Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 374

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 370←Archive 372Archive 373Archive 374Archive 375Archive 376→Archive 380

US Congressman as an authority on Nazis

Here is the text: “Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion (until September 2014), is a neo-Nazi[2][3][4][5] unit”

here is reference #2: Kheel, Rebecca (27 March 2018). "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis". The Hill. Archived from the original on 27 February 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2021. Ro Khanna: the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.

To be clear, I have no doubt The Hill is a reliable source imho that Ro Khanna said this. But he is a lawyer who sits on an environmental committee. Is he a reliable source for the above statement?

I am less sure whether the statement is true, but if it is, I think the references need to be reliable whether we agree with the statement or not. Thanks for any brainpower applied to this Elinruby (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean. He’s talking about the *budget*; context matters Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Not reliable: political statement by a non-expert. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
As a general matter, a politician's subjective characterization of someone they don't like should not be considered reliable.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For context, this is the article Azov Battalion, which had an RfC a year ago which was closed as saying the lead should say the unit is neo-Nazi, so that can't be changed without a new RfC. However, most of the current footnotes supporting it are very weak, this one being the weakest. I agree not RS for the factual claim it supports, only for the politician's opinion. RS-focused editors might be interested in the extensive current talk page arguments about RS use and interpretation in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

He is an RS for his views, not for them being true. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The source is reliable for quoting or paraphrasing the person in question, with in-text attribution, but not for speaking in Wikipedia's voice. --Jayron32 11:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Khanna’s characterization is obviously unreliable. The article is reliable for its weaker statement that the Azov Battalion has openly accepted some neo-Nazis into its ranks. John M Baker (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The Hill is generally reliable for politics, and can be trusted to accurately convey Ro Khanna's quoted opinion. However, Khanna is not a subject-matter expert and his statement is not reliable for a factual claim about the political orientation of the Azov Battalion. The source should not be used in the Azov Battalion article to support the neo-Nazi descriptor without attribution or with only a generic attribution (i.e. "has been described as", without naming the entity that described it). On the other hand, this source can be used to cover Khanna's description of the Azov Battalion in the Ro Khanna article, if it is due in that article. — Newslinger talk 09:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
As it is already clear Khanna is not RS, I have moved the reference away from this claim, along with other sources that were not relevant. There is now only one citation for this claim in the article's lead, a piece by Lev Golinkin in The Nation. There is some discussion on the article talk page on the reliability of that too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Like I said on the talk page, Golinkin is a memoirist. He describes Biletsky as the commander of the Azov Battalion in a 2017 Hill article, but Biletsky left the Azov Battalion in 2014. I don't think Golinkin can be considered an expert on the Azov Battalion if he doesn't know who the commander is, three years later. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Lancet on All the Light We Cannot See

I am currently working on the article for the novel All the Light We Cannot See and am planning on creating a themes section and/or a style section. While looking for academic articles, I came across an article from the Lancet, "The judgement dilemna", which analyzes the rejection of stereotyping in the novel. I know the Lancet is already considered reliable because it is well-established, prestigious, and peer-reviewed, but it's a medical journal. Literature is not its expertise. However, both of the authors do seem to have credentials in literature and English, and it does validate Doerr's intention. Would this article from the Lancet be usable in the article for All the Light We Cannot See? Lazman321 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The article is in a "Perspectives|From literature to medicine" section, and the abstract includes "Although he exaggerated the toxic nature of the physician–patient relationship, he captured startling elements of hospital culture". As you note, the authors have expertise in the subject matter, and there are more articles in The Lancet with a focus on literature, e.g. articles by by Marchalik, articles by Jurecic. With reliable authors published in a reliable journal that regularly publishes this type of work, it appears to be reliable WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this purpose. Beccaynr (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, depending on the proposed article text. Mostly I would caution about making too much of it for WP:WEIGHT concerns. Daniel Marchalik was Doctor of Urology with many other articles or literary reviews in the Lancet, Ann Jurecic was a doctorate in English and instructor with Rutgers University who collaborated with him on a couple dozen pieces. The Lancet is a well-known and respected publication. So WP:SOURCEDEF has these as solid supports, but their article is not particularly famous. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Can these multiple sources be used directly in articles?

Hi. can I use these articles directly in Wikipedia articles?

For more see my talk page. JackP111 (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

See the note at the top of this page: You need to tell us which articles you are proposing to cite them in, and what statements you are proposing to cite them for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump Hi. In homosexuality article. "For example, much of the evidence cited by the APA to exclude homosexuality from the list of diseases is inaccurate." Can I use the above articles? JackP111 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
PMID:26997677 is in a non-MEDLINE journal, so probably best avoided for this topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
No, you cannot use a couple of cherry-picked articles to contradict the conclusions of the American Psychological Association. Wikipedia articles are based around the consensus view on subjects, rather than material specifically selected to promote contrary viewpoints held only by a few. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The second source (here's the proper link[2]) is from the The Linacre Quarterly, the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association. The journal's homepage is explicit about its POV. With proper attribution as coming from a non-neutral viewpoint, it may cited as an opinion, of course considering due weight. –Austronesier (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
And the first source[1] does not support the statement. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, there are several reasons why we wouldn't do that. In addition to the issues raised above, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. If the isolated study is a primary source, it should generally not be used if there are secondary sources that cover the same content. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive and should be avoided. This hits almost every one of those warning points - they are isolated studies, making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that contradicts more established secondary sources, specifically within the complex and abstruse field of medicine. And beyond that (while this goes outside of WP:RS to become a WP:NPOV issue), when dealing with topics, like this one, that have massive amounts of coverage, we have to reflect viewpoints in accordance with how well-represented they are - it is possible to find a few academic papers questioning climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines, for example, or which advance scientific racism, but those are WP:FRINGE viewpoints among academia as a whole. The same is broadly true here (the second source is even written in a "dissent" sort of way that makes it clear that it is expressing a fringe viewpoint.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bogaert AF, Skorska MN. A short review of biological research on the development of sexual orientation. Horm Behav. 2020 Mar;119:104659. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2019.104659. Epub 2020 Jan 8. PMID: 31911036.

Reliability of sources on Jewish views on Birthdays

Any opinions on the reliability of this site or this site when it comes to describing the views of birthdays in Judaism? My unreliable sense is tingling, but I'm not familiar enough with sourcing on Judaism, and I know there are a lot of sects and rabbis disagree, and all that. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Thehalacha looks like it could be used with attribution as the webpage is controlled by a potentially notable author/rabbi who has other published works. The first one, shemay, I am not seeing any editorial control to make a determination that they are a reliable or authoritative source.15:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can these considered as a reliable sources?

  1. [3]
  2. https://www.livemint.com/Companies/bA8zYVd3lP3V9SadRgQDnM/Oakwood-Asia-Pacific-launches-serviced-apartments-in-Pune.html
  3. https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oakwood-launches-serviced-apartment-in-india-107070601085_1.html
  4. https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oakwood-worldwide-plans-15-operational-properties-in-india-by-2012-109071000188_1.html
  5. https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oakwood-mapletree-20140501-story.html
  6. https://www.nestfinder.cn/apartments/55.cshtml
  7. https://www.mingtiandi.com/real-estate/finance/mapletree-acquires-oakwood-serviced-apartment-chain/
  8. [4]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anis.ali (talk • contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You ignored the instructions. At the top of this page—and in an Edit Notice that popped up when you started to add your question—are the following instructions: "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available: ... Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. ... Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports." Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 05:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
If these sources are intended to be used for a new article about Oakwood Worldwide or another organization, please note that WP:CORPDEPTH excludes "routine coverage" of corporations and organizations from counting toward the subject's notability. — Newslinger talk 05:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It depends on the intended use or WP:RSCONTEXT that it is for, but in general I would think the Business Standard and L.A. Times would be viewed as WP:BESTSOURCES due to being larger publications so showing the notability and WP:WEIGHT, and having a more independent third-party view. If the context is for some technical detail, then a more closely focused publication such as Hotel Management or Mint might be preferred. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Tastytrade

Hi! I'm wondering if research from the think tank (and talk show?) Tastytrade could be considered reliable? They produce research on financial options and I haven't found a source of comporable quality. They have a six-person research team which produces research for them, which they then disseminate in the form of videos. I want to use this for the article covered call. I genuinely cannot find another source for 99% of this information. (I should note I have a bit of a COI here- I sometimes email the CEO questions for my own trading.) Here is a couple examples of their research: (you can click the button to the bottom right of the video to only view the slides) (Comparing Buying Power Requirements), (Tradeoffs With Covered Calls), (Delta / Theta Ratio). TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I should also note that they have a brokerage arm, Tastyworks, but I'm not going to cite anything where that may be a potential COI. (again, they're my broker!) TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @Mx. Granger: since they seem to know a bit about options. TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and they're sometimes sponsored by the CBOE, but again, I'm just trying to cite somewhat basic information from them, so that shouldn't be a problem? TraderCharlotte (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a pretty marginal source. To a significant degree it's promotional of their affiliated options broker and other products, and it rarely or never sees use by others. On the other hand, they do seem to have some legitimate expertise, so I'm hesitant to say that they could never be used. Have you looked at other ways to obtain good sources, such as Google Scholar? Books such as Lawrence McMillan, Options as a Strategic Investment, and John Hull, Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives? (Although both are kind of pricy.) John M Baker (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Tastytrade, but I agree with User:John M Baker that I would prefer to rely on scholarly sources and well-respected reference works where possible. My experience has been that for options trading topics, it's sometimes hard to find good sources online, so I often cite offline sources like Hull when working on this topic area. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I looked at McMillan and also Natenberg. I haven't seen Hull's book, so I'll check that out. The problem I'm having is I can't find sources for stuff that seems obvious to options traders but not obvious to everyone else, like how the greeks work for a specific strategy like a covered call (like, does it have positive theta, or negative gamma?). Tastytrade has videos on that stuff. I'm not sure that I agree that Tastytrade is necessarily promotional for their own products (they don't really even mention it in their videos), but they probably do have bias. This is all for the rewrite of the covered call article I'm working on in my sandbox. I'll try other sources first, but I'm worried about the obvious stuff. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Specifically, I could find sources besides Tastytrade that said that short calls have positive theta decay, but not a source for covered calls. TraderCharlotte (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
For something like this that's obvious to someone familiar with the field, I am more comfortable relying on marginal sources like Tastytrade. I would avoid them for more controversial or groundbreaking research. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: Alright, thanks; that's the way I'll approach this. TraderCharlotte (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Acacia decurrens

Source at stake: https://dharawalstories.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/bookerrikin-text.pdf

Discussion is here: Talk:Acacia decurrens#Acacia decurrens. An uncomplicated case of no RS. An IP editor wants to use the self published source to establish its own reliability. I have provided the only thing even a hair more reliable – a Council has mentioned these stories as good for children. We remain without any RS to establish that these are appropriate "Cultural references" examples. See also WP:SELFSOURCE. Have these stories been retold #1 by anyone other than the author #2 about Acacia decurrens? We don't know. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I also provided evidence of the authors expertise as academically published authors on the broader topic of Aboriginal storytelling. The story has also been published by the authors in a book which is held in 32 libraries Australia wide, and the story has been reproduced in university coursework. It would be easier to assume good faith if Invasive Spices had bothered to present my position and additional information. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Interfax

I see hits in the archives but none specifically about this so. I could use feedback please on the Ukrainian and Russian Interfax? I understand that they are separate organizations. Are they reliable? Context is Ukraine, specifically in this case National Corps. I have also encountered the Russian version and have wondered about that too, but I want to get back to the tags I put on the Ukrainian version. Thanks for any brainpower Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Both sites seem like acceptable sources in my opinion; based on this previous discussion, they're newswires like the AP, and seem to just report what people say. For example with the article you linked, kthis instance is just reporting what this guy said without commentary, while this instance is reporting what the party's platform says with some facts to contextualize; both contain no opinion or little consequential slant. Seem more-or-less fine, in my opinion. Curbon7 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Its probably usable, but there is certainly a slant and its pretty blatantly obvious in the first example there... For example in "The party also favors restoring Ukraine's nuclear power status and nationalizing enterprises which were government owned when Ukraine became independent in 1991." the key is "restoring" as Ukraine *never had nuclear power status* they've gone beyond the factual and into the political, not disqualifying though... no different than a Chinese news wire using "reunification" vs "unification" when talking about Taiwan, yes its false but its not really the sort of false that we care about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Elinruby (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on sources justifying a merge of "autism" and "autism spectrum"

Are WP:MEDRS sources required to justify merging autism and autism spectrum? And if so, do these sources meet the MEDRS criteria or not? Averixus (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a proposal to merge the pages autism and autism spectrum. The following sources were provided in the proposal as evidence that the terms are used synonymously:

List of sources

There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria. There's also been suggestion that the MEDRS criteria don't apply here because it's a question of common-use names rather than biomedical information. Are (any of) these reliable sources to use for merging autism and autism spectrum? Are MEDRS-approved sources required for this case or are standard reliable sources sufficient?

The full discussion is on the autism spectrum talk page.

Averixus (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Do medical sources use them synonymously? If so then it would better to just use those sources. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
What do you mean by medical sources? Do the NHS, NIH etc not count as medical? Averixus (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
You said There's been a suggestion that these sources do not meet WP:MEDRS criteria.. Are there any sources that people are saying does meet that criteria? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Oh I see, thanks. The person opposing the use of these sources has said None of the sources you have provided are MEDRS, so they believe none of the sources are suitable. Averixus (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm copying over my reply from that talk page, as it seems relevant to here.
While I don't want to speak on behalf of Wretchskull, I would point out that while the NHS is obviously a medical institution, its website (NHS.uk) is aimed at non-medical members of the public. A more appropriate source for current UK guidance, that is explicitly WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDSCI would be the guidance, standards, and pathways published by NICE. It will take me some time to read through it all in detail, as it has been updated since I last read it (most recent update was circa June 2021), however at first glance the following quotation stands out to me as relevant to this discussion In this guideline 'autism' refers to 'autism spectrum disorders' encompassing autism, Asperger's syndrome and atypical autism (or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified). Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The issue with that particular quote though is the context. Its specificially talking about 'autism' in general and so needs to explicitly clarify the guide applies to all 'autism spectrum disorders'. That does *not* mean the terms are used synonymously, otherwise there wouldn't need to be a clarification for medical professionals. That said, for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, the terms should be/are currently synonymous. For the purposes of a medical encyclopedia, no. The only real question is where do we sit? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I would agree, except that the ICD 11 only lists five subtypes (6A02.0-5), with the variations being whether or not the individual also has an intellectual and/or language impairment. There are no other meaningful distinctions. Since the adoption of the ICD 11, within the UK diagnoses of Aspergers, PDD-NOS, or others are not issued. For comparison, the previously used ICD 10 listed Aspergers (F84.5), atypical autism (F84.1), and Kanner/childhood autism (F84.0) as separate disorders under pervasive developmental disorders, alongside other syndromes like Rett syndrome (10:F94.2, 11:LD90.4). While the existing diagnoses will obviously continue to exist for people who were diagnosed prior to the adoption of the ICD 11, both on paper and socially as part of their identity, from a new diagnosis perspective there is only autism spectrum disorder.
As for your question at the end, where do we sit? I'd say somewhere around the general encyclopedia area. While we should continue to have pages on Aspergers, or PDD-NOS, I would suggest that those should be made clear that they are largely historical and not applicable in 2022 . Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused why this is now an RfC? Is it really necessary to answer this question? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
These questions are the central consideration in deciding whether or not to go ahead with merging two large articles, and it's so far been difficult to reach consensus because of disagreement about whether or how to apply WP:MEDRS to this specific situation. Is there a reason it shouldn't be an RfC? Averixus (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems premature at best to have an RfC on this, when discussion is still unfolding. The original post here was just over a day ago, and per WP:RFCBEFORE this discussion has not been thoroughly exhausted yet.
I'd also like to quote from the page notice for this noticeboard Before starting an RfC please consider: is your question a one-off, or is it project-wide? Is it about reliability or prominence? A question of the form "is X source reliable for Y content on Z article" should normally be addressed at the article's talk page, but you can post a note here. This seems to be, at least currently, a one off question. It's not about the reliability of these sources in general, but whether or not the set of meets MEDRS criteria in the context of the autism merge discussion. I may be mistaken, but I suspect that even if this needs to be an RfC, that this is the wrong place for this discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I would say that the question of the reliability of these sources in general is likely to go on being relevant. We have MEDRS stating that good sources include 'guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations'. The original citations included what seem to be NHS guidelines, as well as similar from Healthline, WebMD and NIH. If people are liable to dismiss such things as not meeting MEDRS requirements, I think we'll need a ruling on whether that's appropriate. Oolong (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
But this is asking about it in the very specific context of a WP:RM discussion. Starting it with that framing means it will be of limited applicability in other contexts. Basically it feels like this RFC is asking us to decide the RM indirectly without actually starting the RM itself - that makes no sense. If there's going to be an RM, that should be held on that page first, with an announcement here if necessary. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but there's been quite a bit of discussion on the relevant page. One (former) participant in that discussion was insisting that none of the citations disproving his point counted, which is why the question came here. By the by, it's a merge request, not a move request.
I still think it would be helpful to have more clarity about the citation requirements for different aspects of something like autism: what are the bounds of what counts as 'biomedical', and is it acceptable to cite something like a public-facing National Health Service page in support of points which may or may not be considered biomedical?
We're talking about autism in particular here, but this kind of question is very relevant to other kinds of neurodivergence, disabilities including deafness, and contested psychiatric categories like gender identity disorder/gender dysphoria and various paraphilias. Oolong (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think it makes sense to leap straight to an RFC here. What outcome, exactly, are you asking for? A page merge ought to be decided by a discussion on that page; leaping straight to an RFC at RSN to decide a specific thing that seems likely to require a RM on that page feels like WP:FORUMSHOPping. Examining the sources that might justify a move is normally part of an RM; a global discussion at RSN usually requires some indication that the problem is more widespread. Basically, why couldn't this question be settled via a normal RM? You can of course link or discuss the RM here if you believe it raises major RS issues, but it strikes me as off to try and preempt what might be a key question for it like this. --Aquillion (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That depends a lot on what the sources are being used to cite and what the basic arguments for the merge are. Some arguments might be MEDRS sensitive (eg. if they focus on treatments for autism, or its diagnosis or prognosis) and others might not be (if they're based on usage, naming, available sources for non-MEDRS aspects of the topic, or discussions of how best to structure and arrange the available information.) As it is this question is too broad and vague for us to give you a useful answer. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Laboratory News / https://www.labnews.co.uk/

