source, GitHub is generally unreliable because it is a platform for user-generated content, which is a type of self-published source. Because GitHub is a platform, content published by a GitHub account that can be confirmed in some way to be the official account of an organization takes on the reliability of the organization if there is consensus that the organization exercises a similar level of editorial control over the GitHub content (e.g. when a news organization publishes a data set on GitHub that was linked in one of their articles, that GitHub data set can be considered as reliable as the news organization).
Everything I've said here also applies to other source code hosts, e.g. GitLab, Bitbucket, and any self-hosted systems. — Newslinger talk 07:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a discussion about whether code forges such as GitHub should be explicitly described in the Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (WP:ABOUTSELF) policy. If you are interested, please participate at WT:V § Addition of source-code hosting places. — Newslinger talk 16:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

An article in the Australian Financial Review

Can this article[1] in the Australian Financial Review be used as a source for the following four factual statements? The statements are about the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

  • At the time it was 100% funded by the Australian Department of Defence, but this had fallen to 43% in the 2018-19 financial year. In 2020, the Australian Financial Review identified three sources of funding, in addition to the Department of Defence. ASPI receives funding from defence contractors such as Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman, Thales Group and Raytheon Technologies. It also receives funding from technology companies such as Microsoft, Oracle Australia, Telstra, and Google. Finally, it receives funding from foreign governments including Japan and Taiwan.
  • In February 2020, Australian Labor Party Senator Kim Carr described the ASPI as "hawks intent on fighting a new cold war" and criticised it for accepting nearly $450,000 from the US State Department to track Chinese government research collaborations with Australian universities.
  • Former Foreign Minister and former Premier of New South Wales Bob Carr has said the ASPI provides a "one-sided, pro-American view of the world".
  • ASPI has also been criticised by John Menadue, Geoff Raby and Jordan Shanks.

Some comments:

- There is a discussion at Talk:Australian_Strategic_Policy_Institute#AFR_article_an_an_opinion_column?? about this.

- AFR is not listed at Perennial Sources but, as an established mainstream newspaper, it would be regarded as reliable under WP:NEWSORG.

- The facts are not in dispute as they can be verified elsewhere.

Burrobert (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Burrobert why haven't you mentioned that this is an opinion piece? Don't you think thats relevant information? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • "Can this article in the Australian Financial Review be used as a source for the following four factual statements?" Per WP:NEWSORG "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think that it actually is an op ed. The author is described as a 'columnist', and appears to write researched think pieces rather than articles advancing her views. The article in question here discusses different views of ASPI and its influence, so is a news article in a very high quality newspaper. As a result, it's an appropriate source. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Nick-D: yes, an opinion columnist. As their profile says "Myriam Robin is a Rear Window columnist based in the Financial Review's Melbourne newsroom."[24] The "Rear Window" is part of the AFR's opinion section [25]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Editors can make their own judgement about whether to describe the article as an opinion piece. Articles that contain some opinion can also contain facts. The policy under NewsOrgs says "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". The question here is whether the article is a reliable source for the four specific facts that are included in it. These are not opinion and are verifiably true. The statement that "opinion pieces … are rarely reliable for statements of fact" needs clarification. Under one interpretation, it means that we should not be converting opinions into facts. So, if a piece states that "Cuba’s healthcare system provides better outcomes than most developed countries", then we should not write this in wiki voice, but should prefix it with "According to x, Cuba’s healthcare ...". Burrobert (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've done some editing in the article and have removed or found alternate sourcing for anything that would be problematic for an op-ed - everything else is attributed to the author. The AFR will no doubt have a large fact checking operation and is certainly a reliable publication. The facts that were supported by this source were not controversial or contested (and are validated by public records). I echo Nick-D's sentiment on the talk page that the hawkish approach by editors to this article is peculiar. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Just as a general note opinion pieces aren't subject to the same editorial control and fact checking as news articles, thats one of the things that sets them apart. The opinion of a non-subject matter expert (like the author here) is generally WP:UNDUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You have shifted the argument and this is not the appropriate place to discuss DUENESS. However, since you raised the issue, policy states “articles and pages [should] fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources”. As far as I know, there are no sources which state that ASPI funding from the DoD has not fallen to 43% in the 2018-19 financial year, or that Kim and Bob did not say those things. The statements that are being discussed do not represent a minority view and, as far as I can tell, are the only view available. Regarding the question that is relevant to this page, the fact that the four statements are demonstrably true is the gold standard for reliability. Burrobert (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
ASPI itself identifies its funding here.Achar Sva (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The "Rear Window" articles ([26]) are labelled clearly on the articles and in the URL ([27]). They also show up with the "Opinion" tab highlighted.

