This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 345 | ← | Archive 348 | Archive 349 | Archive 350 | Archive 351 | Archive 352 | → | Archive 355 |
I am not sure if Garden.org is reliable because they have an edit link above the info. SVcode( Talk) 01:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
is the website considered as a reliable source here? a good part of their articles seem to be from outdated sources. 176.54.42.186 ( talk) 16:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I know it doesn't exist, but I want Wikipedia to create NDTV as a reliable source here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- 2409:4061:2D46:D1C1:2968:8E8B:BE20:71BF ( talk) 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
With the ascendancy of Narendra Modi to the premiership of India, advertisers with NDTV began to be pressurised to disassociate with the company and an array of litigations were initiated against the company.[68] The government pressure against the news broadcaster was seen as part of a wider pattern of attacks on media freedom in the country.[68][69][70]The sources are NYT, Al Jazeera English, and Deutsche Welle, so that gives a reasonable spectrum of generally accepted RS. Of course, "mainstream" media doesn't necessarily mean "reliable". The issue of whether any source is reliable should ideally come from the peer-reviewed literature. A fallback is consensus among Wikipedians' opinions. If there's no dispute on a source, I don't see a need to give it an entry in the perennial sources table. There's no need to overburden an already imperfect process. Boud ( talk) 21:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
You Live Where? - Interesting and Unusual Facts about where We Live from self-publishing house iUniverse appears in about 150 articles as a source for "(placename) has been noted for its unusual place name" with a link to a raw multi-page list of names. This is clearly an unacceptable source, but I wanted to get some input from others before doing a mass removal. – dlthewave ☎ 19:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The El Greco article has a photo of a chapel in Fodele with the caption:
with two footnotes referring to meetcrete.com.
There are several problems here (already mentioned in Talk):
Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-serving, meaning we can't cite it to them at all. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone. In this edit I've added a Norwegian government report. It's a report by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety in response to a research assignment by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. That's pretty typical government business for those two bodies. However it was published in a Sciencedomains journal, which is apparently on Beall's list. Thoughts? Invasive Spices ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (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.
I know Wikipedians consider Nytimes as a reliable source.
But for some time they are coming in support of terrorists, so it should not be used as a neutral source in Asia related articles, where they show bias for Islamists.
I am not saying that, all NYtimes sources should be removed.
Some editors will say, there is freedom of media in USA. Freedom doesn't mean that NYtimes will support terrorists and criminals. 2409:4061:2E8E:11B3:980B:14BE:5C6A:CD3C ( talk) 05:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts: 1) the NY Post has a known history of sensationalizing minor events and making a large fuss over trivial things; likely just a social media oddity. 2) opinion piece, shouldn't be treated as RS, so long as they aren't publishing this regularly I don't think its a bad sign 3) legitimate journalism 4) standard practice for most US businesses that don't work around children or high-risk materials. Hog Farm Talk 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Take a look: "The Myth of Haredi Moral Authority Haredi Judaism isn't our forefathers' religion, but a radical and dangerous new cult.". Link: https://www.haaretz.com/shahar-ilan-judaism-s-extreme-makeover-1.5266176 This fringe view does not belong on Wikipedia. How much sense is this making? Pinging Debresser IZAK 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Guess I must be a radical left-wing ultra-secular consumer of junk journalism (scratches head). Haaretz is RS, last time I looked. I would treat that article as an opinion piece by the VP for Hiddush, For Religious Freedom and Equality, whatever that is. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
stupid, ignorant and obviously either an antisemite or a self hating Jew guilty of a blood libel. The last three in particular are unambiguously BLP-sensitive accusations; I suggest you strike or redact your comment. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Its leftwingyness is not a reason to say its unreliable (and is a good reason to reject any argument based on such reasoning, as to whether or not it is an opp-edd. It does not seem to be lable as one, so usable with attribution I think. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Haaretz is a reliable source, but given this is an opinion piece it should reflect that. However I feel calling them a dangerous cult to be somewhat fringe. They are vert strict religiously, but that does not make a cult. Futhemore they are an assortment of groups that hold numerous different views just look at Neturei Karta compared to Shas. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