This site isn't referenced in many articles, but I've noticed it turning up on a few that were likely written by a WP:COI editor. (An IP claiming to be them confessed here, and it does seem to be reflected in the tone, focus, and odd sourcing for the articles.) This made me squint at it more closely. While its About Us page says that Laboratory News has been providing scientists with independent news and analysis since it launched on Fleet Street in October 1971 and that it is the leading magazine for UK laboratory scientists, it also says that it is run by Synthesis Media, a B2B media owner and marketing services company specialising in the science, engineering and technology industries; I'm concerned that the "marketing services" aspect may be central. We have an article about Laboratory News, but as you can see, it doesn't have any secondary sources, and the generic name makes it hard to search for more information. They appear to be publishing press releases as articles - see here in particular, which was cited on the article for Schmidt Science Fellows; if you look closely, it is written by that organization's executive director! This is disclosed in tiny text at the bottom, but there's no other indication anywhere in the piece. But I figured I should ask here to see if anyone with more knowledge about it can say if it's actually the leading magazine for UK laboratory scientists. --Aquillion (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"white people" and historical editing on Wiki

A few months ago on the White people talk page (last Fall actually - I gave it some time), I raised a bone of contention by disputing the credibility of the following line,

"By the 18th century, White had become well established as a racial term. Author John Tehranian has noted the changing classifications of immigrant ethnic groups in American history. At various times each of the following has been excluded from being considered White: Germans, Greeks, White Hispanics, Arabs, Iranians, Afghans, Irish, Italians, Jews, Slavs, and Spaniards.[250]"

On the White Americans article I raised the same objection to what was essentially the same line, sourced similarly.

I explained to these editors that the studies which are generally used to support such statements do not emanate from one particular subset of history, but from within a body of theory known as "whiteness studies". I informed them that this school of thought has produced what's an extremely controversial thesis (the same one that's referenced in these Wiki articles), and is described that way in reliable sources [9]. Whiteness scholarship has also been described as operating outside traditional or 'mainstream' areas of social and ethnic history (p. 405 [[10]]).

Mainstream historians who specialize in ethnic histories, on the other hand, have either ignored this theory altogether or have publicly discarded it. Historians of Irish immigrants, for example, have been disputing this theory for decades - also indicated in reliable sources [11]. While I haven't reviewed the literature for the other European groups (and I'm focusing strictly on the Europeans here), sources that call the whole thesis into question are easy to find [12].

I've raised these issues on both talk pages and the results were generally the same. On the 'white people' page an editor engaged with me until I published sources, and then disappeared. On the 'white Americans' page the reaction was far more emotional and swift: an editor tried getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia, but managed only to have me temporarily edit blocked from article spaces (the consequences of which I've fully accepted). He then pretended as if he was interested in having an editorial discussion over this, only to disappear when I began to cite sources (he then archived the talk page).

I understand that there's a much greater degree of subjectivity in historical editing than in, say for example, some topics of science. But just because editors can take certain liberties doesn't mean anything goes. These edits are obvious violations of the encyclopedia's NPOV standards, which require us either to exclude controversial information or publish it alongside all the necessary scholarly caveats. On both pages neither of these criterions had been met.

I apologize for the length of this section but I could think of no shorter way to articulate an accurate understanding of the experience and why this content is problematic. I had initially assumed that these editors merely lacked a firm understanding of academic history, but I now have good reason to believe this content is a longstanding NPOV violation that's being jealously and inappropriately guarded by partisan editors, who are preventing other editors from improving these sections. When I cite objections and sources on the talk pages, they ignore me; if I try to edit the sections without editorial consensus, they attempt to get me blocked from editing.Jonathan f1 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the statement is a small drop in a much bigger ocean of thoughts on racial identity and history, have you tried simply adding a caveat in the section that states that other people in the field have disagreed about that specific point? Seems worth mentioning to me, but I only skimmed this discussion and sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
One of the problems here is that it's not "other scholars in the field", as "whiteness studies" is actually not a field more than it's an umbrella term for a uniquely postmodern school of thought (and methodology) within the Academy. Most of the scholars who publish whiteness tracts disproportionately specialize in labor history (ie, not experts in any particular field of ethnic history), with sprinklings of legal scholars and sociologists. Once you venture into more serious areas of mainstream ethnic and social history, where scholars are more empirically minded and enforce higher standards of evidence, you don't find any significant support for this thesis at all, while in some cases entire fields of specialists have denounced it altogether. What encyclopedic purpose does this serve?
It's for exactly the reason that it's only one sentence in a much larger article that calls its inclusion into question. The articles that deal with 'whiteness studies' as a general topic include very large criticism sections. The Eric Foner piece I cited was a review of Nell Painter's The History of White People[13], which is a far more serious, mainstream and neutral source that would be far more informative for readers interested in learning about the evolution of racial identity in the US.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll leave you with this:
1. Identify a specific change you want to see.
2. Find a way to state your case in concise, summarized way (your arguments will likely not be read if they are as long as they are here and in your other comments. You can be thorough without being long. It will get you much farther here.
3. Take your suggested change through the dispute resolution process and seek consensus by including independent editors starting with a Third Opinion. If you are not satisfied with the result of that, try to build consensus with a Request for Comment. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a lot of work to get one line removed. I've discussed this at some length citing page and line in many cases, but if you know of a more succinct way to explain this issue to editors who most likely don't read this scholarship and won't fully understand the problem or what side to come down on, I'll take it into consideration.
The rules say that controversial content should either be left out or balanced with reliable sources. In cases where we are dealing with one questionable line out of an entire article, exclusion is usually preferred.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem though, is that when it comes to highly controversial subject matter e.g. race, even seemingly minor edits are not minor, as you've now seen, facing so much resistance. If you decide to do a 3O or RfC, you're 100% welcome to ask me to help you trim and edit for length (I know it can be hard when you're close to the subject), and I'm sure others would be happy to help, too. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of opening an RfC with the title "whiteness studies", citing the line in question, explaining that it's controversial with one or two sources, and then briefly mentioning the dispute.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I think that's the way to go. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Point of order, AFAICT no editor archived any sections you started at Talk:White Americans. The sections were all automatically archived by a bot after no one, including you, had commented on them for 75 days [14] [15]. Automatic archiving with various intervals had been set up on that page for nearly 10 years when that archiving happened [16]. Assuming you're referring to User:Struthious Bandersnatch you disappeared for over a month [17] [18] which is more a likely reason you received no further replies and not because you "began to cite sources". I'd note that the discussion you're referring to is something like 17 months old now. While you aren't required to spend all your time on Wikipedia, if you disappear for a month or many months, you're going to find it very hard have a meaningful discussion over some proposed change. For example, 30 days is the standard maximum time period for an RfC. After 30 days it's generally just waiting closure. If you start an RfC then disappear for 30 days, you're going to find any discussion to be had is over and if you have anything too add, it's probably too late. While the Talk:White people discussion is newer, it's still over 3 months old now. I don't really understand why you needed to "began" to cite sources anyway. If you wanted to effect some change you should have been citing sources from the get-go. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a WP:NPOV issue rather than a WP:RS issue. But generally speaking I think you are going to have a hard time convincing people that something cited to Yale University Journal is fringe, especially since the statement made here seems, to me, to be unexceptional. I'm also extremely skeptical of the argument that the entire field of whiteness studies is so fringey that anything that anyone affiliated with it says should be disregarded or have an asterisk affiliated to it, even if nobody disagrees. If someone disagrees with Tehranian's point or says something specifically different, we could possibly include that as well, but something along the lines of "disregard Tehranian entirely, he is a kook" seems hard to support. --Aquillion (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


Here we go again.
It really doesn't matter who specifically archived the thread (the fact that an NPOV violation has persisted for so long on two articles should concern you more than my absence from Wikipedia - if I'm not raising this objection, nobody else is). The point was that editors on both articles are unwilling to engage with any sources that contradict the statement in question (and there are many), and I have no other recourse. The attitude is that the statement is "unexceptional", that it's something like a historical fact (it's not), and that the Yale University (Law) Journal is an unmovable object. This is not how we're supposed to be editing historical content. If something appears in a reliable source, but is contradicted or outright disputed in other reliable sources, the decision on whether or not to include the information is more complicated.
If you're immersed in "whiteness" literature, it may seem unexceptional to claim that some of the whitest people in Europe were only ambiguously "white" in the 1800s (ie, the Irish). But if you read what mainstream ethnic historians have written a very different picture emerges. Tim Meagher, for example, wrote a whole chapter in his textbook The Columbia Guide to Irish-American History (Columbia University Press) that poked holes in the arguments of whiteness scholars (starting on p. 214 [19]).
In a review of 2 decades of Irish-American historical scholarship (midway through link 96 in my first post), Kevin Kenny writes, "In 2001 and 2002 Eric Arnensen, Peter Kolchin, and Barbara J. Fields took stock of the debate and called for a moratorium. Since then, historians have been more skeptical, though [whiteness studies] continues to proliferate in disciplines where it arrived later."
In terms of the legitimacy of the entire body of 'whiteness' theory, on p. 405 of link 95,
"These problems [with whiteness studies] cut two different and distinct ways. On the one hand, the lack of concrete supporting evidence and analysis allows whiteness scholarship to be dismissed by skeptics and remain marginalized from mainstream scholars of race and ethnic relations who expect a certain amount and type of empirical evidence to support and advance theories." [20] Note that this was published in the Journal of Social Problems by Oxford University Press nearly a decade after Tehranian published his paper in a Yale law journal (the source for the statement in question).
So how many reliable sources calling this theory into question do I need to cite before editors realize the statement in question is in fact controversial rather than an unexceptional thing to say? A dozen? Two dozen? I can do this, but it has to be worth my time. I've tried doing this in the past and it gets me nowhere. I haven't challenged this content in some months because one, I've been busy offline; two, I've been calling attention to other issues with other Wikipedia articles; and three, the issue with this one statement creates a massive headache for me and I'm very rarely in the mood for that. It is obvious that the editors who wrote this content have not fully engaged with the historical scholarship outside the whiteness genre, and thus reasonable discussion is all but impossible. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Benjamin Franklin had an opinion on whiteness in the 18th century: "The Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted.” Maybe this should be added to the article to bolster Tehranian's view. Smallchief (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The cherry-picking of sources is one of the core issues here, and does not need to be added to by cherry-picking quotes out of context and performing original research (one of the methodological problems in whiteness studies is that these authors will often cherry-pick quotes like this without demonstrating their representativeness and influence). The statement in dispute is even worse than the Franklin quote, as it groups European immigrants in with non-Europeans (eg, Iranians) in a very sloppy and ahistorical way. I have no opinion on the race of Iranians (or Afghans) - they weren't counted as white 200 years ago, and it's questionable if any significant number of people view them as white today (other than the US Census Bureau).
We are instructed to parrot mindlessly what reliable sources say, but this stipulation is not without caveats concerning the dating of a source (information in old sources may not be reliable) and his/her academic background. John Tehranian is a law professor with no expertise in ethnic, racial or social history. He had a lot to write about the 'race' of European immigrants, most of which is disputed by historians who specialize in immigrant histories.
That Tehranian was elevated to an authority on racial/ethnic history is a reflection of the fact that the editors who write this content are historically uninformed. If editors can't even admit that some of the content in this statement (particularly as it relates to European immigrants) is controversial even when reliable sources describe it as a scholarly controversy[21], they are not neutral editors and shouldn't be involved with these articles.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe the source you cited supports your point. The fact that 200 academics and students came together to discuss the subject is a validation that "whiteness" is indeed a subject worthy of study -- and a wikipedia article. That scholars debate the importance of "whiteness" is hardly surprising. Scholars debate the importance of everything. The point of the quote you so vehemently disagree with is that the concept of "whiteness" and the ethnic groups to which it applies have differed and changed over the past 300 or so years. That's a fact verified by a multitude of scholars -- plus by Ben Franklin whose opinions are, shall we say, not without importance in American history. Frankly, I can't figure out what your problem is. Are you trying to suppress opinions on "whiteness" that you don't agree with?
As to the race of Iranians and Afghans, well, the word "Iran" is the same word as "Aryan." And the national airline of Afghanistan is "Ariana." I think we might agree that the word "Aryan" has come to have racial connotations.Smallchief (talk)

@Jonathan f1: actually it does matter who archived that thread because you've made a false accusation at the beginning of this thread. You've claimed that an editor refused to discuss something with you on an article talk page then archived the thread. This would potentially be a significant policy violation if it happened. But it's not what happened. The thread was automatically archived because no one said anything for 75 days. If you wanted to keep that thread open, you should have posted on it again or otherwise done something to try and attract other editors, like for example opened a noticeboard thread to draw attention to it when no one responded.

And the timing here is another key point since as I said you cannot expect editors engage in long discussion when you take over a month to response. By that time editors previously engaged with you may have moved on to other things or for whatever reason no longer be particularly interested. It's fairly ironic in a bad way that you'll complain an editor didn't respond when you've just been leaving highly sporadic comments. If you're busy with other things, fine but then why expect editors to be still free to discuss with you when you re-appear after a month? Ultimately of course a single editor is largely irrelevant anyway. If you want to get a contentious change through you need to seek the consensus, by an RfC or opening noticeboards discussions or whatever to draw attention to the issue. Although since you seem to be the only editor so far who feels this way, it's unlikely you'll get anywhere if you're just going to drop in every few months with a few new comments then disappear. Again you don't have to spend all your time on Wikipedia or on this issue, but when trying to get such a contentious response throw it may require persistent engagement on your part.

I'd note having looked at your last comment before you abandoned the issue for 75 days resulting in automatic archiving [22] is that beyond your discussion of sources, you made a bunch if claims about an editor's behaviour without evidence such as "I also suspect that you're using this page (and probably similar pages) as a vehicle to fight racism (an otherwise noble endeavor)". Behavioural issues should be discussed on an editor's talk page or one of the administrative noticeboards not on article talk pages. While it's sometimes acceptable to make some brief commentary, your posts are already very long and you're adding to them when you add such nonsense.

And I call it nonsense because you've made serious claims about an editor's behaviour without really any good evidence to back up such claims which can be considered personal attacks i.e. something that would lead to your block. You started this discussion doing that and are continuing it with you latest response. It's no wonder you're not getting anywhere when instead of focusing on the content dispute like you should, you keep accusing editors of stuff without evidence sometimes even when the evidence is against it. Then when called out on it you say it doesn't matter that you accused an editor of doing something they didn't do.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I would add if you want to explain why you are on RSN rather than article talk pages it's fine to say you tried to discuss on them but weren't satisfied with the responses. Probably also mention it was many months ago so editors don't get confused if they go looking for these discussions, or perhaps link to the archives. There's no need to malign other editors. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
I truly wasn't aware that archiving like that is a serious violation. And I shouldn't have assumed it was him regardless, given that I had no evidence.
On the other hand, this was an editor who tried to get me permanently banned from the encyclopedia, even from talk pages. He had a history of activism on here and was also frequently in heated arguments with other editors.
From what I gather, I should probably open another talk page section on the white people article, succinctly explain why the statement (as is) is problematic and cite the sources, and then wait maybe a week or two before pursuing Rfc or some other avenue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
If you feel it is a neutrality issue and there aren't many people on the talk page, you could also raise it at WP:NPOVN, which is probably a more appropriate place than asking here (since the issue is really more neutrality than WP:RS.) Possibly WP:FRINGEN is you want to argue that whiteness studies are outright fringe, but I think that would be a hard sell and NPOVN makes more sense (ie. how much weight we should give it and whether / to what extent we need to cover people who disagree.) --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military

I am sorry I keep coming here with these questions, but editors at Azov Battalion are now trying to cite the descriptor "neo-nazi" with an article about a man who was beaten in Belarus for wearing a Punisher T-shirt. For real.