The article ([28]) is not an opinion article even though its author usually writes "Rear Window" opinion articles. The article is categorized under "Policy", "Foreign Affairs & Security", and "Perspective". You can even see that the highlighted tab for this article is "Policy" instead of "Opinion".

Only some "Perspective" articles are opinion articles. See [29] where they are labelled. The author also wrote other normal news articles outside of "Rear Window" ([30] [31]). MGetudiant (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Robin, Myriam (14 February 2020). "The think tank behind Australia's changing view of China". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 24 February 2022.

gov.genealogy.net

I came across this source at Borki Sędrowskie and it appears anything but reliable, as it is a user editable wiki. I'm unsure how to proceed though, as it appears to be used in a lot of articles (mostly related to Polish villages). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Any user generated source can just be axed and any content cited to it deleted, no need for a discussion. (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

dreadnoughtproject

I noticed that a lot of recent articles use dreadnoughtproject.org as a (or even as only) source (e.g. Draft:Hilary Gustavus Andoe which I draftified just now). This is a specialized wiki which is now used in more than 500 articles[32], though in some of these just as an external link (which seems acceptable). In general, wikis are not allowed as sources, but is this one an exception or should a cleanup happen? We have links to pages like this from here or this from here. Fram (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems fairly clear per [33] that this is an "ordinary" wiki and should be treated as such (WP:USERG). Could well be useful as a place to look for WP:RS though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Despite what the main page suggests, The Dreadnought Project is not open to editing by the general public and is almost entirely the work of the four editors-in-chief. Chris Buckey, Simon Harley, and Nick Jellicoe have all published in academic journals, I'm not sure about Tony Lovell. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Raider. After perusing the site, it is clear that there is complete editorial oversight, and it becomes an instance of WP:SPS, which mean it would be available for use since these chaps are experts in their field. My main concern actually is that since a few of these guys are active editors here on Wikipedia (courtesy pings: Simon Harley, DulcetTone), this could run the risk of WP:CIRCULAR sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I advise that any evaluation of Wikipedia's use, as a source or external link corpus, be examined on a case-by-case basis. A great many of our pages exist to provide a skeleton to provide a page for thousands of naval personnel, one page per man. These pages vary from exceptional sources to thin gruel (though we try to provide denser citation than even Wikipedia). My own view is that secondary sources evolve – much like encyclopedias have. Tony Lovell DulcetTone (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Just for information, RaiderAspect (no disrespect meant at all), The Dreadnought Project in its pre-Wiki incarnation (solely fire control and ship plans), and DulcetTone specifically, were favourably reviewed in Warship 2007, a naval history annual. He has been acknowledged in a number of books such as The Battle of Jutland by John Brooks (Cambridge University Press), Battle in the Baltic by Steve Dunn, V and W Destroyers: A Developmental History by John Henshaw (both Seaforth), to name three. He also gave a presentation on British fire control to the association of Royal Navy gunnery officers at HMS Excellent. Those are just accomplishments which come to mind. So his credentials in the field are not necessarily academic but no less impressive. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A look at Google Books will show quite a number of works which have referenced The Dreadnought Project over the past decade:

  • Brooks, John. The Battle of Jutland.
  • Burnett, Alan. World War I: Scottish Tales of Adventure.
  • Dunn, Steve. Securing the Narrow Sea: The Dover Patrol, 1914–1918.
  • Goldrick, James. After Jutland: The Naval War in North European Waters.
  • Henshaw, John. V & W Destroyers: A Developmental History.
  • Jentzch, Christian. From Cadets to Admiral: The British and German Naval Officers Corps 1871 to 1914.
  • Johnsen, William. The Origins of the Grand Alliance: Anglo-American Military Collaboration from the Panay Incident to Pearl Harbor.
  • Lemos, Nivaldo. Analytical Mathematics.
  • McCartney, Innes. Scapa 1919: The Archaeology of a Scuttled Fleet.
  • Osborne, Richard. The Battle of Jutland: History's Greatest Sea Battle.
  • Ruxton, Ian. The Diaries of Sir Ernest Satow, 1906-1911.
  • Strathie, Anne. From Ice Floes to Battlefields: Scott’s ‘Antarctics’ in the First World War.
  • Womack, Tom. The Allied Defense of the Malay Barrier, 1941-1942.
  • Wright, Matthew. The Battlecruiser New Zealand: A Gift to Empire.