free countries. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
the prohibition of everything new, is newand
who would make such a prohibition? someone who feels threatened by something new. The gist: this is the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, replayed by fundamentalist Jews against secular Jews, here at Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
If you ask me, when a cult becomes large in number of believers and in time (history), it gets called a religion. So: cults are small, religions are large, that's the only difference. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@ 155.246.151.38: this series of posts [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] would appear to violate our behavioral guidelines around on campaigning and votestacking. I take it that you were not aware of the existence of our Wikipedia:Canvassing restrictions? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Also come on... "Contacting journalists and reporters will be very helpful because sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to wikicrats who like to hide behind what they claim to be policy.” is going to get you blocked in two seconds flat... You can’t be encouraging people to take off wiki action to further a policy dispute you’re involved with. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is dangerous and if not stopped now, all of Judaism will be under attack!And the source of all this antisemitic propaganda is claimed to be a Jewish newspaper. See above about WP:BATTLEGROUND. The IP seems to believe that the worst enemies of Jews are Jews. Take a look at [14]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
As does this [ [15]], which pings a lot of users, and can be seen as a call to arms with comments like (in this post [ [16]]). Slatersteven ( talk) 09:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Note the IP is also a sock. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
As I've noted elsewhere recently ( diff), and perhaps this bears repeating, Wikipedia considers Haaretz to be Israel's Paper of record (for some reason). That it often indulges in SJW excesses (and snobby paywall'ing) is to its discredit, I'd argue, but that's just my opinion. El_C 14:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think most people[outside of Israel]
consider Haaretz to be a paper of record. Fixed! El_C 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Popel keep on saying this is an Op-edd, its not marked as an opp-edd. This is the opinion section https://www.haaretz.com/opinion, and it does not seem to be there. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
What Haaretz published does not have to be gospel truth, but secular Jews are allowed to criticize fundamentalist Jews. All this fuss is about an aggressive campaign saying that secular Jews who criticize fundamentalist Jews are self-hating Jews. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. Britannica says Haredi are fundamentalists. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
List of WP:RS:
organised Haredi Judaism is in fact a relatively new phenomenon in Jewish history.
WP:CITED by tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
After days of discussion, still have not gotten a clear answer. Have been hearing all sorts of wiki disputes about opinion or not opinion. Is it Haaretz or not. This user wants a clear answer. Is this particular article reliable or not? 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 00:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
However, secular critics describe the Haredim as radical fundamentalists.So, it is not even presented as objective fact. It's not in the voice of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
radicalmean? It means they want to have stringent rules and an austere morality. It's a free country, so they are free to do so.
fundamentalistmean? It is about who's the boss:
This is not a soapbox, we are discussing this source, not users or any religious sects. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:26, 14 August 2021 (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.
Why is it that pagesix.com is a reliable source for Kim Kardashian's sex tape, while Newsweek isn't a reliable enough for Hunter Biden's butt-naked pillow talk with a hooker? In this pillow talk with said hooker Hunter recounts "crazy f***ing sex" with other hookers, and mentions another laptop he lost earlier, possibly stolen by Russians to blackmail him. According to some editors, this video and all other laptop related material should be considered "conspiracy theory" because the 2020 Biden campaign said so - even though Hunter is quoted in CNN as saying the laptop this video was pulled from probably his [18], and even though Politico says the US government has delayed actions in investigating the case for the sake of not messing up the 2020 elections [19]. CutePeach ( talk) 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted the addition to one article, Sinhalese people, of a footnote sourced to The Joshua Project's website. I ran a link search, [20], and found hundreds of other footnotes linked to this site.