The article: "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany". dw.com. The Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine... At the time, Samalazau was wearing a T-shirt bearing the skull logo of The Punisher, a Marvel comic book character. Because of the T-shirt, Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine. The group's logo, however, does not actually feature a skull.

The context: "is a neo-Nazi[2][3][4] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" in the lede sentence.

Please send help.

Yes DW is a great source and yes it does say neo-nazi, but this is a news blurb about a lawsuit in Germany whose reporter was definitely not focused on examining beliefs about Ukraine inside the Russian information bubble. Elinruby (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Deutsche Welle is generally reliable for news. However, as WP:RSCONTEXT states, "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." As a result, this DW article should be assigned a low weight for this particular claim. The neo-Nazi descriptor is a very exceptional claim, and if this article is one of the three sources cited for that claim, it calls into question whether the existing sourcing is adequate for the descriptor. — Newslinger talk 04:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
It is a bad time to criticize the DW, banned in Russia. [1] DW publishes in several languages, so perhaps some language wersions are reliable, here the English one, but general rating of the reliability of all versions would be more difficult.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
Maybe I should specifically mention that DW is considered a really good source. The problem with using this article to source that dubious statement however is that it eventually boils down to “Azov is neo-Nazi because a policeman in Belarus was not familiar with the Punisher and had a head full of Russian propaganda.” There is no doubt in my mind that there is such a lawsuit, which is what the article is about. The “neo-Nazi” word it’s supposed to source was probably on a police report, or is a second-hand account of what the man who was beat up says that the police said to him. Which (guessing) is probably true also, but the important thing is that it is probably also what Russian TV is telling people in Belarus and not non of all that proves anything about Azov or is the sort of detailed examination of the group that is necessary to call a military unit s name like that, especially when it validates Russian propaganda. This is an article about a lawsuit not about Azov. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I've got to agree that it is a very poor source for such a claim. The article isn't about the Azov Battalion, and there is no reason to assume the writer is doing anything more than reporting that the Belarus police used this description ('neo-Nazi') as a justification for a questionable arrest. Neither the police nor the DW reporter should be seen as reliable over this. Better sourcesare needed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
As per Newslinger and AndyTheGrump, this is a bad source for this particular claim. There are a huge number of RS articles about Azov, so it is silly to cite in the lead (for an exceptional claim) one that only mentions Azov in passing and is ambiguous as to whether it is passing on the Belarus police opinion or saying neo-Nazi in its own voice. As per previous comments, this is not a negative judgement on DW as an RS (it is, in my view, gold standard) but on its use in this context. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue this discussion. True, dw.com mentions this in passing but there are other RS that do it in articles about the battalion [23], [24], [25]. Alaexis¿question? 12:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

NOte, if a source says water is wet, and so is ice, that does not mean water is not wet. Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The Independent on Azov Battalion

One of the sources currently cited for the neo-Nazi descriptor in the Azov Battalion article fails verification, because the claim is found solely in the article headline. As WP:HEADLINES states, "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source." While The Independent is generally reliable for news, the article body does not explicitly describe the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi. There are only two instances of the term neo-Nazi (or a grammatical variant) in the article body:

  • "For all of that, it should also be observed that Ukraine is not entirely free from the stain of neo-Nazism either."
  • "In March 2015, Mr Avakov announced that it would receive specialist training from the US Army, only for that offer to be withdrawn in June when the group’s neo-Nazi connections became more widely known and the US House of Representatives moved to block them from benefiting from any American aid."

This source cannot be used to support the claim that the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi in a Wikipedia article. However, it can be used to support the lesser claim that the Azov Battalion has had "neo-Nazi connections". The article also states that the Azov Battalion is "known for wearing black fatigues, sporting Nazi tattoos and going into battle with swastikas drawn on its helmets" and has "fought under an explicitly Nazi symbol – a tilted version of the Wolfsangel"; the article can be used to support these lesser claims as well. — Newslinger talk 05:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point - sorry about adding this. I've now removed it and have replaced it with a Foreign Policy piece which states "Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine’s defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements..." (emphasis mine). This looks like it could be a column of sorts but is written by two experts: Simon Frankel from the School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne (Australia's top ranking university according to THE) and Christopher David LaRoche from the Department of International Relations, Central European University. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera on Azov Battalion

This cited article also fails verification for the claim for the neo-Nazi descriptor. While Al Jazeera is generally reliable for news, WP:HEADLINES states that both the headline and the subheadline of the article are unreliable. The article body does not explicitly label the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi. The article makes a number of lesser claims, including that the Azov Battalion is "accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology" and that its "uniform carries the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol". The article also says that adjacent organizations Patriot of Ukraine and Social National Assembly (SNA) have "engaged in xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideals", and the article applied the neo-Nazi descriptor to the SNA.

The article does quote The Nation – "'Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces,' a correspondent for the US-based magazine, the Nation, wrote in 2019." – but that is an attributed claim not made in Al Jazeera's voice, and the Azov Battalion is not mentioned in the selected quote. The linked article from The Nation is already cited in the Azov Battalion article for the neo-Nazi descriptor.

This source is also not usable for the unattributed claim that the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi, but it can be used for the lesser claims that are explicitly supported by the text of the article body. — Newslinger talk 06:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

checkY Yeah I picked this up too - sorry I was lazily going off sources another editor mentioned in this thread or another on the topic. Now removed and replaced. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Now, there are no headline-related issues with the currently cited sources. The article in The Daily Telegraph is less explicit in the article body ("militia groups – some openly neo-Nazi", followed by "The Azov battalion has the most chilling reputation of all"; and "Ukraine’s government is unrepentant about using the neo-Nazis.") than I prefer, but it can be interpreted in a way that would pass verification. — Newslinger talk 06:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
The thing is that media around the world describe them as neo-Nazis.... Here is one from Spain -->[26] I personally would not go so far but we follow what RS say. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Here, I'm not making an evaluation of whether the neo-Nazi descriptor is appropriately used in the article; that's best discussed in the upcoming RfC that is being drafted at Talk:Azov Battalion § RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion. I'm only evaluating individual sources here. Exceptional claims should be supported by rock-solid sources, and citing sources that fail verification would only distract editors from the superior sources in the RfC. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Got it - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Newslinger for raising these headline issues and thanks Vladimir.copic for adding in RSs that actually support the claim made! I agree the citations are now finally all robust. The question of whether the preponderance of RSs support this wording can be resolved via the renewed RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: As someone with decades worth of lived professional expertise in this region (greater MENA Iran and Central Asia), I don't regard AJ as a reliable source on pretty much anything. Far too much baggage. Has been widely regarded as sectarian and special-interest since the Iraq War, and totally lost credibility in the aftermath of the "Arab Spring" (see it's controversial coverage of Syria, Yemen, et al conflicts). For Wikipedia's purposes, I would recommend it only be used as a source for uncontroversial news that, for whatever reason, is unable to be found in the Wire services (AFP, AP, Reuters). Perhaps due to a paywall. Oh, and there may be "soft news" pieces unique to AJ features, that might be of use to some articles, although I'd seriously doubt it. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
*Cough* pot *cough* kettle *cough* black *cough* also this is not a general discussion of AJ's reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what this means, but please do join the discussion if you have anything to add. You're more than welcome. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Euromaidan Press on Azov Battalion

  • Comment Not necessarily claiming this as a reliable source (I don't know enough one way or the other), but this web-article yesterday from Euromaidan Press gives a counter-narrative that should perhaps at least be investigated. Author is identified as a long-standing research analyst for a Ukrainian human rights NGO (Linked-in, NGO website). At the moment our article doesn't seem to give any rebuttal points, even to dismiss them. Jheald (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: Editors interested in RSs might want to review the lists of sources being discussed in current RfC in that article, here and also in source review at top of its talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ed-Tech Press

I got a note on my talk page that prompted me to see if this had already been discussed and I haven't seen that after a quick set of searches. The message I received:

" "Ed-Tech Press" books are straight-up copies of various Wikipedia articles as they were in 2019. In every instance I've dug into I've yet to find original material in one of those "books", and the authors are always falsified. The company's address is an accounting proxy as well."

If this is the case, would be useful to call out this "press" via the perennial sources list. Thanks for discussing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Do not use, but do not list. I do not think this should be listed at RSP. Reliable sources/Perennial sources, is supposed to be a list of frequently discussed sources, and this one is just not frequently discussed. That it should not be cited is already inherent in the WP:CITE about WikiData "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)." A third party doing a presentation of a WP snapshot gives it RS qualities of being a stable reference and having a third party mention, but does not alter that it is crowdsourced. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Denial of high quality (scientific) sources

Reason: Denying all sources for the MAP IN QUESTION. See HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)'s edits. He claims map is not based on a official government data, but it is: Jahād-e Sāzandegī 1986/Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) (later (after 2001) merged with the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad). So he is in denial with his own countries institutions. He further denies the University of Tehran as a source joined by an academic 2012 liaison with the French National Centre for Scientific Research (which is specialized in Cartographic Studies on Iran and the Iranian world). One can‘t get enough quality in just 1 map. I tried to communicate a solution at his talk page but the user insists in his own position by reverting and giving no care to the fact that the map is based upon official 1986 government sources including two modern academic sources of the highest possible degree.--2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems like there is a lack of WP:COMPETENCE (and perhaps WP:JDLI) here. So let me repeat myself for the third time; What you're linking is a revolutionary organization (which the map apparently is largely based on), not anything government related. Even if it was a reliable source, it is from 1986, thus heavily outdated. Also, what country I belong to is none of your business. Last but not least, this is not a place for reporting other users. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Your statement is based on assumptions, personal insults and claims that you cannot prove. You are also denying obvious facts. There is nothing more to add.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment on content, not on the contributor. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
“lack“ is a personal insult. Thank you and be civil.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:SANCTIONGAME. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This is counted as a triple personal attack, as there are already 3 users opposing your world view.—2A02:3030:C:6060:6C36:47C1:F18D:8396 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it is irrelevant as even if it is a government document, that does not mean it is "scientific". Plenty of government bodies has produced the most appealing racist cobblers in the past. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I didn‘t make such a claim. The matter is that governmental data is scientifically used by an University and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe (CNRS). I hope this is clearer now.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
To make this easier, can someone link to the original of the map? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Ofc, http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/record.php?q=AR-040516&f=local&l=en —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Link to the map's source. My first thought is that HistoryofIran is correct to raise objections to this map. My first question is: why is the map captioned with 1986–2012? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Because 2012 is written in the original map file (bottom right: University of Tehran and CNRS).-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm interpreting that as the year of authorship. Do you think that's intended to signify that the data goes from 1986-2012? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, because the source also says “… and others“.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
But its main source is formk 1986, and the only one they name. Also who are irancarto? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It also seems like the year of authorship/publication to me. Also, I find “and others“ pretty vague and unconvincing, especially when the main “source“ is pretty questionable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
General question: why should the University of Tehran including the largest fundametal science agency in Europe use non-reliable data. Makes no sense at all to me.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The source is irancarto. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, irancarto is part of CNRS and makes [Cartographic Studies on Iran and the Iranian world].-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It also no longer seems to be active. http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/, which causes me some conceranrn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Active until 27. dec. 2019.. So, shouldn't effect the credibility of the source. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Well it might, as we do not know why it is no longer active. The fact the map seems to be mainly based on a dodge course (from before it was part of any ministry) from a source that is no longer active makes me wonder about this maps purpose and accuracy. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying I can see why another user might question its veracity. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I admit, Iran is politically a difficult country. But the final question still remains: why should the University of Tehran including the largest fundametal science agency in Europe use non-reliable data? As the question itself give the answer, there shouldn’t be any concerns at all. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the first question still remains; Why cite a revolutionary organization as a source? How is it reliable? That was the first question which was made, and you still haven't answered it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
And my point is they are not, as they have ditched this. It may be for many reasons but one might be they decided the data they were being supplied with was flawed. so dropped it, like some have dropped dodgy research papers after publication. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It‘s like saying Iran had no official institutions at those times. This would contradict the facts. Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) Also the University of Tehran is not only seen as the “mother of all Universities in Iran“ but has also been ranked as one of the best universities in the Middle Esst and is among the top universities of the world. No offense but hat’s the official branding.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Page 348: I think you are dazzled by the wikipedia entry for the Ministry of Jihad of Construction: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cognitive_Linguistics_and_Translation/sP3oBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Jihad of Construction government of iran&pg=PA348&printsec=frontcover --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC) You act as if this ministry was not an official organ of the Iranian government.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, Is this the reason why the Ministry of Jihad of Construction was later (in 2001) merged with the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad? —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:@Slatersteven: In this aspect the argumention of HistoryofIran is flawed by a simple fact. More reliability is not possible-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't even answer a simple question, yet you call my argumentation flawed? So far no one has agreed with you here.--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Is this serious now? You deny the official governmental source and then tell me that I couldn‘t give you an answer? Answer to what? That a ministry is a ministry?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not gonna bother repeating myself for the literal fifth time. Kindly read WP:COMPENTENCE and WP:REHASH. Also, don't edit my comment [27]. I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
So actually we have a wholly new issue here. You are basically denying that official ministry data do not belong to the ministry? -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Our edits had an overcross, wasn‘t meant to edit your sentence.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, you wrote that you think that the source for the map may not be an RS, which is impossible. Please elaborate —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I really can say no more than I have. The source of the map is no longer part of any reputable accadeic institution. No (by the way per wp:primary) would an iraining government ministry be an RS for facts. For opinions maybe, but not for those opinions being true. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you please explain why a reliable source is not a reliable source? So far, you didn’t explain it with a rational argument, give a backup from the wikipedia pool if necessary.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by the IP at this rate. Also, @IP don't put words in my mouth, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in, I have had my say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What you said is not true. The site irancarto states:
  • The Irancarto site is no longer updated. To consult new maps on Iran, you are invited to visit the new CartOrient site, a portal for distributing cartographic studies applied to Western Asia, the Caucasus and Central Asia and on which you will find, in particular, a space dedicated to Iran : http://cartorient.cnrs.fr

Look: All ethnicity maps are compiled into one map. 

http://cartorient.cnrs.fr/atlas/98

—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:@Slatersteven: Maybe you need more time. In case you both are ready, please confirm that we have found cencus now and that all misunderstandings are gone.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. I think you're misreading the discussion. It's clear to me that there is consensus not to include the map. Perhaps other editors will chime in, and consensus could change. PS: I wasn't pinged because of your initial misspelling. FYI, you can't easily fix pings (see WP:PINGFIX), and it's usually best to just post a new reply with a properly formed ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Give me a last try. We are very close to it.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)
I note the two maps seem slightly different, I have no idea if this is due to one being ethnic and one linguistic, or if one is more up to date. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
It‘s because all ethnicities are compiled into 1 map. But this doesn‘t mean the single maps at the still valid irancarto site would be unreliable.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can I interpret the silence as an agreement. Maybe even as confirmation of the consensus?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)

@HistoryofIran:, Can you please give comment on this subject, too? I'd appreciate it, as I would really like to know your opinion on iranCarto and cartOrient, because so far I couldn’t read anything from you relating to this subject.--2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times does me and Slatersteven have to tell you our opinions? Stop pinging me. HistoryofIran (talk)
Is your name Slatersteven? Let him speak with his own tounge. He is already far away from your point of view. By the way, we still don‘t know your opinion on iranCarto and cartOrient. Communicate with us. We don‘t bite.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the map looks scandalously unreliable, or coming from a plainly untrustworthy source. The only thing that vexes me (and apparently no one else so far) is that is says "Turkish" when it clearly depicts the Turkic-speaking ethnicities of Iran. That's quite a bummer for a CRNS site. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the very subethnic term “Turkish“ is due to the selfdesignation of Iranian Turkic speakers (Torki or Turki).—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Compare https://iranicaonline.org/articles/turkic-languages-overview and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_(disambiguation). -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, the reasons for it are quite transparent. Nonetheless, not considering this when producing a map in English is extremely sloppy. I support the inclusion of the map provided the text in the image gets corrected. And please, 2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5, step back for a while and just let community input trickle in. It is quiteextremely off-putting when involved parties try to continue and dominate the debate on the noticeboard (whether it is through clatter or strongmanship). –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much. And yes I agree with your proposal of content supplement. Should we wait? Sorry for not informing you that I already filed a dispute resolution .—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
The author uses Les villages turcophones, so probably no blame for him. fiveby(zero) 14:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, I really don‘t want to file a dispute resolution just because you are avoiding to comment on the subject.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)|