I dare say that there are more (that's a just from a few minutes on a Sunday morning), and that is not to mention references in academic articles. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 09:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"International Committee In Search of Justice" (ISJ)

Is a report "International Committee In Search of Justice" (ISJ) a reliable source, particularly when it makes allegations about (presumably) living persons? Google Drive link (not uploaded by me)

I have seen this report used in multiple articles. At Talk:Camp Ashraf it is being used for the claim that US officer stated that Batoul Soltani is an Iranian agent. Batoul Soltani is a woman who, in an interview with The Guardian, said she was forced to have sex with Massoud Rajavi between 1999 and 2006 (at this time Rajavi was the leader of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK)). ISJ is lead by Alejo Vidal Quadras. Its not clear who authored the report, but Quadras wrote its introduction. Quadras has financial links to the MEK[34], and according to LobbyFacts, ISJ is a paid lobbying group[35]. In other words, the same source that tries to discredit an alleged sexual abuse victim just happens to have financial links to an organization lead by the man accused of abusing her. That's a clearly not an WP:INDEPENDENT source. Besides that there seems to be no evidence of reliability or reputation for fact-checking here.

Previous discussions: [36][37] VR talk 02:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  • I can't find any information on Wikipedia about the ISJ, beyond its connection to Alejo Vidal Quadras, which is a red flag for me. It is not a journalism source, it is not a research organization, it's at best an advocacy group, and one with very low profile, which raises questions as to its reliability in regards to factual statements. A basic google search turns up almost nothing outside of its own website. I would say that it shouldn't be used for anything in a BLP at all. If it says something which is corroborated by an actual reliable source, I would just cite the reliable source. If it says things that aren't corroborated, they should not be used. --Jayron32 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. It's basically Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca's organization and not a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Vice on Pornhub

This is about the article Pornhub, specifically, is Vice reliable for following claims:

Far-right Christian groups with white nationalist and neo-Nazi ideologies have issued death threats towards Pornhub managers and sex workers, associating themselves with anti-trafficking and anti-pornography groups.[1][2][3] Burnett stated "Unsurprisingly, Alt-Righters more frequently advocate for extreme forms of violence against pornographers, such as shooting them (e.g., @nmm20c, 16 November 2018)."[4]

References

  1. ^ Cole, Samantha (13 April 2021). "The Crusade Against Pornhub Is Going to Get Someone Killed". VICE. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021.
  2. ^ Rosenbach, Marcel; Müller, Ann-Katrin; Höfner, Roman; Baumgärtner, Maik; Spiegel, Der (10 March 2021). "Hatred Against Women: The Dark World of Extremist Misogyny". DER SPIEGEL. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
  3. ^ Ley, David J. (27 October 2018). "Is One Sexual Behavior Triggering Certain Groups?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  4. ^ Burnett, Scott (May 2021). Barber, Kristen; Bridges, Tristan; Nelson, Joseph Derrick (eds.). "The Battle for "NoFap": Myths, Masculinity, and the Meaning of Masturbation Abstention" (PDF). Men and Masculinities. SAGE Publications: 1–20. doi:10.1177/1097184X211018256. ISSN 1552-6828. LCCN 98659253. OCLC 321242407. S2CID 236603234. Archived from the original on 21 July 2021. Retrieved 12 January 2022.

Please chime in.