This source has been discussed here before: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. The first of these discussionhs followed the removal by an editor of numerous links to the source. It seems to me the consensus was that the data on that site isn't reliable. A mix of opinions can be found in other discussions.
As far as I could discern from my skimming, though, none of these sources mentioned the six disclaimers at the bottom of the source's own pages:
1. Joshua Project data is drawn from many sources and of varying accuracy depending on source and editorial decisions. Populations are scaled to the current year. Other data may have varying ages. We welcome suggested updates.
2. A displayed zero can mean true zero, a very small rounded number or sometimes unknown. Blanks mean an unknown value.
3. The data is sometimes not as precise as it appears. Values for %Christian Adherent and %Evangelical (which determine unreached status) are often informed estimates, some more accurate than others. We recommend against using %Christian Adherent and %Evangelical to calculate absolute numbers.
4. Joshua Project makes every effort to ensure that the subject in an image is in fact from the specific people group. In rare instances a representative photo may be used.
5. Joshua Project may be able to provide more information than what is published on this site. Please contact us.
6. On-the-ground reality may vary from what is presented here. Before making travel plans based on data presented here, please confirm with other sources to the extent possible.
I'm reading this as a virtual acknowledgement by the organization itself that the site doesn't rise to the level of a reliable source for our purposes.
What do you all think of this source in light of these disclaimers? Is this sufficient justification to remove all these footnotes? Largoplazo ( talk) 11:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This website seems to primarily be a press release aggregator. They have a news section and employ journalists, but I'm not sure if their content is editorially independent. What type of reliability does this source have?
The specific article in question from this source is this, to be used for Dick's Sporting Goods. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 15:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I’ve been researching Indian institutions in the past couple of weeks for a personal project. I noticed that Moneylife has been used as a reference on Indian-related pages and came here to check its credibility. I first spotted it on the National Stock Exchange of India. After that, I found it on a few other pages, as seen below.
University of Mumbai List of chairmen of the State Bank of India
There doesn’t seem to be anything controversial about the coverage that I’ve found so far, but I’m a bit unsure about its editorial standards and therefore accuracy. Should its use as a reference be discouraged or is it okay to use? FelixFLB ( talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment - To expand on my initial post, Moneylife and Sucheta Dalal made allegations about National Stock Exchange of India in 2015, which can viewed on Wikipedia here. It led to a defamation lawsuit by NSE against the publication shortly afterward. Moneylife then set up a dedicated topic on its website here where it lists various articles about the stock exchange and even has the topic in its navigation bar (seems highly unethical?). The majority of the articles in the topic/section are titled "scam" or "illegal." FelixFLB ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The actual reliability of a source is it's expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. IMO any overall generalization about any source is faulty. Such should be eliminated and certainly not expanded. North8000 ( talk) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I am coming here to raise concern over the aggressive POV being pushed in the article Flamenco by TagaworShah that Flamenco is at its origin Romani music and only Romani music.
The origins of Flamenco have been studied in great detail by numerous academics in what is known as the field of Flamencology which involves a number of historiographical currents. Although there are a number of theories on possible roots of the musical genre (which encompasses a range of sub-genres known as palos and none of which are mutually exclusive) the general academic consensus is that its roots are syncretic and unique to Andalusia's history with influence from the Byzantine period, medieval Islamic period, Jewish, Berber and sub-saharan African, gitano/romani together with various modern influences specific to their time (reorientalizing casticismo etc).