No silence does not mean agreement, I means disengagemnt. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Precisely ^^. What said has already been said, it's clear you don't take no for an answer. Drop it already. If you continue I will report you for breaking multiple guidelines. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@HistoryodIran: A short summary of HistoryofIran's participation: WP:COMPETENCE, WP:JDLI, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:COMPENTENCE, WP:SANCTIONGAME and WP:REHASH. You are the main cause of this dispute. You are deleting content without knowing why? Instead you are pushing non-related WP shortcut stuff?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
@Slaterstephen: or it means you are in denial and you warnt me to file a dispute resolution.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You literally just copy pasted the guidelines I said you were violating. Anyways, reporting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Again, all these guidlines are a pale reflection of your wishes how the fellow discussant has to behave in order to please your mind. Nothing to to with the subject.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
These are community guidelines. House rules. Simple. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. But this is just the psychological aspect of this discussion. It has nothing to do with the deleted content.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)|

Arbitrary break

Reliable. The map was published on a site belonging to the French National Centre for Scientific Research judging by the domain. The successor project, Cartorient has a very respectable list of participating institutions which include leading French universities and ecoles [28]. They published this map which has the same source and matches the map in question when it comes to the Turkic population. Alaexis¿question? 20:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it reliable for the claim made in the article, that the map represents ethnicities "1986-2012"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You are right, the caption is misleading. I'd note that the map dates to 1986. Alaexis¿question? 20:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Don‘t know if I am allowed to write in this field. But I agree with 1986.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
My thanks to you and Alaexis. If that and the "Turkic-speaking" issue raised above are fixed, all the RS issues that I feel knowledgeable enough to comment on are resolved. I continue to have other issues unrelated to this noticeboard, mainly that a 36-year-old ethno-linguistic map is too old to be useful in articles/sections that aren't historical. If it ends up mattering, I can bring it up on the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't see how IRI published souces are reliable for anything controversial (which includes information about ethnic groups). Iran is a country without freedom of press. See Censorship in Iran. I would rather use scientific sources solely published by Western academia/scholars, that is, countries with freedom of press. In addition, although perhaps more important for ANI; the IP in question started making his first edits today on 11 April 2022,[29] yet they edit like a fully experienced user. What are the odds that they are genuinely "a legit new user" who's just "concerned" about a "random" article? Based on my experience within this topic area and closely related ones (i.e. WP:AA2), I would say close to zero. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
France is a democratic and free country. And no, I do not agree with your conspiracy on my person and I hereby advise you to refrain from such allegations. Thank you.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
This *is* published in a Western country. Judging from the participating institutions, these guys at Cartorient are experts and they published this map on their site without reservations or qualifications. If you think that the map is inaccurate you should find reliable sources which show different data and then follow WP:NPOV to decide which map is better in a given context. Alaexis¿question? 05:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. The main source of the map is Jihad of Construction/Jahād-e Sāzandegī, a revolutionary organization, that doesn't sound very reliable. This revolutionary organization was based in Iran, which is indeed a country with no freedom of press. Also, Irancarto has not been active since 2019 [30], which makes it even more questionable. Last but not least, a map from 1986 is way outdated, we have much newer statistics than that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ministry of Jihad of Construction/Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) (since 2001 Ministry of Agriculture Jihad)). So, official governmantal data confirmed by University of Tehran and CNRS (IranCarto CartOrient). IranCarto moved to CartoIran which still makes it a valid source.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
No, the sources says 'Jahād-e Sāzandegī', which means 'Jihad of Construction', and the map dates to 1986, which was way before 2001, as you've been told multiple times. Also, please respect others opinion and don't derail this thread as well, you don't have to comment on every single comment you disagree with, it's ruining the discussion, thus this new thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not really feel inclined to answer to this strange word game. Why are you trying to play this word game card now. Everybody knows the institutions name. There is no rational reason to continue this misleading style.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I know that this has already been said several times, but stop throwing accusations towards others due to the sole fact that they don't agree with you (Readers might want to see [31]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
You mean this accusation: Ministry of Jihad of Construction/Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) (since 2001 Ministry of Agriculture Jihad)? Yes.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
From the site http://cartorient.cnrs.fr/atlas/98:
  • To produce the map, other sources (publications, ethnolinguistic maps, etc.) were used to fill in the missing or poorly informed data (Caspian languages, Lori). The map may therefore contain inaccuracies in detail, but it confirms, for the first time on a fine scale, not only the well-known diversity of Iran's linguistic heritage but above all the dynamics of the changes characterized by the emergence of zones of multilingualism. (2012)
There is no reason to further deny the credibility of this source, as already 3 users are disagreeing with you. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
A bundle of text doesn't mean it is reliable. Also, only one is user besides you is saying this map is reliable, and guess what? I am not spamming and attacking him because of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
CNRS is unreliable now? Ok. Thanks. —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I thought you said that you would withdraw from this discussion? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April). Why did you deleted your last comment which was a “Yes“ to my last question after you have apperently accepted my invitation to serenity at your ANI? —2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Because I wanted to. I never accepted your 'invitation to serenity'. You wrote that you withdraw from this discussion on 22:27, 11 April 2022, yet you've already posted two comments since. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April, ca. 11 hours ago). Unfortunately I am now here again because you manipulated the conversation thread. It is apparently clear why you felt inclined to do this.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
More WP:ASPERSIONS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Well observed: [32]. --2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I am allowed to change my comment as I see fit unless other comments have been made afterwards. This has nothing to do with manipulation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Not when you provoked a clear revival (there has been 2 hours between your first answer and your second manipulated answer).—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
That is not something you decide. Again, lay it off with the accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Showing an manipulated edit from the revision history is also part of the accusations now.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh if you two don't stop it I'm going to pull this car over and put both of you out on the side of the road. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't find it particularly funny that I can't show my opinion without getting hounded and attacked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable. Agree with Alaexis and Austronesier. (don’t know if my word as a non-established member counts. I just wanted to add an Image, hell look what happened). If an admin thinks my line should be removed, I am ok with it. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You really are doing yourself a disservice by trying to dominate the debate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for this misconduct. From now on I will withdraw from the discussion.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Context Matters This is just one of a series of maps, intermediate work for the author to develop Main languages spoken in rural Iran. Reading the author's analysis there are a number of caveats: the 1986 data is incomplete and unreliable, the map represents a rural villages (about half the population), and even if one family speaks a particular language in a village that is represented in the map for that language. The series also includes multilingual villages and "knowledge of Persian" to give a more complete picture. The author has corrected for deficiencies in the 1986 data, but makes use of additional sources for the newer CartOrient data, and admits some details may be incorrect. Use should follow the authors intent. For the overall map that is: This map portrays Iran’s well-known ethnolinguistic diversity. There are seven zones where a single language is spoken in nearly all villages in the rural subdistrict (dehestān). Depending on the province, the language might be Persian, Baluchi, Arabic, Luri, Turk, Kurdish or Caspian language. This map also highlights five multilingual zones where several languages are spoken in the same village or neighboring villages. Given all that, pulling one map from the series and inserting into the article is inappropriate as the reader will not have a clear idea of what the map represents. fiveby(zero) 14:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The author‘s analysis regarding the unreliability refers to the unrelated 1996 census. Apart from that I agree with you.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I may be misreading Certains dehestân semblent avoir des valeurs – hautes ou basses – qui peuvent surprendre. Il n’est pas possible de vérifier et corriger ces données datant de 1986. Il est possible qu’elles soient vraies, traduisant une réalité locale originale, ou même fausses, par suite d’une erreur de saisie des données… from IranCarto and To improve the effectiveness of rural development policies, the Jahād Sāzandegi Research Center assembled data from the 1986 census that had not yet been published (because they were deemed incomplete or unreliable) from the newer CartOrient. Regardless, the author is plainly competent to correct such deficiencies. fiveby(zero) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This is what the older link says: Pour donner une plus grande efficacité à sa politique de développement des zones rurales, l’organisation de la Lutte pour la Reconstruction (Jahād-e sāzandegi) a réuni à la fin des années 1990 les données jusqu’alors non publiées, car incomplètes ou jugées peu fiables, concernant les langues en usage dans chaque village, à l’échelle très détaillée des 2215 cantons ruraux (dehestān) du recensement de 1996 (1375). ] Translation: [In order to make its policy for the development of rural areas more effective, the organization of the Struggle for Reconstruction (Jahād-e sāzandegi) collected at the end of the 1990s the hitherto unpublished data, because incomplete or considered unreliable, concerning the languages used in each village, on the very detailed scale of the 2215 rural cantons (dehestān) of the 1996 census (1375).] This is what it says, essentially. The Meta data says Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran).--2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
This is what the newer link says: Certains dehestân semblent avoir des valeurs – hautes ou basses – qui peuvent surprendre. Il n’est pas possible de vérifier et corriger ces données datant de 1986. Il est possible qu’elles soient vraies, traduisant une réalité locale originale, ou même fausses, par suite d’une erreur de saisie des données… La méthode de cartographie des données lissées permet cependant de minimiser ces exceptions locales pour mettre en évidence les faits dominants qui permettent de construire des analyses utiles.] Translation: Some dehestân seem to have values – high or low – that can surprise. It is not possible to verify and correct these data from 1986. It is possible that they are true, reflecting an original local reality, or even false, as a result of a data entry error... The smoothed data mapping method , however, makes it possible to minimize these local exceptions to highlight the dominant facts that make it possible to build useful analyses.] --2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading. The 1986 data itself seems valid enough, but there is one major issue (As Fivebyzero pointed out): It covers a non-representative sample of the population, specifically only the portion of the population that lives in villages (roughly half the population at the time). Attempting to insert it into Ethnicities in Iran runs the risk of readers mistaking it for a genuinely representative sample of the ethnic distribution in Iran, rather than just the distribution of the rural population. Furthermore, its based on 35-year old demographic data which makes it less reliable compared to more modern maps (such as the ones by Michael Izady and the very detailed ones shown in IranAtlas). --Qahramani44 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Izady’s map looks quite similar in dispersion to that of the CNRS, the only big difference: Izady uses different shades of green for the Turkish-speaking areas (but not shown as districts as CNRS fairly accurately does). The percentages from 0-25 are completely missing in Izady's presentation. Beyond that, Izady mostly uses sources from the same range of years (some older, some slighly newer). When compared to CNRS, it doesn't make a particularly big difference.--2A02:3030:2:D5E7:D068:D514:DB14:F418 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Question: can’t we separate Turks_in_Iran (a redirect) from the page? Kurds_in_Turkey also has it‘s own page. The problem would be solved.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk)|

That page existed but was deleted years ago, same with this one. --Qahramani44 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Based on that, I must consider my request failed.—2A02:3030:2:D5E7:D068:D514:DB14:F418 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson writing for Forbes - reliable source?

Archives show Tucker Carlson has been depreciated along with other Fox News hosts, but I wasn’t able to find a discussion regarding the reliability of his words appearing in media besides his cable news show.

At Who’s Who I am loosing a battle to remove his quotation. Others find him worthy fodder for the criticism section:

Added quotation:

However, the longevity of a publication is not in itself a guarantee. In 1999 Tucker Carlson said in Forbes magazine that Marquis Who's Who, founded in 1898 but no longer an independent company, had adopted practices of address harvesting as a revenue stream, undermining its claim to legitimacy as a reference work listing people of merit.[12]

Source

Thank you for any help clearing this up. petrarchan47คุก 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Carlson’s piece has also been added to Marquis Who’s Who: In 1999, Forbes magazine published "The Hall of Lame" by Tucker Carlson, in which Carlson reported that the selection process was neither rigorous nor meaningful; self-nominators and thousands of people who are not particularly notable were included; and that Marquis profited by selling subscriber addresses to direct mail marketers.petrarchan47คุก 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It's "reliable" for his view but weight would be an issue: WP:ARSEHOLES very much applies. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think deprecation can spread from a publication or broadcaster to anyone who is later platformed by them, although writing or presenting for a deprecated outlet obviously raises questions about reliability. This is an opinion, though, so it's covered by due weight rather than reliability policy. (However, it's hard to see why his views on this topic would be considered noteworthy.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Fox News hosts have not been depreciated and have not even been deprecated. Also, I think that treating editing Wikipedia as a battle is itself rather problematic. Otherwise I agree with BobFromBrockley that it's a WP:DUE matter. Alaexis¿question? 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Is it a Forbes contributor article or their regular coverage? If regular coverage then we should be agnostic to the author and treat it as if it were any other author (including deciding if it's commentary, facts etc). If it's a contributor article then it's treated per other Forbes contributor article. Springee (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that Carlson was ever a staff or freelance journalist for Forbes, and his career at that time was apparently as a columnist and opinion writer for various publications, but not a news journalist. So I believe it should be treated as a contributing column or op-ed, not a journalistic piece by Forbes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, contributor articles are a specific thing that doesn't go through the normal editorial channels. I suspect many normal Forbes articles are written by outside contributors but still go through their normal editorial process. In that case we shouldn't treat it as "Forbes Contributor" (it may still be a normal Forbes editorial). Springee (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The article in question is from their magazine in 1999; the "contributor" system was built post-2010. I don't think WP:FORBESCON matters here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Even if this was a contributor piece from the 2010s, FORBESCON specifically notes articles that appeared in the print magazine are excluded. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It's probably also worth noting that in 1999 Carlson wasn't the controversial figure he is today. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • OK RS for his opinion, but too long a section. This seems an opinion piece in Forbes, also put into his book The Long Slide, so it would be acceptable as RS for his opinion, and it is not in the realm of Politcs or Science that he is criticized for. That said, it is specific to just one Who's Who, so the whole section at overall Who's Who level should be reduced. This piece is also over 20 years ago so a bit hard to tell if this was in the print edition and a 20-years later RSP seems of dubious value. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Forbes conflicted?

Another consideration regarding this piece - Forbes is essentially conflicted here as they have their own set of lists which can be seen as direct competition to the Who’s Who lists. petrarchan47คุก 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Forbes is a red herring here. The piece is reliable for relaying what the author wrote. The real question is: who cares? If this piece hasn't attracted commentary in decent sources why is it WP:DUE in Wikipedia? Alexbrn (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I think there is something to the idea Forbes isn’t an unbiased source here, and could be disallowed for that reason, however I agree with all else you’ve said. As far as I’m aware, Carlson is known as a smear merchant, and a conspiracy theorist, so his name may diminish the points being made, and result in readers questioning the reliability of WP. petrarchan47คุก 14:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The quote you gave above is "In 1999 Tucker Carlson said in Forbes magazine ...". The source is reliable for this because there's no doubt he did that. The question is of NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't even seem to be really WP:UNDUE, nor is it really contentious. I thought Who's Who books being scams was a WP:BLUE situation. There's even an episode of King of the Hill about it. Don't worry though, Peggy and Hank get it sorted out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Per Alexbrn, if we are using this to quote Tucker Carlson in his own voice, then his own writing is a perfectly reliable source for his own quote or paraphrase thereof. The question is "Why should we quote Tucker Carlson in his own voice in the first place"; thats not an RS issue, that's a WP:UNDUE issue. People often conflate "What is reliable for writing unattributed text in Wikipedia's own voice" versus "What is reliable for directly quoting or paraphrasing the words of a specific, attributed person". Insofar as we intend to faithfully reproduce Tucker's own words, and insofar as we trust that the source in question did not fake the quote or misattribute Tucker Carlson, then yes, it is reliable for that purpose. The question then becomes, per WP:ONUS, not about whether it is reliably sourced (that is, does the source support the text in Wikipedia that he made such a statement), rather it becomes about whether the quote itself is relevant to the article. That's not really the remit of this noticeboard. --Jayron32 16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Second opinion regarding WP:MEDRS

I don't generally evaluate medical sources for reliability, so I would greatly appreciate a review of the appropriateness of this source used in this edit on Dupuytren's contracture. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's PMID:34702442, a recent review article in a reputable journal and so a decent WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Great, thanks a ton! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

News.com.au

I would like to get something more concrete here than just passing mentions in the archives. News.com.au is essentially a News Corp news aggregator, and republishes stories from some well known reliable sources, and also from some, er, less reliable sources. It republishes content from several sources considered to be deprecated or generally unreliable, such as The Sun, and The New York Post. (Note, those two specific articles were chosen at random, they aren't particularly outlandish). It also republishes from the Daily Mail as well I believe, but I think I've established the point that it republishes content from.deprecated sources. Even so, other content is usually reliable, even if rather tabloid-y, so I would suggest that News.com.au be considered to be generally reliable, but that any content republished from generally unreliable or deprecated sources be treated as though it came directly from those sources. Disclosure of personal opinion: I don't like it much, as it doesn't seem to publish much actual news, mainly just mind-numbing prolefeed, ("ooh, a weird thing washed up on the beach, maybe it's an alien!" Soon afterwards: "oh, it was just a possum.") plus it gives you stupid ads to annoying websites.