Namely, Vice is the only RS which names Pornhub. All the other three RS are about far-right extremism against pornographers. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Samantha Cole specifically has done phenomenal reporting on the topic of online pornography, I would say better than any other mainstream, national journalist. The reporting has certainly not had a bias towards the porn industry or tube sites in particular, so the specific article is not hugely coloured by Cole's personal opinion. (As always, we should disregard headlines from the discussion, as they're increasingly sensationalist even in reliable sources.) I would also consider Vice reliable in general for this sort of content—and it's worth noting that we don't need BLP-level sources for this generalised claim about political groups. I'm not sure what Der Spiegel and Psychology Today have to do with this as they do not mention Pornhub (as far as I can see). — Bilorv (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv: I have quoted the three other sources just to bolster the credibility of the article by Cole. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think article space is the right place to cite sources that do not directly substantiate the content in the article. The Der Spiegel and Psychology Today articles do bolster the credibility of the Vice article, but that argument is best made in talk/project space discussions. — Newslinger talk 06:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I do not oppose including Samantha Cole's report, if it is properly paraphrased and perhaps attributed (that was my main point when this discussion started in Talk:Pornhub). I do strongly object adding those other articles and studies, which only broadly talk about misogyny and anti-pornography extremism, as a way to reinforce the point made by Cole. That constitutes as WP:Synthesis and has no place on the PornHub article in particular, but other articles such as Opposition to pornography. --DannyC55 (Talk) 22:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
As I have stated Friend, the verbatim quote is about pornographers in general. Are Porhub pornographers? Definitely! So it is also about Pornhub. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I suspect they are less likely to constitute due weight there, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
At [38] they have employed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV while the facts do not seem to be uncertain or disputed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Vice is a reliable source for this claim, though it usually doesn't hurt to apply in-text attribution when a single news source is the only reference cited for a contested claim. Vice's sub-publication Motherboard is generally reliable for technology (including websites, software, hardware, information security, etc.), having published many detailed investigative pieces that were then picked up by other major news outlets. I have also found Vice to be generally reliable for its coverage of pornography; it is one of the more mainstream publications to do serious reporting in this topic area, and its content was reliable for Wikipedia's Casting couch article. The Vice article under discussion intersects with two fields that Vice is particularly strong in.
Der Spiegel and Psychology Today are both reliable, but these two specific articles do not substantiate the sentence they are cited for because they do not mention Pornhub at all. These articles should not be cited for this particular sentence. The SAGE journal Men and Masculinities is reliable for the sentence it is cited for (and Burnett's underlying claim), but whether the sentence is relevant enough to belong in the Pornhub article is an editorial decision that does not pertain to reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that we've never really had a discussion on Vice media in general as a reliable source. I've never really found it problematic; they seem to do genuine journalism, they have legitimate reporters and editorial staff and care about getting stories correct. They may pick-and-choose which stories to devote their time to, but that's the same biases that every source has. When I went through RSP, Vice has a yellow entry; but at my count this discussion here is the longest discussion we've ever had on the source, by about an order of magnitude. I think they are a generally credible and reliable source, and people have provided reasons above why they might be credible in this specific topic area as well. --Jayron32 19:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between being unreliable and undue. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Vice is reliable for this, I would just use Vice instead of the three sources which do not specifically name the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

f-16.net

Is www.f-16.net a reliable source? –FoxtAl (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

for what? Alexbrn (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've left notifications at the Military History and Aircraft Wiki projects.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
For what is a pertinent question but looking at the page, there is no "About" page. There is nothing to indicate that there is an editorial board exercising editorial oversight. Without further information, it would not appear to meet WP:RS. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content like this does not list an author or sources. Listing pseudonyms like "TheRipper" in a "special thanks" section does not inspire further confidence. News articles like this have bylines, but as observed above, there is no indicia of editorial policy/board/oversight. Gives the distinct appearance of a militaria enthusiast/hobbyist website that should not be used as a source in Wikipedia unless a specific piece of information can be explicitly attributed to a known and established subject matter expert per WP:SPS. The news articles might contain useful links to more reliable source, which in turn could be used in Wikipedia. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
A site like this does not list RS sources, nor have editorial oversight, which would rate it as an reliable source. Kierzek (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thats a hard no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
No, it's just a fansite. An active one, but a fan site all the same. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

fighterjetsworld.com

Is https://fighterjetsworld.com/latest-news/aircraft-crash/russian-air-force-mil-mi-35-helicopter-shot-down-by-ukrainian-armed-forces/27678/ a reliable reference? Currently being used in List of aircraft losses during the war in Donbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and othe articles probably elsewhere if I check. The about us page lists nothing useful, and consindering they claim to be one of the world’s most popular and reliable military aviation websites they have a surprisingly low 3,667 likes on a Facebook page that's supposedly been active since 2015. FDW777 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Not remotely a reliable source - see this ludicrous photoshop image on another page [39], and note that the website is asking their 'fans' whether it is real. Clickbait trash. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, if you're going to photoshop stuff like that, make sure you know how shadows work. Canterbury Tail talk 14:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Simple common sense would help too. Almost twice the weight. Three engines instead of four... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Not reliable in any way. Looks like a combination of a fan site and a spamfarm. No way. --Jayron32 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Hard no on this like on other fan sites. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah

Investigating the use of the book Al-Sawa'iq al-Muharraqa as a source in the article Hadith Manzalat.اوهریش (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, WP:AGE MATTERS aside, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is a WP:RS for his own views. However, is it WP:DUE to include his views? In WP-land, it would be preferable to cite a reasonably modern WP:RS scholar who comments on Ibn Hajar al-Haytami's views on Hadith of position. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I do not think the age really matters. It is about a historical event and it is not like new "evidence" is popping up about it, only analyses, evaluations and the similar. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Help resolving contradictory sources

Hey, I need help making sense of some of the sourcing problems in this article I just created on Juan Pablo Cárdenas. The article currently relies heavily on primary sources, namely shortish biographies of him published by the University of Chile School of Journalism for which he works and, to a much lesser extent, one by his alma mater, the three of which substantially corroborate the content of one another, insofar as they overlap (the School of Journalism bio is by far the most detailed). I would have thought that I could count on these being reliable for basic facts concerning his life, but I have now found several places where they are made to seem outdated or outright contradicted by other sources:

  • His University of Chile bio claims that he currently manages that school's radio station, while his short bio by a press agency he currently writes for implies this is outdated
  • His School of Journalism bio claims that one of the magazines he founded operated from 1077 (presumably a typo of 1977) to 1991, a total of fourteen years, while a twelve-year-old article about him by the International Press Institute claims it operated fifteen years
  • His School of Journalism bio claims he was press attaché for the Chilean embassy from 1994 to 1999, while the IPI articles claim it was February 2000
  • All three affiliated bios describe him as "founder and director" of a certain online newspaper, Primera Línea, while a 2002 report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) describes him only as "director" and strongly implies that he had assumed control of an existing publication. Moreover, Cárdenas himself describes being fired from that position by the board of directors of La Nación (Chile), who I rather doubt would have controlled the paper if he had founded it himself.

This number of contradictions in a three-paragraph biography is just ridiculous, and I don't know which side to favor. The University bios are more recent than the two articles (both of which have rotted, I might add), but in general my impression is that the articles are more trustworthy. I am wondering if the connected biographies might be exaggerating his accomplishments for their own sake, but I have no reason to suspect that apart from the contradictions I just documented. Thoughts? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it's a topic of significant controversy or contention, when sources disagree I think it is best (WP:NPOV) to just report what the disagreeing sources say, instead of choosing sides. E.g. Joe was born in New York (source 1), or Paris (source 2). 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:C115 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
If they were equally reliable sources, that is what I would do. However, I am not sure how severe to consider the University biographies' conflict of interest and to what extent that should affect things, especially with regard to the last point. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The Kyiv Independent

I'm seeing some use of The Kyiv Independent in a number of articles relating to the Russo-Ukrainian war. The English language outlet, which was founded in November 2021, is composed of the former staff of Kyiv Post after a bit of turmoil at the Post. I'm not quite sure how to approach the source; WP:NEWSORG notes that [n]ews reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact, but it's unclear to me at this time if that means the source is relegated to WP:MREL or WP:GUNREL territory as it pertains to the day-to-day events in the ongoing war in Ukraine. Is there a general precedent on how these sorts of sources are treated? Also, is there anything specific about this source that would make it more or less reliable than the typical three-month-old newspaper? — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)+