Flamencologists such as Manuel Bohórquez [26] are categorical in stating that Flamenco does not originate in the Romani people and others such as Austrian Flamencologist (perhaps one of the most renown professors of flamencology) agree with this in their academic studies on the origins of Flamenco which he traces to the Byzantine period, roughly 8 centuries before Romanis started migrating to Spain. [27] I could go on but since there are many such specialist professors in the in the field of flamencology and this is a rather mainstream view. Among these its worth mentioning Hipolito Rossy - perhaps the father of modern flamencology who explains how the roots of flamenco lie in the fusion of christian/Mozarabic, Jewish, Muslim and Romani musical traditions in the lower Andalusia. [28]
The point is that, since the 28th of June when TagaworShah (an editor also interested in Romani activism and seemingly unacquainted with Spanish, Andalusian or Gitano culture) first completely rewrote the stable version of the article without seeking consensus, leveraging dubious sources coming from obscure Romani activists such as Ronald Lee, Ian Hancock and dance teachers in Mid-west US universities (typically Americans interested in Romanticism associated to Gypsies such as this person [29]) to aggressively pursue the line that actually all flamencologists are wrong and that Flamenco is, in fact, a Romani art form and it originates with the Romani people, pushing this in the lead of the article. [30] [31] Almost surreally, he claims that anyone who works with Spanish public universities are inherently biased and they are less credible than his artsy non-specialist activist sources - please read his justification carefully here: [32] This tactic of using the ignorance (for lack of a better word) of non-specialist, activist or enthusiasts to trump peer-reviewed studies in order to aggressively push fringe views is common enough on wikipedia and I am wondering how to deal with it and whether there is any policy to deal with it. I reitirate none of the sources (except Leblon and Holguin) provided by Tagawor are reputable academics in the field of Flamencology nor does he provide any citation from any study to support his claims. Interestingly one of the few reliable sources he claims to rely on (Holguin) does not support the POV he is pushing as shown here: [33], i.e. he is systematically misportraying the statments of the few reliable sources he can get his hands on and flooding the article with sources that do not meet WP:RS.
I understand the policy of "wrong version" (I forgot its exact name) but I would ask User:Cwmhiraeth to unprotect the article since I have already stated that I personally do not intend to revert any more edits by this user. I will simply provide additional sourcing, understanding that edit wars through reverts are a wrong way to approach activist users. Cristodelosgitanos ( talk) 18:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Again you are misconstruing my points. I have never once said Flamenco was purely Romani, In contrast I literally recognized it’s not a purely Romani dance. [34] Cristodelosgitanos is a single purpose account that has contributed to engage in disruptive editing, edit warring my good faith additions while I asked to reach a consensus and misusing WP:Stable. It is policy to boldly edit articles in good faith which is what I am doing. I have proven in the talk page the merits of all my sources and how they completely fit within WP:RS guidelines. This user has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me and just purely mocking me for my interest in Romani people as we can see in the talk discussion. They have also used an IP to make their reverts instead of their accounts which is also problematic and say they have been an editor since 2006 which leads to suspicions about abuse of multiple accounts. I have tried multiple times to reach consensus and have a civil conversation but this user has refused. All my sources are from peer reviewed well regarded academic sources from specialists in ethnomusicology, flamenco, and the Romani people. Cristodelosgitanos has not given any adequate reason as to why these sources shouldn’t be included in the article except that they are written by “hippies” which is far from the case. Also Holguin does support my stance here “The music, born of gypsies in the country’s southern regions, was embraced by foreigners long before it became a national symbol” [35]. This user has repeatedly cherry picked my sources and outright lied about my intentions. In addition he has also canvassed the entire Wikiproject:Spain with a clear POV violation [36] I ask that careful consideration be taken when looking at our conversation, I have proven that all my sources fit WP:RS guidelines while this user has refused to follow Wikipedia policy when it comes to content disputes and has now taken the matter here when I was trying to reach a consensus. TagaworShah ( talk) 19:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a copy of me proving that all my