So um, yeah, I guess we discuss its reliability now? Or have I summed it up well enough? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is it being cited on Wikipedia, and for what content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
It's clearly labeled who it's aggregated from. MSN, Yahoo and a pile of other aggregators do the same thing, and aggregate from just as many bad sources. Just don't cite aggregated content from unreliable sources. Problem solved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
That is precisely the conclusion that I had come to, but was wanting something more definite than the frequent passing mentions in the archives. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Office for Science and Society

Hi, is Office for Science and Society an RS for this statement on the BLP JP Sears: 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, he shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism.

See this diff Note the accompanying NYT source doesn't support the statement. It simply says he spoke at a conference of anti-vaxxers, it doesnt say the subject of his speech, shifted focus, etc. I suppose if the content is only supported by the NYT source, it will be a different matter. If you are curious about the NYT source (and you dont have a subscription), it says: "Speakers included J.P. Sears, a conservative conspiracy theorist, YouTube celebrity and comedian"

Thought I would first ask about the Office for Science and Society first, as it seems to be an entire source dedicated to the subject and if it is an RS then the passing mention in NYT is just added weight. If if this university source is not an RS, then the NYT passing mention would not really be sufficient (in my opinion).

Please note I did ask about this source here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_330#JP_Sears_and_McGill_University's_Office_for_Science_and_Society in the past, only a few commented. I also did an RFC on a more general subject here Talk:JP_Sears#Include_conspiracy_theorist_content, somewhat different from this RSN post (still using the same source), but thought I would link to that for editors that might be interested as well. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an ideal source for that. Alexbrn (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It would be a much better source if it mentioned them being an anti-vaccine activist in any way, shape or form, which it doesn't. The only mention of vaccines in the OSS article is The founder of this institute, Paul Chek, endorses anti-vaccination rhetoric, and Chek and Sears are reportedly very close friends. The NYT article simply states he spoke at an anti-vaccine mandate rally, which is significantly different than an anti-vaccine rally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Any content would have to satisfy WP:V, and SFR is correct about the vaccine stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I removed it from the lead, and a bunch of other stuff, per WP:BLP. I wish I didn't keep ending up on the side of people like this in BLP discussions. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hold up. You also removed the NYT reference to the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" and have plastered over Sears's promotion of conspiracy theories through his YouTube channel (and, for what it's worth, media coverage of his podcast as a means of spreading Covid conspiracies is also inevitable, but we'll need to wait on that).
Contrary to WP:RS coverage, the English Wikipedia article on Sears now reads like the subject is an anti-government freedom fighter who simply morally objects to mandates and 'government overreach' rather than a covid conspiracy theorist who regular attends and features at anti-vaxxer events and spreads deadly misinformation.
The McGill article also discusses how Sears promoted covid conspiracy theories about vaccines on his YouTube channel, which resulted in YouTube removing at least one video (this was called "The Covid Conspiracy Theory Guy"). The "anti-vaccine mandate" thing is also highly misleading, as in reality these are events operated by and attended by anti-vaxxers, as discussed by numerous media sources (like this one). We're expected to report on what WP:RS say here, not soften that coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The OSS article does not discuss(es) how Sears promoted covid conspiracy theories about vaccines. The single mention of vaccines in that article is The founder of this institute, Paul Chek, endorses anti-vaccination rhetoric, and Chek and Sears are reportedly very close friends. As I pointed out on the talk page, if you need to cite sources like this one to try and tie someone to being an anti-vaccine activist, you're committing textbook WP:SYNTH. I removed the NYT label because it was simply In 2022, The New York Times described Sears as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" with no context, which is literally the entirety of the sentence fragment in a 700 word piece that mentions Sears in any way.[33] I also removed other cherry picked quotes from a large interview.
As you said above, media coverage of his podcast as a means of spreading Covid conspiracies is also inevitable, but we'll need to wait on that, we'll need to wait on that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
The OSS article says that Sears had a video deleted by YouTube for promoting conspiracy theories while the NYT just described him as a "conservative conspiracy theorist". You'd never know the association between the subject and conspiracy theories by reading the lead. Indeed, the attempt to cut out any mention of the subject's involvement with promotion of conspiracy theories and, yes, antivaxxer pseudoscience is remarkable. We're now at the point where the article's lead does not summarize the article's body, in violation of WP:LEAD, and we've got editors like this working overtime to keep WP:RS mention of the subject's deep dive into conspirituality, Covid-19 conspiracy theories, and far right wing politics out of the article. And what conspiracy theories is the OSS article referring to? The article OSS itself does not say, but Sears has been quite vocal about it—they were Covid-19 conspiracy theories.
Additionally, here we have a fine example of the truly weird fringe article lawyering of "x article is x many words, but only x many words mention the subject! Therefore I have decided x words is too few words and, aha, it is now out of the article!" A made-up criteria, sure, and one very convenient for articles that are inconvenient for the article's subject. As you know, the NYT coverage description does indeed provide context: Sears appeared as a speaker at the event with the group of anti-vaxxers who put it on. It's seriously difficult to assume good faith when encountering this sort of lawyering to keep WP:RS coverage out. There's absolutely no reason not to mention the NYT's description of the subject, particularly if it's not in wikivoice, and even less reason for the inaccurate new lead to not actually summarize the article's contents—we're not the subject's PR team. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I've already explained my reading of WP:WEIGHT, so I'm not sure why you're so baffled as to why I think discussing the coverage given in an article is instrumental to establishing what's WP:DUE. As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree and see how the RFC turns out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ActivelyDisinterested (talk · contribs) said over at the article talk page: "As per WP:V, under WP:SELFPUB "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The bolding is in the original. I've run into this issue elsewhere, but had to accept this is policy" I quoted the user, as I couldn't have said it more clearly myself. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think OSS is really self published. The tone of the source is sensationalist, and it doesn't provide great detail on a lot of things, e.g. was recently censored on YouTube for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories doesn't tell us if it was a video, a number of videos, comments or anything else. From what I've seen in non-RS, it was an automated removal for COVID-19 disinformation, but none of what I read is usable in the article. It's not a great source, but I don't think it's a SPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed, it's not self-published. The site says "The Office" takes responsibility for its communications, so there is a layer here apart from the author. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Would that be similar to a Microsoft corporate blog, since the marketing office signs off on it after the department writes it? Sounds like an extra layer to me as well Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    If Microsoft Corp. states that it takes responsibility, then yes. But I don't believe it does. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Just a side note - This is a BLP… so we need to be extra cautious about applying labels. Remember that reliability is only one of several factors we need to consider… Even when the sources are reliable, it is better to apply labels with in-text attribution, rather than in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    There's an RFC on the article talk page now that could always use more eyes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Obviously RS—and how many times do we need RFCs on this single source from this single editor? Let's take a moment to count the times this editor has called an RFC on this one source: While the editor neglects to mention it here, first there was this earlier RfC that the editor proposed that, of course, resulted in an overwhelming keep. Undaunted by obvious consensus, this editor then tried a second RfC here, which also resulted in nothing but comments but to keep it. Now we have this third RfC, and a bunch of related RfCs put forth by this editor with this source in mind over at Talk:JP Sears, alongside constant requests from this editor to have the source removed. Note also that this editor has attempted to have our Conspirituality article deleted ([34]). That, of course, also resulted in an overwhelming keep. So what is this editor's goal? I'll let you draw your own conclusions, but for those of us who have spent all too many hours dealing with English Wikipedia's WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE circles, I suspect it'll be pretty obvious. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    I prefer not to speculate on what an editor's "goal" is. Assume good faith. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
    Hmm, the RfC rerunning is a concern, and this could be seen as rising to the level of disruption where the community's patience is tried. Perhaps a TBAN could be in the offing, though that discussion would be for another venue ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    The behavior is long term sealioning, but it's not as if they've had no support for their RFCs [35]. Trying to get sanctions for mild sealioning is not smooth sailing. Have they been templated for fringe DS?
    In the current situation, their complaints about the source, yet again, aren't founded, but the attention brought fresh eyes to the article and allowed for some legitimate BLP issues to be tackled. What I've been doing is ignoring them. Their contributions aren't generally moving things forward, but at least they're not bludgeoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

CINTAA

CINTAA (Cine & TV Artistes Association) of India, is being used as a source for date of birth in biographies. The website is accessible only to members (the artistes) on payment of a fee. At the time of applying for a membership, the applicant provides their bio details and uploads proofs.

Can it be used as a reliable source? How can an editor not having a membership verify the details at the source? Some articles making use of it are: Dharmesh Tiwari, Kulraj Randhawa, Ziyah Vastani, Rajesh Khera. Jay (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Without any statement on the reliability of this one particular source, in general paywalls are not a matter for reliability. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." --Jayron32 14:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I do not think a simple paywall clause is relevant here because this is a not a case of paying to access the site, but paying to become an organization member, and then members get to access the site. In other words only a member of CINTAA (an artiste, not a wikipedia editor) can access or verify the details. The site is exclusive for membership, and not intended for reference by a paying public. Jay (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me say again, with feeling "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" Whether or not CINTAA sources are difficult to access has no bearing on their reliability one way or the other. It is not a measure we take into consideration when assessing reliability. Even if the source can only be accessed by membership of the organization, insofar as the source meets all of the other hallmarks of reliability defined by WP:RS and the like, then it should be treated as reliable. if it doesn't meet those hallmarks, then it isn't reliable. It has nothing to do with ease of access. --Jayron32 16:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Jayron32. I also so admire the resourcefulness of the people of India! Huggums537 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources: Past vs Present

I would like to know if a lot of the sources that are considered reliable in the past, are now unreliable. For example, do news sources that have a history of objective fact-reporting now publish what their viewers want to see rather than the objective truth. I feel like the only news source that does this is the Wall Street Journal since many sources such as CNN and Fox News that were once considered a trustworthy source are now publish what their audience wants to see like anti-Trump or pro-Trump stories rather than report facts. I would like to know from editors: are there any reliable news sources that people can still turn to to get a clear picture of a event? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

All sources are biased so multiple checks advised.Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware that all sources are biased, but the question is how do we measure whether a source does its best to publish the facts rather than try to put a liberal or conservative spin on everything? In other words, how do we measure reliability when sources are totally biased? Interstellarity (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Green at RSP is reliable for facts, biased or not. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
NPR is listed as green, but I think it's one of those sources that used to be reliable until after 2020 when the US news sites became more partisan than they were back then. Interstellarity (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Most Western sources that are green should be treated as reliable but editors should make sure to consider that articles they publish may tend to go into op-ed without actually stating they are op-ed, so where there are clearly claims of opinion being made those should be treated as attributed claims. --Masem (t) 15:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
What is your evidence that NPR should be counted as unreliable after 2020? I have seen no noticeable change in the past 2 years, and I recall no such prior discussion here at Wikipedia which brought any such evidence that they should be considered as such. --Jayron32 14:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, the Daily Mail is considered to have been reliable in the past. A similar situation exists with Newsweek, which RSP judges to be semi-unreliable after 2013. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Depreciated sources on Wikipedia at WP:CFD

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_19#Category:Depreciated_sources_on_Wikipedia for the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Dispute over citation

Can everyone please provide opinion with YES or NO on the reliability of the source and author mentioned below? Here is the citation that there is currently dispute on page Battle of Samana. I find the source reliable due to the reliability of publisher and author but the other user doesn't agree with the reliability of the author. So that is why I am here to get 3rd opinion. The book in question has also been reviewed by World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues Vol. 3, No. 4 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1999), pp. 123-125 (3 pages) [36]. Here is some information on the author:[37]. Here is another link about author [38] "By the late 1960s, Patwant had begun writing a series of books that reflected his wide-ranging interests in power, politics, culture and history",
Here is some more on author [39], "Patwant Singh's books and articles on India, international affairs, the environment, and the arts have been published in India, Europe, and North America. He has broadcast frequently on television and radio in many countries, and has travelled and lectured all over the world, often as the guest of governments. From 1957 to 1988, he was editor and publisher of the international magazine Design."

[1]

References

  1. ^ Singh, Patwant (2007). The Sikhs. Crown Publishing Group. p. 68. ISBN 9780307429339.
FYI
 – adding {{reflist-talk}} Umimmak (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment At first glance, I'd say it's not reliable since the author is not a historian. That said, a cursory search (by someone who doesn't know anything about the subject) turned up a couple of RS that could potentially make the problematic source irrelevant.

Ali Husain , who by false promises had lured Guru Gobind Singh to evaculate Anandpur , also belonged to Samana . The entire peasantry of the neighbourhood was now up in arms , and Banda's following had risen to several thousands . Banda fell upon the town on November 26 , 1709.[1]


Undaunted , Banda , making his way through Kaithal ( 27 miles from Delhi in Rohtak district ) overran with a force of 30,000 strong , Samana , sub-division of Sirhind and the home town of Jalal Khan . The peasantry joined hands with the Sikhs and did not hesitate to wreak vengeance upon their expropriating landlords.[2]

Hope that helps. M.Bitton (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Harbans Kaur Sagoo. Banda Singh Bahadur and Sikh Sovereignty. Deep & Deep Publications, 2001. p. 125. ISBN 978-81-7629-300-6.
  2. ^ Journal of Indian History. Department of Modern Indian History, 1981. p. 209.

RfC: Alexa Internet

In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles? -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexa Internet will be shutting down in May. We have 811 citations. They are used almost exclusively for site rankings (maybe some exceptions?). With Alexa offline the rankings are useless even misleading (maybe some exceptions?). Rather than archiving, the entire citation should be deleted along with the sentence that mentions the ranking.

A previous RfC removed Alexa rankings from infoboxes. Editors expressed concern about the accuracy and viability of site ranking generally, the reliability of Alexa, appropriateness for Wikipedia.

Proposal: Delete all citations and cited facts when related to Alexa site rankings. Use common sense to maintain an Alexa ranking score indefinitely if required by the text. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

  • OP Opine: Alexa is/was a marketing product, used by advertisers. It has largely been replaced by an entire industry that includes Nielsen, Comscore, etc.. if you want good site metric data you pay for it. The freebie stuff is questionable and keeping it updated on Wikipedia is challenging. There was nearly unanimous calls for removal in the last RfC because Alexa is "unencylopedic", a black box algorithm, many consider it an unreliable source. The last RfC was removal from Infoboxes only, this extends to all text, in light of pending shutdown. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure leaping straight to an RFC makes sense per WP:RFCBEFORE (this seems like the sort of situation where we'd want to have a proper discussion to figure out options.) But honestly I don't think we should have been directly citing Alexa numbers directly in the first place for the reasons mentioned above - they are vague about their methodology and there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of the free data they provide. The one value that they (debatably) provided was up-to-date data; now even that will be gone. The only alternative to removing them seems to be using archive links, which I definitely don't think we should do. "This site had an Alexa rating of X in June 2019" seems to me to be using specific data to the point of basically being WP:OR - ie. why that date? As time passes it will come to carry a specific meaning not in the source - though really any Alexa ratings do, because they're almost always used to imply something about the source that Alexa itself doesn't actually attest to given their vagueness about what those numbers mean. In my experience Alexa was almost always used to make an implicit argument of "this site is popular, and therefore important and noteworthy", which it shouldn't be used for given its limitations and the WP:OR risk. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
We did discuss it 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_173#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes where there was near-unanimous RfC consensus against these links existing on Wikipedia Infoboxes, but also against the links generally. This RfC is required because the first RfC was limited to infoboxes which is an arbitrary criteria in most cases. -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @GreenC: Thanks for raising this issue. Could you please rephrase the RfC statement as a neutral and brief question per WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. "In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles?" Your rationale can be moved anywhere below the first timestamp, preferably to the survey or discussion section. — Newslinger talk 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • These should not be deleted, but piped through Internet Archive to preserve them, if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    Of course dead links are saved automatically anyway. The question is why are we keeping these links? To know that on June 12, 2010, XYZ.com was ranked #34 by alexa.com and this statistic will never be updated again but frozen forever on Wikipedia? If there was some reason this stat was important, great, but in most cases there is no reason. It's unencyclopedic trivia, arguably inaccurate and unreliable, outdated and outmoded. If someone wants historical Alexa data for a future project, they can get it from the Wayback Machine in more complete form. -- GreenC 06:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    As ScottishFinnishRadish and GretLomborg put it below, sometimes a site's popularity at a particular point in time is encyclopedically relevant. E.g., EFF.org was once the fourth-most-linked-to website in the world, and was for several years (behind Microsoft, Netscape, and one of the pre-Google search engines). I agree with CaribDigita below that when the intent is to show current popularity, then we should use newer tools like Netcraft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete it. I was wondering this. Things can get replaced by Netcraft.com website indexing services (from the same era as before Amazon bought Alexa). Most old internet site rankings after a few years may not matter all that much, and Amazon could disable it if they put no-index in the header record as that purges it from Internet Archive. CaribDigita (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Fine to remove them when found, although I wouldn't go out of my way searching them out. I would keep them, however, if they are used to show the ranking at a specific notable time frame, e.g. Website A was had an Alexa rank of Graham's number, but after it's breaking of the story that Cold fusion and the EM Drive both work, it's Alexa rank rose to 7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • I agree with SMcCandlish: the links should be archived. I think it makes sense to remove links to Alexa if the purpose is to show current popularity, but I think I read somewhere that a source doesn't necessarily have to be accessible *now* to be usable, so if the context was popularity at some particular time the cite should stay. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Aquillion, and SMcCandlish. It is too soon, and we should WP:Preserve when possible. Huggums537 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but no - or at least not now. Looking at the list of uses, I will say respect and PRESERVE, except as usual replace wherever a better source is available. It perhaps always whiffed a bit of OR and just a snapshot in time to state the Alexa rating or profile, but it was also widely followed and it is hard for me to see where one can replace the Site Profile information said in the article on the .bw domain. So in general I conclude replace with open writings if able but definite no to a simple ‘removed from all articles’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete them all, no piping to IA. There's nothing to preserve if the measuring facility itself is dead. If Alexa had bellied up in say 2004, would it be notable now in 2022 that Yahoo! was #1 at the time? Unlikely. Zaathras (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Preserve. There is plenty to preserve even though the measuring facility itself is dead - Antipater of Sidon died millenia ago, yet his list Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is highly valuable. The fact that site X used to be one of the most viewed on the Internet is an important data point. --GRuban (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Scilly Today - Reliable Source?