I think this is a really good question. In terms of the outlet I see no reason to doubt it's reliability. It has a substantial and experienced editorial staff and its coverage is being regularly quoted by other reliable news outlets. However, we are seeing The Kyiv Independent's twitter feed being used a source. This for me is less reliable and probably not fact checked. Their twitter account is being used to give immediate updates and, in the chaos of war, may not be able to be trusted. But even the twitter feed is being used by other news outlets as a source. With these fast changing events do we really have much better in terms of an independent Ukrainian English-language source? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we should be somewhat careful, as bombastic claims coming from the outlet are obviously going to have a slant, but it's actually more or less reliable so far. Curbon7 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Better to use the website than the Twitter feed but in general this outlet is also fine (it's more or less like the Moscow Times) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The Kyiv Post, before its 'demise', had a stellar reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and the quality of its reporting. I don't know if that reputation can be said to carry over to The Kyiv Independent, however, even if the staff are the same. It's a good source, but it should probably be used with attribution for avoidance of doubt. RGloucester — ☎ 18:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Given their staff all have good reputations, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Kyiv Independent, but in the context of an ongoing war it would be much better to use third-party sources. Zerotalk 03:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Third-party sources are currently focused on explosions, protests and war crimes. Given the documented history of Russians using doctored video this is concerning, although CNN has several times broadcast an explanation of what they mean when they say a video has been verified, which does seem careful.
By the way, I am currently working through a long list of Russian and Ukrainian-language references in a bad machine translation of the Ukrainian Russian-Ukrainian information war that I am putting into English, and could use some help as I don’t speak either of those languages. Given the topic, there are some unreliable sources used simply to demonstrate cases, so I am proceeding slowly and would expect the same; also the situation there is rather unusual in that a lot of the reliable sources don’t meet our usual criteria, while the many of the large broadcasters are flat-out lying, mostly but not exclusively in Russia. I also see some Ukrainian aggregators that might be unreliable; trying to figure out if they are being used because the original source is offline. Anyway. Input welcome. The talk page is full of questions Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kyiv Post to debunk 2014 Korson “pogrom”

I realize that we just now discussed this publication, and I if I am hearing correctly, has been gold-standard in the past but just had a change of ownership which may or may not change that. I am starting a separate entry because I would like to use a 2015 article from the publication at the first bullet point here.

One concern is DUE: we don’t currently have an article about the incident, although uk.wikipedia does. And yet Putin used it as an excuse to invade Crimea, although it apparently never happened, which is plausible given Russian behavior in the area. (See section on doctored videos). On the other hand the text in this section originally presented a rather incoherent narrative of the Russian version of events, sourced to a likely-unreliable account from somebody who claims to have participated on the independence side.

Another concern is that nobody afaik seems to call it a pogrom except for the Russians, and I have not yet read elsewhere that there were any religious overtones at all. I wish the headline writer had put that word in quotes.

I also fundamentally don’t understand the sequence of events and how a bus at a checkpoint in and of itself leads to two buses being burned, which seems to be undisputed. Even if the two groups were were on opposite sides of a secession.

Back to sourcing — consider the section a work in progress; I found this article while looking for a reference other than the blog to source the casualty numbers. Thanks for any brainpower that anyone applies to this. Elinruby (talk) 09:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I am a little confused by what your concerns are. This article considerably predates the ownership change, so it is unlikely that its quality is affected by it. The name "Korsun pogrom" is placed in scare quotes in the title and appears only once in the body, so it is clear that the Kyiv Post is not endorsing that view (though that becomes obvious when you read the full article anyway). Regarding due weight, it seems this fictitious incident was used as a pretext by Russia, so I don't see any problem with mentioning it, though IMO, it probably does not deserve treatment of more than a sentence or two. Regarding casualties, you can use this as a source for the number of casualties claimed by both sides (7 killed, 30+ missing according to Russia; 0 casualties according to Ukraine).
I don't really understand the true sequence of events either, which this article does not discuss. If you want to present what truly happened, you'll need to find a different source. But if you just want to note that "Russia used this fictitious event as a pretext," this source is probably adequate. Does that answer your question? Compassionate727 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. It is in a list of fictitious events. I think that if anyone can figure out what *really* happened, it probably isn’t me. Just trying to establish that there was coverage to this effect; that assertion is uncited by whoever wrote the Ukrainian wikipedia article, perhaps because it seemed overwhelmingly obvious. My concern is, well, the incident seems important if only as a Putin pretext, description of it was uncited, this is an article about disinformation, seems like we should be sure about the examples, etc. Excess of caution and all that. Elinruby (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_368&oldid=1079194081"