Hello,

There’s been a bit of drama on the Five Islands Academy article, I suggest you check it out, however, as part all this, I would like to ask: Would the now-inactive local news website Scilly Today be a reliable source, specifically when dealing with potentially controversial statements about BLPs? The specific citations used in the article are:[40],[41],[42]. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

HenryTemplo, The source seems fine in my opinion, as it appears factual and seems to have had editorial oversight. For BLPs with local sources, you have to be somewhat careful, as they may have more of a personal slant that regional or national sources wouldn't, but in this case, it seems fine as it is just repeating what other people are saying. More concerning is the fact that the editor changing the information in the article is literally Mr. Bryce himself. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for you response and input, it’s appreciated!
I would worry still though about the impact of a personal slant, having experience of the extremely close knit community that is the Isles of Scilly, but your certainly right in your overall assessment.
Regarding the CoI, is there an appropriate place for me to bring this case to? I’m not to sure how to deal with this myself.
Thanks again for your help! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
[43] [44] I was able to find a couple of national sources that cover this to some extent. Regarding the COI, he's been made aware of WP:COI and our guidelines surrounding that. As this is an SPA only made to edit about himself, if he persists editing about himself, it may not end well for his account. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Brilliant,Thankyou! I’ll see what I can regarding all this. HenryTemplo (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

https://liveuamap.com/

Does https://liveuamap.com/ look like a reliable source (with respect to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borova,_Kharkiv_Oblast&diff=1083427704&oldid=1078437148&diffmode=source this edit)? I do not think so, but I think it is best to ask before reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem reliable to use as a source for a statement like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
It's an aggregator. The reliability will depend on the reliability of their source. This is their source in that instance, which is seemingly the Telegram channel for Suspilne, and specifically their Kharkiv division, though I wasn't immediately able to find a link between their official site or social media and this specific Telegram account. Although 100,000 people follow it. --Chillabit (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, I will revert. Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I found a link to their social media accounts from the telegram website: https://t.me/s/suspilnekharkiv both facebook and youtube seem to link back to their official sites if that means anything to anybody (which I'm sure it doesn't, but hey). Huggums537 (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

San Diego Reader

The San Diego Reader, according to its own WP page, is an "alternative press" source. The WP page has many problems with sourcing/tone. One place the Reader was used as a source is at Draft:Remigio Pereira, which cites this article: [45]. The article contains several blatantly false statements, including that the lyrics of O Canada were changed to say "We're all brothers and sisters, all lives matter to the Great". Therefore, I believe the Reader is an unreliable source. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That article looks like a completely fictional, comedy piece to me Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That article is in their SD on the QT section which is for satirical articles. --SVTCobra 00:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The article is labeled satire. It’s not useable as a source for facts about the real world, but the fact that they also publish satire doesn’t impugn their editorial reputation for when they actually publish news. Are there any issues with the facts in pieces that are not labeled satire? — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Just because it is marked as alternative news doesn't mean it is unreliable. The majority of our sources (that come from news outlets) are probably non-mainstream outlets. That article is also clearly marked as satire. Their actual articles seem more or less ok. Some are better than others (this one is mediocre, but this one is quite good), but overall it seems ok. Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The Mediocre piece is referred to is a "column" at the bottom, which makes me wonder the extent to which opinion is labeled. It's clearly under the "news" section of the website despite being labeled a column, so I'm a bit uneasy about the lack of an apparent firewall between the news and editorial sides of the paper. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Famous Face Wiki - https://famousfacewiki.com/

Hi everybody. I was wondering whether Famous Face Wiki is considered a reliable source. Fisforfenia (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the name of the site, no. I can't find an about-page, and based on a quick look I wouldn't use this anywhere near a WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to the name, this doesn't appear to be a wiki; however, it appears to fall under that same criteria in WP:SPS as a self-published source that seemingly has zero editorial integrity. All of the articles are written by "Editorial staff", which does not spark confidence in reliability. So yeah, completely unreliable. Curbon7 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:EW on a "Further reading" item

Myself and @Hajrakhala disagree on this [46] item in the "Further reading" section at Ghalib. It's an article on the article subject from İslâm Ansiklopedisi.

I think it fits the FR section hand in glove. Hajrakhala considers it spam, "inappropriate for an encyclopedia" and "promotional material" per templates at my talkpage. Previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_189#User:IAmAtHome.

Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard issue, it seems to be more of an WP:EL/N issue. However looking at it I question why someone would go there to read that article? What does it add that the Wikipedia article doesn't already have, or shouldn't have with a bit of editing? As far as I can tell that link adds nothing we don't already have, and if it does it's minimal and can easily be added. As a result it shouldn't be there and fails WP:ELNO#1. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
TBH I haven't put the articles side by side and compared them (also, I have to use auto translation I don't fully trust). My assumption is that it has stuff the WP-article doesn't, like some of the bibliography or whatnot. If not, your argument has merit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It can't contain much we don't already have, and that info should just be integrated into the Wikipedia article per the WP:EL guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
We make different assumptions. It happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail: Thanks for your interventions, just few hours after the reversion of User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång additions of that low quality link / spam, again User:IAmAtHome added that link. Based on their Aggressive additions of single website links again and again in different Islam related article I think it is violations of Wikipedia:Spam policies. Hajrakhala (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, that [47] solves the problem with the Further reading section. Looks ok to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It is clearly gaming the system possibly by group of editors editing for the same cause. It is quite interesting to note that on WP:Coin, Gråbergs Gråa Sång came forward to defend IAmAtHome by baseless arguments, by denying or trying to neutralize the spam. Canterbury Tail you are humbly requested to block the spammers here per your own discretions. Thanks. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I ain't blocking anyone. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Now you're into WP:ASPERSIONS. But since [48] now is used as a source, this noticeboard clearly fits. And it fills the replaced cn quite well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Waiting for the administrator to deal with this now.
Note: please do not try to neutralize this discussion again as it will be of no use, because administrator is involved now. They have good grasp on Wikipedia:Policies and are prolific to identify the coordinated edits or spam. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It's unclear to me what you mean by "neutralize this discussion", but it may not be worth our time going into that. Admins will do what they will do. From where I'm sitting, the problem I started this thread about has been solved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail: It is clearly gaming a system by aggressively inserting that link in different manners with same advantage to the external link. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
It could be perceived that way, however the target site has been determined by this noticeboard in the past to be a reliable site. It's being used to reference a piece of information that has been tagged for almost 10 years as needing a citation. This seems reasonable. If it had been used to reference a piece of non-controversial information that wasn't tagged then you may have had a point, but as it is I don't see an issue. Reliable source being used to cite something tagged by another user for a long time as needing a citation. I'm completely against it as an External Link, but apparently it does have a use as a reference, so seems perfectly valid to me. So I suggest at this point you drop the stick. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
One thing though, it should be moved out of the bibliography and into the references section as an expansion of reference #11 as it's being used as a reference. We shouldn't have links that are used as references elsewhere in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Canterbury Tail: Being administrator here, What you think about those repeated additions, some even was just link drop discussed here. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
And my point still holds here because the Further Reading section was just changed to Bibilography with external links additions and it is not used as typical reference in the article still. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay this will be my last post on this.
  1. Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for bringing this to a board for discussion instead of continuing to revert, much appreciated
  2. Since the link is being used as a reference for #11 now, the link should be added to the reference citation and removed from the Further Reading as it cannot appear in multiple places in the article. I know it's an external link version of a book reference, but the book reference can just be replaced straight out with the website instead since it's just the online version of the book. Having a reference to the book, then a link to an online version elsewhere does kinda look like gaming to make it prominent.
  3. The source appears reliable, has been determined to be so on this noticeboard previously, so nothing more to discuss there
  4. Hajrakhala you can discuss spamming and COI on another noticeboard, please don't drag that in here. Drop the stick here, but if you wish to raise it as a possible COI or spamming, you can do so on COIN or ANI, it's not relevant to this noticeboard's discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    Canterbury Tail: So shall we know when that link will be removed from there? Hajrakhala (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
    Tweaked ref #11. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


Apparently we are not done:[49]. I reinserted the url and author name here: [50]. Why the refname was removed I don't understand. If the text is available by url, we should use it, since it's helpful to readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a convenience link if one is available, and it is available here so it makes looking up the reference easier. I don't see an issue with including the weblink as long as its part of the reference and not in another section. Canterbury Tail talk 21:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The reason for removal was that, editor had added the false link to the book. Hajrakhala (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I cited the website and added a link to the website:[51]. What in this diff is false? And why are you removing author's name and refname? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Nopes, it was Cite Book, not cite web, so the book contains information relevant to Ghalib at its 158 page, see citation properly. You have dropped the link from a website article content copied and pasted on website by someone whom you have mentioned as the original author in the cite book, and after checking it I found both were different}}.Hajrakhala (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, I used cite web, since I cited web. Cite book is fine too, the weblink gives this info: This article was included in the 13th volume of the TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, which was published in Istanbul in 1996, on pages 328-329. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
And we're back to spam: [52]. @Canterbury Tail, care to do/say something admin-y? I'm off for today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That is clearly not a spam link, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång is clearly not a linkspammer. I also note that you are over the 3RR, Hajrakhala. If you keep this up I would not be surprised if you were the one to end up being blocked. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Hajrakhala you were told to drop the stick, you appear to have a real thing against this link. It's been agreed in this very board that the link is fine, if you don't cut it out you WILL likely be blocked. And this edit is very much out of line. It's an online version of an encyclopaedia, clearly labelled as such and determined to be a valid source by this board, it is not Gråbergs blog. Right now you're edit warring and just being outright disruptive, I suggest you walk away from that article completely and if you continue referring to links to an online encyclopaedia version of a book as someone's blog or spam you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail: By the addition of wrong source info, this edit was also very much out of line according to original pdf file of source which mentions author, volume & pages. (In reply of:it is not Gråbergs blog.....) Not mine too. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Canterbury Tail, we continue:[53], despite [54]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
And continue:[55]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
The disruptive editor has been partially blocked from that article for clear disruption and failure to drop the stick. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Per the barnstar at your talkpage, they approve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Grove Music Online and "Music" in "United Kingdom"

The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This source is available as Grove Music Online; subscription is required (e.g. through a library or university). The first paragraph of United Kingdom#Music has a summary of classical music from the Tudor period to the modern era. Five Grove Online articles are linked to "England (i)", "Scotland", "Wales", "Ireland" and "Great Britain [Opera]"; BBC sources have also been used. The information from Grove is consistent with what can be found on the wikipedia articles Early music of the British Isles#Renaissance c. 1450–c. 1660, Baroque music of the British Isles and Classical music of the United Kingdom#British musical renaissance 1860-1918. They are also consistent with Grove's analysis of British music being divided into four periods: Tudor; Baroque or post-Restoration; Victorian/Edwardian renaissance; and modern/contemporary. The corresponding sections in France#Music, Italy#Music or Austria#Music are similar to the prose style of the first paragraph:

Handel's "Zadok the Priest", HWV 258, coronation anthem for George II
St Matthew's Concert Choir and Orchestra, Damien Giromella, 2013
Elgar aged about 60
Various styles of music have become popular in the UK, including the indigenous folk music of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Historically, there has been exceptional Renaissance music from the Tudor period, with masses, madrigals and lute music by Thomas Tallis, John Taverner, William Byrd, Orlando Gibbons and John Dowland. After the Stuart Restoration, an English tradition of dramatic masques, anthems and airs became established, led by Henry Purcell, followed by Thomas Arne and others. The German-born composer George Frideric Handel became a naturalised British citizen in 1727, when he composed the anthem Zadok the Priest for the coronation of George II; it became the traditional ceremonial music for anointing all future monarchs. Handel's many oratorios, such as his famous Messiah, were written in the English language.[1][2] Ceremonial music is also performed to mark Remembrance Sunday across the UK, including the Traditional Music played at the Cenotaph.[3][4] In the second half of the 19th century, as Arthur Sullivan and his librettist W. S. Gilbert wrote their popular Savoy operas, Edward Elgar's wide range of music rivalled that of his contemporaries on the continent. Increasingly, however, composers became inspired by the English countryside and its folk music, notably Gustav Holst, Ralph Vaughan Williams, and Benjamin Britten, a pioneer of modern British opera. Among the many post-war composers, some of the most notable have made their own choice of musical identity: Peter Maxwell Davies (Orkneys), Harrison Birtwistle (mythological), and John Tavener (religious).[5][6][7][8][9][10]

Moxy- has written[56], "Will redo section on Sunday. Clearly not not going in the right direction." They appear to be challenging (a) Grove Music Online as a source and (b) the structure of music of the British Isles from the four different periods. This seems to one of the few encyclopedic sources where this material can be found and has numerous references. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Never said anything of the sort......as has been mentioned to you numerous times its the miinin bios and lists that are a concern. Lets try an hear others...no guess work pls. Moxy- 16:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mathsci I'm confused as to why this is an RSN issue? If there is a content dispute, that should be handled either at the talk page or DRN. Curbon7 (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't believe anyone has mentioned that Grove Music Online is not reliable. What we are looking for is educational information over a list of people and bios that say nothing about the music itsself. Moxy- 18:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "British Citizen by Act of Parliament: George Frideric Handel". UK Parliament. 20 July 2009. Archived from the original on 26 March 2010. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
  2. ^ Andrews, John (14 April 2006). "Handel all'inglese". Playbill. New York. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2009.
  3. ^ "Remembrance Sunday". Department for Culture Media and Sport. Retrieved 19 April 2022.
  4. ^ Richards, Jeffrey (2001). Imperialism and Music: Britain 1876–1953. Manchester University Press. pp. 155–156. ISBN 0-7190-4506-1.
  5. ^ Iemperley, Nicholas (2002). "Great Britain". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.
  6. ^ Banfield, Stephen; Russell, Ian (2001). "England (i)". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.
  7. ^ Lewis, Geraint; Davies, Lyn; Kinney, Phyllis (2001). "Wales". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.
  8. ^ Elliott, Kenneth; Collinson, Francis; Duesenberry, Peggy (2001). "Scotland". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.
  9. ^ White, Harry; Carolan, Nicholas (2011). "Ireland". Grove Music Online (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0.
  10. ^ "British 20th century composers". BBC. Retrieved 21 April 2022.

R.B Singh a reliable author in contex of Chauhan Rajput History ?

Hello, Is R.B Singh work on Chauhan dynasty a reliable work ?? No problem with age of the book but the author is clearly exagerating its last major ruler's kingdom's expansion as can be seen on Prithviraj Chauhan article page and it's subsequent talk page. Other scholarly work like Dr. Dashratha Sharma book on Chauhan dynasty do not mentions such exaggerated accounts regarding his territory. Should we quote Singh in such contentious/controversial edits ? Packer&Tracker «Talk» 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is no different from a self-published source, because it does not have a reputable publisher. Such material, likely lacks the fact checking that reputable publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The book is was published by Nawal Kishore Press; it's not OUP, but I don't think that's a disreputable publisher. I am concerned a bit about the age, and the fact that I haven't been able to identify who R.B. Singh was - if recent scholarship by an established academic is available, I'd suggest using that over a book that's nearly 60 years old. Girth Summit (blether) 13:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Dr. R.B. Singh, M.A., Ph.D. was a historian in Deptt of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at Gorakhpur University. Regarding age there is hardly any comprehensive work done on Chahamana history except by Dr R.B. Singh and Dr Dashratha Sharma. And both are almost of same period. There has not been any questions raised on the work's reliability. This user is who is questioning the source actually a couple or days before was describing R.B. Singh better authority on this subject than other modern works, see here [57], later when his point of contention i.e. territory controlled by Prithviraj Chauhan was challenged by this very source, he started describing this source as poor. See here [58].Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem here seems to be that two editors, neither of whom seems particularly knowledgeable about medieval north India, seem to be duking it out nonstop on a page and have brought their discontents here. If we pronounce the source to be unacceptable, and it well might (or be dated), they'll fight over some other book. I've told one of them to lay off the controversial pages and cut their teeth on simple, less traversed, ones but they immediately deleted my posts (and I take this opportunity to inform the other as well), but they are not likely to listen. Nonstop bickering is what they are doing. The solution is not determining the worth of the source, but topic banning both from that page, and probably medieval India. I know that is not on the manifest of this ship, but that's my take. I say that as someone in my 16th year on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Agree both editors are too aggressive and editing bordering on WP:EDITWAR without having much knowledge in this, I already explained on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan, how one user is continuously editing territory related lines without having knowledge of where Tehri Garhwal, Gwalior state and Bahawalpur state were, despite being warned multiple times. And he has been blocked for 31 hours, just a few days ago, he has also been blocked from editing a particular page because of his disruptive editing. I too believe both these accounts should be topic banned for disruptive editing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sajaypal007: I am not He again. You claimed that I have been contiously editing territory line although I hardly edited that part after getting reverted. I do have knowledge where these territories are but apart from Pro-Rajput vloggers like R.B Singh could not found any academic source refering that he controlled those domains especially Pakistan, Uttrakhand, Gujarat etc region not even a hardcore nationalist scholar like R.C Majumdar. Since my knowledge about medieval times is continously mocked here; although I do not want to brag about me here but I had research published in a peer reviewed journal. So, definately I have some knowledge of that era and don't want that article sinking into the morass of POV and unreliable historic claims. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 08:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: I did not delete your post for any serious reasons but just for cleaning up my talk page which I did couple of days back as well. In any case that conversation is there in history of my talk page.
  • You called for my head and even raised echos for topic banning me, Can you please point out where I edited wrongly on any history related article or without a scholarly/academic work ? I agree though that I got bit confused in current naming of states as it differs significantly with the time the author work was published (1960's)
  • On Wikipedia, having disagreement is nothing new and same is going on that article talk page. We won't argue over any other book and to clarify my only issue here is regarding territorial parts which Singh probably exaggerated a bit (leads me to doubt his scholarship a bit) nothing else. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
@Sajaypal007: Complaining about what P&T did, or did not do, is not relevant to the subject under discussion. The RS noticeboard is not the right place for that conversation. If you believe she has violated any wikipedia policies, please approach WP:ANI. @Packer&Tracker: My advice to both you and Sanjaypal007 would be to work collaboratively across a wide range of topics and each time you interact, be cordial and kind. Regarding reliability of the source, it is a borderline RS, given it’s age. Can be cited for minor details but avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dr.Pinsky: I agree with you on this 100 %, We should be cordial and kind in heated debate especially in context of South Asia related articles which are under discretionary sanctions and any contentious edit can lead to a certain backclash.
But since my 31 hours block; I tried my best to be as cordial as I could.
Regarding reliablity of Singh; I personaly believes that age of source should not matter given the thesis is from learned scholar/indologists like R.C. Majumdar, Dashratha Sharma, Mohmmad Habib, Gopinath Sharma or even G.H Ojha but such extraordinary claims that he controlled parts of Uttrakhand, Malwa (without any expedition), Pakistan are bit over the top. No other reliable source mentions those territories as much as I know;
Bottom line is Should we use/quote Singh to mention the territorial expansion of Chauhan Rajput kingdom ? Thanks for input. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 01:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dr.Pinsky: Do tell how you come to conclude that this is borderline RS and should only be used for minor details, on the basis of the age? Can you quote any relevant rule that forbids use of 60 year old book. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Yfull.com a reliable source for DNA?

We seem to use it a lot.[59]. But I see nothing at [60] that convinces me it's a reliable source. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's apparently reliable enough for researchers, but it is not for our purposes. It's a raw database and is cited by trusted sources (e.g. this article by Patterson et al. (2021)), but we generally don't use primary raw databases as citations. Also, this source shouldn't be used to update text and to replace peer-review research articles as reference, as happened here[61]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

cahighways.org

The horse has been dead since at least halfway through this thread. Policy-based consensus is clear this source is junk. Closing to avoid further wasting editors' time. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 17 April 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.

There seems to be mixed opinions about the reliability of cahighways.org. A while back I made an edit to the page California State Route 104, and I sourced it with cahighways.org, thinking it was reliable (which I still pretty much think). However, I recently stumbled upon an old RfD which stated cahighways is not reliable. However, that's only one editor, but I'm now wondering if it's generally reliable for california highways related topics or not. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 18:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a trivia type site and their own disclaimer states as much and that it's probably not RS. Anything that you'd source there, should be able to be sourced to an actual RS and if it can't, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Their disclaimer: Note: This is a hobbyist website. The California Highways Site is not affilated with or sponsored by Caltrans, the California Department of Transportation, although I truly appreciate the support that Caltrans staff have provided me in doing research, and the kind words they have sent me regarding the information on this site. If you have questions concerning operation of the state highways, or that are of a legal or regulatory nature, please contact Caltrans directly at http://www.dot.ca.gov/. I'll be glad to answer any question I can, but this is a hobbyist site. If you are looking for the current status of a particular state route, try the Caltrans Highway Status page. The California Highway Patrol also maintains a Traffic Incident Page. If you have a maintenance problem to report, use the Caltrans Maintenance Report Form. CUPIDICAE💕 18:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
According to their Sources and credits page, they appear to be generally reliable for fact checking. Huggums537 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I would say that if you can source it from here and another reliable source, then use both sources to compliment each other. Huggums537 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
We should not be citing hobby blogs, ever, unless they are well established SMEs, especially when it can be sourced to somewhere better. CUPIDICAE💕 19:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I see no evidence of it being a hobby "blog", and think it is a misrepresentation of the site. Just because they say they are a hobbyist website is meaningless. Youtube, The Internet Archive, and many more sites we depend on could be called hobbyist sites, but that is irrelevant to the fact something on them could be reliable for sourcing or not. Huggums537 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
You see no evidence of it even though the owner literally states as much in their giant disclaimer?? CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
It says it's a hobbyist website, not a hobbyist blog. Seems like a big difference to me. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 20:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
A hobbyist website and hobbyist blog are more or less the same and the idea that it's inherently reliable because they don't say blog is silly. You asked for a reason, and if the content can be sourced to an actual RS, that needs to be used. If it can't, it shouldn't be in an article. Seems pretty simple to me. WP:UGC and WP:SPS applies. CUPIDICAE💕 20:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
You asked for a reason, and if the content can be sourced to an actual RS, that needs to be used. If it can't, it shouldn't be in an article. Seems pretty simple to me. It's more complicated than that. There are tons of content that can be in an article without any sourcing per WP:SKYBLUE. Huggums537 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
No. You're quite the comedian. WP:V supersedes silly essays. It's a policy and a core tenet of Wikipedia. WP:SKYBLUE isn't. Maybe your comedy special should be called "Huggums, King of Bad Takes" CUPIDICAE💕 23:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but WP:When to cite is an explanatory supplement to WP:V, and the section Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed has lots of examples of when content doesn't need a source. So, who is laughing now? Huggums537 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
As the average person is not familiar with the US Highway system, much less California's, this does not apply. So yes, citations from reliable sources are required.Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree it doesn't apply here. I was only pointing out the implied meaning when you say any content that can't be sourced to an RS shouldn't be in an article, is that any unsourced material should not be in an article, but that just simply isn't true, and it is a very unfortunate common misconception about sourcing. Huggums537 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
This is nothing more than a long-running SPS. The About page makes it clear that they're not a subject matter expert. They're not widely cited by other reliable sources, either. Woodroar (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah to both of you for quoting SPS and UGC. It is just more meaningless misrepresentation as I said above. I could easily do the same thing with the Internet Archive by saying it is both UGC, and an aggregator of unreliable sources, but we still use it for reliable sourcing anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Are you just here to argue and whine or do you actually have a point? Because you seem to be missing it. The idea that IA is inherently a hobbyist site is also patently ridiculous. Especially because IA often archives - get this, established reliable sources! Remarkable, really. CUPIDICAE💕 21:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
They also allow users to archive any page on the internet, and have whole sections dedicated to games that you can play, and video, music, or book media users can upload, download, or consume. If that can't be contorted into a "hobbyist" site in the same ridiculous manner you are contorting this reliable source into a "hobbyist" site, then you are a hypocrite because this site also refers to - get this, established reliable sources! Huggums537 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
And the vast majority of content archived by IA can not be used as a reliable source. The webpages contained within IA stand or fall on their own merits.Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. That is exactly my point. IA doesn't do any fact checking, and is an aggregator of unreliable sources. Heck, this site is more reliable than IA! It should stand or fall on its own merits, and it does appear to do fact checking, and cites reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
IA isn't reliable. The archives of reliable sources are. There is a broad and deep consensus that archive.org isn't altering the data in it's archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
There's no evidence this site is altering anything either; so what exactly is the problem here? Huggums537 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Because they're is no reason to assume it is reliable, same as anyone else's random website. I could make a website and publish whatever I wanted, wouldn't make it reliable. See WP:RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Except my reason to assume they are reliable is here where it says, This information is derived from the following references, as well as additional research in newspaper articles, California Transportation Commission minutes, and other public documents That's not them claiming to be an expert on anything, it's them saying they fact checked from reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Nothing in RS guidance requires sources to be "subject matter experts" or else we would never be able to use any journalistic sources whatsoever. Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Wow, someone should give you an award for most points missed while also gaslighting and simultaneously being dead wrong. 👏 Bravo. CUPIDICAE💕 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I've already awarded myself with this honor on my own userpage, but thank you for offering for someone to bestow it upon me anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:SPS. Woodroar (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I see nothing in SPS suggesting being a subject matter expert is a requirement, and it further states that, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. which the stuff in this source has been. Huggums537 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Why on earth would we use someone who doesn't know about a topic self publishing as a reliable source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
The important part of WP:SPS is this: 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. By the site maintainer's own admission, and as verified by editors here, he's not an expert. That's fine and I mean no criticism by it, but that means the site isn't usable as a source on Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Another important part of that is: whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. and also, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources Not only has most of his work been previously published by the reliable sources posted on the credits page, but his work has been published by other reliable sources as well as indicated by the backlinks to that domain. To assume the site is inherently unreliable just because they mention the word "hobbyist" on a disclaimer page intended to limit liability, not explain who or what they are about is especially silly when anyone can see the man has been doing this for over 20 years whether he claims to be an expert or not. The copyright on the website is 1998-2020, and the ICANN registration data goes back to 2000. Plus, there is a claim the site was hosted by Pacificne way back in 1996, which I'm sure could be verified if I went through the trouble. So, the dude has been doing it almost since the internet was a thing, and to quote your own rhetoric "By the site maintainer's own admission", he's been doing this since he was a child; If you hadn't figured it out by the name of the site, I'm really into highways. This started when I was a map collector as a child. I'd say that pretty much qualifies him as an expert whether he's trying to protect himself in a liability notice, and wants to claim it, or not. Being humble, and protecting yourself from liability doesn't disqualify someone from having extensive knowledge about a subject, the suggestion that it somehow does is what is remarkably silly to me. Huggums537 (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's a link from his site nearly 22 years ago that also confirms the claim about hosting I mentioned earlier... If that isn't reliable, then I don't know wtf is. Huggums537 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding the policy, so let me break it down:
  • whose work: this would need to be the maintainer of the site, not the sources he uses. You do not become an expert because you are using expert sources. Expertise is not inherited.
  • previously been published by reliable, independent publications: again, this would be the maintainer of the site being published in reliable, independent publications. This isn't backlinks, this is other sources identified as reliable incorporating or commenting on the work of the maintainer.
  • someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources this is an admonition against using a self-published source in most cases, on the theory that if the information is actually reliable or important, a non self-published source will have reported it.
When establishing whether you can use a self-published source, you have to determine if the publisher is an expert. In this case, that's the site maintainer. Ask yourself these questions:
  1. Has the maintainer or his website been discussed in reliable sources on the matter of highways, or even better highways in California?
  2. Has the maintainer published on the topic of highways or California highways in a reliable source, separate from cahighways.org?
If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then they might be an expert and therefore the website is usable as a source. A good example from the railroading world is Thomas Taber, who self-published a three-volume history of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. This book was reviewed in numerous publications and is stocked in libraries. Numerous reliable sources cite Taber when discussing the Lackawanna, it would be unthinkable not to. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Ironically, that "Free Backlink checker" confirmed what a Google search already told me: only a handful of reliable sources link to cahighways.org. Yes, plenty of sites link there, which you would expect for a site that's 25 years old. But they're mostly (a) sketchy news sites and hobbyist sources that don't know anything about source analysis and (b) affiliate scam sites that algorithmically harvest content. By and large, reputable sites are not linking to or sourcing cahighways.org. Woodroar (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
But yet, reputable sites do in fact link there. Disqualifying the reputable sites who are linking there simply because a bunch of sketchy sites decided to join them is nothing but a bunch of poppycock. Huggums537 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't respond earlier because Praxidicae was so clear and correct that I didn't think additional input would be needed. Turns out that's wrong. It's an unreliable SPS, as the hobbyist does not appear to be a subject matter expert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only do they not appear to be an SME, they explain as much themselves. CUPIDICAE💕 22:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This thread should probably be preserved for posterity as exhibit one in a series on 'bad arguments for using a source'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 17 April 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.

(edit conflict) I was writing this at the same time Alex was closing, so the reply tool did not work because of the conflict with the close template, and I now have to rewrite the comment I was working on. My reply was to Mackenson, to address the fact that we are pretending that we don't allow sources from people who might not be "published experts", but demonstrate they have extensive knowledge about a subject. Also, we are pretending that his sources are not needed because he is just "inheriting" his expertise from the experts, but simply is not true. This guy has access to the archives of the expert sources that you, and I do not have because he has garnered their respect after more than two decades of a working relationship with them: I also thank Mel Aros, Program Coordinator for the California County Route Marker Program in Sacramento, who had to go to files archived off a mainframe computer in 1984 to get me a listing of all the routes in the program. So, this idea of skipping this source, and going right to the "experts" doesn't make any sense because this guy has information you just can't get from them, (but he can). You can feel free to close this comment as well, and I won't comment any more on the topic, but I felt like it wasn't fair that a technical glitch was preventing me from having my say when I had my comment all written out, and then it got lost from an edit conflict. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this thread when it was open since I have dealt with this issue when writing multiple FAs on the topic including California State Route 78, Interstate 8, etc. I certainly provide an external link to cahighways.org as a valuable resource and I certainly have used them as a starting point of what years or terms to enter into the search box. But sadly I would also have to agree that they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source, notably the part where other reliable sources (think news media) refer back to them. That all being said - I think that we can get comparable or better information if we go to the newspaper archives themselves - see User:Rschen7754/How I write good road articles for some pointers. In fact, we can even get details that aren't in cahighways.org or Gribblenation or any of the other road sites. --Rschen7754 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
I said I wasn't going to comment on this topic anymore, but I did want to jump on here quick and thank you for adding the link to your essay because I have some sources saved up in my sandbox for a road article I've been thinking about writing, and I think your essay will help me out. I also have some historical ideas I would like to write about as well. However, my first article is still in draft because of harsh critics like those in this discussion who have called this man's work of 25 years "junk", and my fear is that if they don't support my work either, then I will reason to myself that it just isn't worth it to invest all the effort just to have people dump on you. So, I'm 99% certain I will abandon my Wikipedia article writing career and just stick to gnomish tasks if the environment is not going to be a supportive one. In my view, I feel like they are intentionally misunderstanding, and misrepresenting things to try to make this guy look bad for no apparent reason, but none of what they said about him is true. They said he's never been published, but I provided factual evidence he's been Wp:published on the web for more than 22 years. Then they said no reliable source has ever written about him, but then I provided the backlinks from reliable sources to prove that is not true, so they said those are just backlinks, but what do they think backlinks are? Blank pages with links on them? No. They are articles written about this guy by reliable sources with links to what he's published. So then they said he wasn't an expert, and made it out like he was just somebody who had a website scraping data from reliable sources, but then I approved he had a close working relationship with these reliable sources for more than 22 years. Anybody who has a close working relationship with Warren Buffett for 22 years is going to become such an expert on investing that they are going to increase their personal net worth 10 or 100 fold, and I would take any investing advice that they gave me as the gospel. no matter how many times they humbly tell me they are no Warren Buffett. [I wouldn't give a rats behind if they had "I'm no Warren Buffett tattooed on their forehead.] I certainly [still] would not shun them the way these people have done here. Huggums537 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537: when editors say someone has never been "published", they generally mean by third party agencies with a good reputation for decent and significant editorial control over what they decide to publish. This doesn't include someone self publishing their own material, especially not someone self publishing on the web as anyone with a small amount of cash and technical know how can do that. I posted on usenet probably as far back as 1996, definitely sometime between 1996-1998. I suspect in some archives somewhere, you'll also find a Geocities page of mine from 1998 or earlier. (Maybe Angelfire or Tripod, but I think only Geocities.) I've had maybe two or so other very minor websites. However I've definitely never been published by any stretch of the imagination and the fact I didn't maintain these websites is nothing to do with that.

I'd also note that I see no reason to think Mel Aros, or anyone else, is only willing to communicate with the maintainer of cahighways.org. And even if that really is the case, the information obtained is either published on cahighways or somewhere else, or it's irrelevant to us. If it's published on cahighways or somewhere else, then there's no reason why an expert cannot obtain the information from cahighways or wherever it's published and use it in what they publish. The fact the information was originally from cahighways or wherever doesn't mean it's okay for us to get the info directly from cahighways. The whole point of relying on reliable secondary sources or at least experts is that we trust them to decide whether the information from cahighways or wherever is reliable, accurate and complete. And from that whether to republish the information, supplement it or ignore it. And to a lesser extent, we also rely on them to decide whether the information is significant.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't wanting to go into this any more since I feel I was being ganged up on, but when editors say someone has never been "published", they generally mean by third party agencies with a good reputation for decent and significant editorial control over what they decide to publish., and I usually remain skeptical about "what other editors say", and rely on my own common sense judgement about what policy and guidance says for a couple reasons; one being that I know not all editors everywhere agree, and if I were to ask the same question at another venue outside this little group of regulars on this particular board, I might get a different perspective altogether. Another more important reason is that when other editors consistently tell me things that any thinking person can prove to themselves doesn't make any sense, then the credibility about what they tell me is significantly reduced.
For example, (and I'm sorry you happen to have been the one to step in the line of fire for this) when I link to guidance that I trust (which is really just an informational page, but I still trust it more than other users), and then an experienced editor tells me they posted on usenet, had a Geocites page, and a couple websites, but vehemently denies they have ever been published, then I have to ask myself if this user really knows the difference between what it means to be published, and what it means to be reliable, and then I have to ask myself if there is anything fair or trustworthy at all about the comparison this user is drawing between his very unreliable self published works, and the self published works on cahighways.org. Even though you claim the fact you didn't maintain these sites has nothing to do with it, I say poppycock. This man had motivation to maintain this site for so long because it is not junk, it has value, whereas you had no such motivation to maintain anything probably because most of Geocities is junk, but I bet even Geocities has something to offer of value as a source for some unknown, and interesting purpose considering the scope of just how large it was. Heck, I bet one of you search wizards would be able to find sources to it on some of our articles right now.
Some more examples of things that I have been told by other editors that make no sense at all are Mackenson asking me Has the maintainer published on the topic of highways or California highways in a reliable source, separate from cahighways.org? and yourself telling me that self published experts must be published by "third party agencies", when editors say someone has never been "published", they generally mean by third party agencies with a good reputation for decent and significant editorial control over what they decide to publish. So, exactly how does any of this make any sense, or exactly how is it supposed to work with what the policy actually says? I quote: 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. please focus intensely on that first part. Exactly how are we being allowed to use a self published expert source if the expert is being required to be published by a "third party" reliable source? It's kind of like saying, you could always use a self published expert, but nah! just kidding, ya really can't, cause they have to be, shall we say, a little more than just self published (We don't like to use the phrase NOTSELFPUB around here). According to what Mackenson has asked me, it appears self published experts are required to publish themselves in multiple publications, but this is not true, and even if it were true I think maybe he has published himself in other reliable publications, but I'm not sure about that.
More nonsense to me is that I was told that lots and lots of sites are linking to cahighways.org, and that only a handful of them are reliable, while the vast majority of them are trash as if this somehow matters. Any thinking person can go to any of the green reliable sources links on the perennial sources page, and find out there are trillions of trash sites that link to the reliable sources posted there, so that means exactly nothing as to whether a site is reliable or not.
Also, there are more examples than just the Mel Aros one, but I will say this, with all of my hardheadness about this matter, I do understand what you are saying about; The whole point of relying on reliable secondary sources or at least experts is that we trust them to decide whether the information from cahighways or wherever is reliable, accurate and complete. It's just that my common sense tells me this person can be trusted to decide that just as well as any "proven" expert, but I would probably trust this person before I would trust some of those other "reliable" secondary sources as you all would call them. The faith you all have in reliable secondary sources is quite scary to me, and part of what I call the Wikipedified mind, but that is all off topic. Huggums537 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to everyone about the long rant. I just feel like there is a big difference between what the Wikipedia literature tells me about what it means to be published, and what other editors are saying it means. Also, I feel like the mindset of the users I've interacted with here are not really policy based, but more based on their own ideas about the way they think things should be, such as the fact that what they have really been telling me is that self published experts are not allowed, and policy does not say this at all. That is not what they have directly said, but their circular logic dictates this by virtue of the fact they demand that a self published expert first prove they are an expert by using evidence of them not being self published. In other words, they say you can use a self published expert as long as they are not in fact self published. If you want the policy to say "no self published experts allowed", then make it say that, but stop using circular logic to circumvent what you don't like. My interpretation of the policy focuses on very small phrases that have big important meanings, such as ...may be considered... and Exercise caution.... These kinds of phrases tell a very different story than the circular logic "no self published experts allowed" story I've been hearing. They say that at some point we as editors must exercise our own best common sense judgement as to whether a source is trustworthy or not. If you want me not to do the ranting, then make the policy say what you want it to say, and I will stfu, and go away, but don't block the discussion with a false valuation about the admittedly overwhelming consensus being "policy based", and a little note about wasting time, because I think it is very well worth the time to bring up such contradictions in the policy as well as in the way editors are thinking in relation to that policy, especially if it will have any impact whatsoever on how we view reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn - that close seems a bit excessive. It looks a bit un-WP:CIVIL in phrasing, and also seems factually incorrect where it stated the horse is dead and where it claimed the site is junk. I am surprised at the heat in discussion and by that attempted close, but clearly the site has editors on both sides and is referenced, so enthusiastic dissing does not seem an option. I would suggest an alternative close in milder tones that the situation is: ‘This should not be used per WP:SPS. As a hobbyist site it seems not as respected or authoritative as published books and government websites, and not as much WP:WEIGHT as larger publications, so would be better to use those instead per WP:BESTSOURCES.’ Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Kremlin Disinformation Outlets Referenced by Wikipedia

This article may be relevant:

Юркова, Ольга (19 April 2022). "Pro-Kremlin Disinformation Outlets Referenced By Hundreds Of Wikipedia Articles". StopFake.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We can do nothing about what foreign language wiki's do. And without knowing what we use them for its hard to say we should not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge University source?

https://archive.org/details/the-new-cambridge-history-of-india-vol.-1-part-7/The New Cambridge History of India, Vol. 1, Part 3/page/256/mode/2up?view=theater

Article- Siege of Sirhind

Need feedback on page 257 starting from sentence- "All were prepared to fight for their new faith" to the sentence- "Only lahore, delhi and a few afghan towns held out". The book is a Cambridge University book published in 1993. Its editors are Gordon Johnson, Director of South Asian studies at Cambridge University, CA Bally, a professor of Modern Indian History at Cambridge University and John F Richards, a historian at Duke university. Disputed on the basis of citation 8 being a quote from Khafi Khan and his book Muntakhab ul Lubab which is subject to academic contention - though his work is widely used in numerous university peer reviewed books including Audrey Truschke's Stanford university book- Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, Muzaffar Alam's Oxford university published book- The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab, 1707-48 , as you can see its widely used in Hari Ram Gupta's book https://apnaorg.com/books/english/history-of-sikhs-v2/history-of-sikhs-v2.pdf (see from pg 10 onwards) and even many, many dozens of times in Ganda Singh's book and Khsuwant Singh's Princeton University published book "History of the Sikhs Volume 1". If we go by the disputing editor's stance that Khafi Khan's work cannot be used even in a peer reviewed university books it would mean a large amount of Mughal India and the succeeding 25 years after must be removed from Wikipedia at least, as his work is widely, widely used by modern historians for research on Mughal India and afterwards. Secondly its also unclear as to how much of the page is derived from just a single quote of Khafi Khan, without a dobut most of it is independent analysis from the writers themselves. Thirdly, the use of Khafi Khan's work is through Secondary Sources not as a primary source- WP:RSPRIMARY, university scholars have examined his work and found apt of what to include in their research. Cambridge University is a peer reviewed academic source and it certainly would've researched and found Khan's work appropriate enough to include although it's unclear just how much of the page is derived from just Khan alone.

Not knowing anything about this topic, it seems to be a reliable source. Having a citation to a contentious work is not a good enough reason to make a source unreliable. Of course, if the content that this source supports is contentious - in the sense of other sources contradicting it - then WP:DUE should be used to determine the appropriate weight given to each position. Alaexis¿question? 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
This reversion and the message is out of order for two reasons (i) simply eliminating reliable sources distorts our coverage and is not in keeping with our neutrality policies and (ii) while it's OK under the circumstances for Kamhirir to come here given that revert message, coming to RS/N directly is not generally the right thing to do; instead per WP:BRD editors should try to resolve disagreements on the talk page before bringing in outside editors.
MehmoodS claims "Historians [have] considered it exaggeration": this may well be, but the right thing to do is provide sources documenting those reservations, not simply suppress reliably sourced claims. — Charles Stewart (talk)
Chalst - All this information have already been shared and cited on the page Siege of Sirhind, under Aftermath section. The dispute is about Khafi Khan and about a specific quote by him that says "Sikhs massacred the inhabitants who did not readily convert to Sikhism and destroyed the city buildings." Khafi Khan was a writer who served the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb and his source has been widely studied by various modern historians for specific information but have also considered most of the work from Muntakhab-al Lubab, as fictitious and exaggeration. Like here, scholars Ganda Singh, Kirpal Singh Narang and Thornton have said that the book by Khafi Khan "contains terrible details of atrocious deeds and the writer is not be entrusted upon such a point. Very fruitful imagination seems to have been at work to ascribe every kind of cruelty". Here is the quote from the book by historian Ganda Singh, [62]. Dr. Narang on page 71 says that "there is sufficient evidence of the exaggeration by Latif, corroborated from Khafi Khan". Whereas Ganda Singh says that "such statements are blindly repeated by later writers like Latif" page 85 [63]. Also historian Khushwant Singh specifically states in his book on page 106 that, "Either from conviction, or fear or profit [or combination of all three), Hindu and Muslim peasants accepted conversion to Sikh faith" [64]. And all these quotes from modern historians and references have been included on the page Siege of Sirhind such as "He further castigates the writers of the Siyar-ul-Mutakherin and Muntakhib-ul-Lubab for exaggerating Sikh atrocities". Even historian like Hari Ram Gupta haven't used such quotes. The book new Cambridge history of India was written between 1922 and 1937 and states on page xiv that "We do no expect The new Cambridge history of India to be last word on the subject but an essential voice in the continuing discussion.....aim of the book is to encourage further scholarly work on Mughal period. We do not know enough." MehmoodS (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The New Cambridge History book that was provided was published in 1992/1993, not in the 1920s or 1930s as you are claiming. Please check the first few pages of the book in the link above, it also clearly states the editors of the book and they're all current or recent university professors [65], [66]. Also see [67]. Further Khan's work is widely cited and used in every single reliable secondary source I've seen so far regarding the 1700s in India. Remember our job is to review secondary sources, not primary sources. I'm not sure what you mean by Hari Ram Gupta didn't cite Khan, Khan's work is widely used in his book, the same with Ganda Singh's book, and Khushwant Singh's book as well. Just look at the citations on the bottom of the pages. Reviewing primary sources within reliable secondary sources is going to open a giant can of worms, and scholars can examine and determine what parts of someone's work to include in their research, if the primary source wasn't reliable they would not use it or choose the most accurate narrative. See [68]- The Cambridge History of India was published between 1922 and 1937, the New Cambridge History of India was published starting from the late 1980s and as you can see from the link, Part 1 of Volume 1 was published 1988. As per Cambridge university's site: "Although the original Cambridge History of India, published between 1922 and 1937, did much to formulate a chronology for Indian history and describe the administrative structures of government in India, it has inevitably been overtaken by the mass of new research published over the last sixty years. Designed to take full account of recent scholarship and changing conceptions of South India's historical development, The New Cambridge History of India is published as a series of short, self-contained volumes, each dealing with a separate themewithin an overall four-part structure." -- [69]. MehmoodS, please retract your claim that the New Cambridge History of India was published in the 1920s or 1930s, when it was published in 1992/1993. Kamhiri (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
publishing date isn't the issue here as i was looking at the initial published date. It was more about the statement made in introduction of the book. There is no denying that the source was widely studied by modern historians but for "specific study" and you cannot deny the claims that the modern historians have also made regarding it. And such statements about exaggeration of the incidents are on the page itself. Citation at the bottom of the page is showing that the author consulted in writing the new work, whether they were directly referenced or not. This is based on the idea that the books contributed to the author's understanding of the topic, even if they weren't directly used. Even historian like Ganda Singh have used them but then also refuted the statements by Khafi Khan. MehmoodS (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
User:MehmoodS, so what's the problem here? You can simply qualify the statement in question "Sikhs massacred the inhabitants who did not readily convert to Sikhism and destroyed the city buildings." with something like "According to a contemporary historian Khafi Khan whose reports have been questioned by modern historians." Alaexis¿question? 09:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
MehmoodS, please also provide proof that historians consider MOST of ul Lubab ficitious? It's a contentious work sure but a lot of the book has been verified and used within academic research and peer reviewed sources. Kamhiri (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Certainly contentious. Further,

even eminent historian Ram Sharan Sharma charged him with plagiarism ( in Bibliography of Mughal India). And I have already mentioned the purpose of study by academicians for such contemporary sources. MehmoodS (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis that is an option but then there is already a statement under the Aftermath section "Historian Ganda Singh also writes that allegations of desecrations of mosques are unfounded since the mausoleum of Shaikh Ahmad Mujaddid Alif Sani, which was the most magnificent buildings in the town, was left untouched after the battle. He further castigates the writer (Khafi Khan) of the Muntakhib-ul-Lubab for exaggerating Sikh atrocities". Do you suggest adding "According to a contemporary historian Khafi Khan whose reports have been questioned by modern historians.." above the earlier statement as it would sequentially align with the statement later by modern historians such as Ganda Singh, Dr. Narang and Thornton, about its exaggeration? But then, wouldn't that just be repeating what has already been mentioned?MehmoodS (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm qualified to opine here as I know next to nothing about it and I have no idea if it's some or most modern historians who question his accounts. Alaexis¿question? 11:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I suggest avoiding that kind of side-taking in the way you describe sources if you can at all help it, per WP:IMPARTIAL. Instead I'd recommend something along the lines of "Khafi Khan asserted ..., however this claim is disputed in more recent work, e.g., ...", where you cite more recent work that explicitly contradicts Khan. Let the sources do the talking. If you have the luxury, put the best source or two in the main text and provide further links in a footnote. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly that makes sense as well. I will gohead and add as suggested and hopefully that ends the dispute. MehmoodS (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • The edit looks reasonable to me but only since it is preceded by mentions of disputed accounts. The cite seems a good RS, it is a published work by Cambridge, and an author with other books and publications in the field, along with other reputable historians as mentioned above. That historians differ should be taken as a given norm, as should that opposing sides of the time put out differing accounts. (I could point to British naval history and accounts of Trafalgar.) That they include claims of atrocities should be included as a reflection of the heat involved, such are always going to be suspect of being propaganda. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_374&oldid=1145529352"