sources are reliable and not a fringe theory: “Bonnie C Wade was an esteemed professor of Ethnomusicology at some of the top universities in the United States, her work was published in the peer reviewed and very well respected Oxford University Press. The Encyclopedia Britannica, including it’s online version has an incredible reputation of fact-checking and reliability. They recruit editors who they recognize as specialists in the domain and have extensive peer review by the editors. Just like any Encyclopedia, it relies on the current academic consensus and it being updated fairly recently provides that this is the current academic consensus. Ninotchka Devorah Bennahum Ninotchka Devorah Bennahumis an associate professor of communication studies, performance studies, and theater at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University. This means she is in her tenure track and has a reputation to uphold which according to Wikipedia reliable sourcing guidelines makes her a reliable source. She has also been a professor at UC Santa Barbara. [37] She is a specialist on Flamenco co-authoring the book “Flamenco on the Global Stage: Historical, Critical and Theoretical Perspectives” [38] as well as writing the books “Antonia Mercé "La Argentina": Flamenco and the Spanish Avant-Garde.” and “Carmen, a Gypsy Geography” also about Flamenco and from the well respected Weseleyan University Press. Encyclopedia Britannica has recognized her as an expert in Flamenco so unless you have any evidence to dispute that, that’s what she is. Sandie Holguin is a European cultural and intellectual historian with a focus on modern Spain. Her research is supported by the US National Endowment of the Humanities. She agrees that the dance was birthed in the 18th-19th century by the Calé Roma mixing various Gitano and Non-Gitano traditions as my edits suggest. Her work Flamenco Nation, published in the peer reviewed and well regarded University of Wisconsin Press, was met with widespread critical praise. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] a Flamenco dancer and scholar wrote this about Holguin, “I did not have to read very far to find reassurance in the depth of not only her research, her mastery of primary and secondary sources, but also her understanding of Flamenco as a complex and multifaceted art form. [44] Now, Holguin does make clear that Flamenco is not a purely Romani dance, as does my edit, but she does recognize the part of the Calé Roma in birthing the dance by combining various cultural elements. [45] I would be happy to include her stance in an origins sections that “While Flamenco originates in the folkloric traditions of the Calé Roma, it incorporates aspects of various non-Roma Andalusian dances, as well as , dances from continental Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and, later, from African American dance forms.” I think that would be a proper compromise. I’m also willing to work with you to create a broader origins section here on the talk page. You seem to agree that Bernard Leblon is reliable so I’ll skip discussing him.” This is straight from the talk page, as you can see I explicitly said that Flamenco is not a purely Romani dance unlike what Cristodelosgitanos suggests. He has also never given any argument on why these sources shouldn’t be included except that they are from “hippie activists.” He insists that only his POV is fact and refuses to engage in meaningful middle ground conversation. TagaworShah ( talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (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.
Hi everyone I have an interesting article to create and I am not sure about the reference can I give
The Times Bulletin as an reference?
This is the the link
https://www.timesbulletin.com/
Is
The Times Bulletin a reliable source for nrws reference for an article?
Boti2481 (
talk) 01:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC
:I got some biography on an actor with his latest movie and soap opera with some additional information
Boti2481 (
talk) 01:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: this section was opened by a now-banned sockpuppet account. I've struck their comments above. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 06:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Greetings! Can you all weigh in on the reliability of this source > https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/ and whether it's should be deprecated or blacklisted? It is being used for articles related to Tigray war (claimed) massacres such as Adi Hageray massacre, Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The very few reliable sources are mentioned several times over on the list, seemingly to inflate the number of reliable source, even inflated it makes less than 10%(estimate) of the list.
The Tghat source is also used at Sheraro massacre, February 2021 Wukro massacre, Grizana massacre, Dansha massacre and potentially more articles, where they cite Tghat Relatives and Eyewitnesses which has no external sources beyond Tghat.
Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ethiopian Human Rights Comission is mentioned 24 times(same source 24 times) which is one pdf source published by Addis Standards (sic): the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has gained in indepedendence and resources since former political prisoner Daniel Bekele's nomination as its head. It unfortunately only publishes its reports, such as the Humera, Dansha and Bissober report, on a GAFAM-run etherpad instead of on its own website, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source - it only shows that the EHRC lacks basic internet skills and understanding. However, the fact that Addis Standard ("Standard", not "Standards"; a major Ethiopian English-language newspaper with a reputation for independence from the various federal governments that Ethiopia has had) hosts an identical copy of the pdf (same sha512sum) adds to the EHRC's credibility rather than weakens it. Tghat publishes its victim list on the same GAFAM-run etherpad; this again is unwise and violates both authors' and readers' privacy and security, but it does not make the general reporting itself unreliable. Boud ( talk) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
blog reported Ethiopian soldiers had killed 100 civilians at the same monastery on Jan 5. no credit given to Tghat by name and not corresponding with the date given by @ Rastakwere, but i stress, there's no doubt killings happend at Debre Abay since this is a video footage, and according to the article under investigation by EHRC.
The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. How should we consider its reliability?
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
propaganda and disinformationwould be appreciated. – robertsky ( talk) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Any evidence it had a poor reputation? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
very bad” in the Press Freedom Index.
supposedly privately-owned but the government appoints those who run it. As a result, self-censorship is widespread, including within the alternative independent media, which are intimidated by the judicial and economic pressure."
We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record, but limited by government censorship and the promotion of state propaganda."
Personally I did consider opening up a discussion at least on WT:SG on the general reliability of local sites individually (i.e. Strait Times, Newpaper, Mothership, The Online Citizen, The Independent, etc), but it isn't done yet as I have yet to do an analysis on the use of these sites on Wikipedia. (I just got back from an excursion at AfC. Many fires to put out here. xD) I am pretty sure that there are other sg based editors wanting to do a discussion as well but are busy/occupied with their own editing tempos. – robertsky ( talk) 05:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The truth is, given the rather heavy restrictions on speech and press freedom, there is no totally independent reliable news source. The Straits Times, Today and Channel NewsAsia however are quite reputable, and they can be generally trusted. The problem with most of the other so-called independent outlets, like Mothership, is that they are self-published and does not have the reputability compared to "official news sources". -- ZKang123 ( talk) 12:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Should Crunchbase News be treated differently than Crunchbase on the reliable sources noticeboard? Here's a link to an earlier discussion I tried to start without making it an RfC, and it had a limited response: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Crunchbase News And here's a link to the page describing the difference between Crunchbase and Crunchbase News, trying to show journalistic independence. [ [51]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
TechCrunch isn't a clear RS - it's yellow-rated, because it's boosterism that fails WP:ORGIND per previous discussions, linked from WP:RSP#TechCrunch. There's no reason to presume Crunchbase News should be treated as an in the clear NEWSORG, given its parent fails to clear the bar.
There's no discussion yet of the actual usages of Crunchbase News on Wikipedia. We have 82 usages of Crunchbase News. The content used is mostly barely-churned press releases (e.g., [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]) with a bit of the sort of "analysis" that's indistinguishable from boosterism (e.g., [58]). You'd have to be really stretching to consider this in any way comparable to independent third-party journalism on the companies.
Even if we declare that the "news" site isn't technically deprecated, it's the sort of stuff that's at best a slightly worse version of the primary sources it's based on. Unusable for notability - it's precisely the sort of promotional boosterism that leads to funding rounds having been considered not usable for notability or WP:CORPDEPTH - and barely usable for facts.
I should note also: going through the Crunchbase backlog, a disproportionate number of these articles are just corporate spam, or barely above that. I keep hitting things warranting PRODs and speedies, orphans created by an SPA and not substantively edited in the several years since their creation, undisclosed paid editing, etc. I keep having to apply {{ advert}} and/or {{ puffery}} tags. Even in non-spam articles, Crunchbase or Crunchbase News adds information primarily of interest to the company's boardroom.
As far as Wikipedia goes, Crunchbase is in practice a trashy source largely used for puffery, and looking for Crunchbase links is a good way to track down promotional editing - David Gerard ( talk) 08:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Should Crunchbase News be treated differently than Crunchbase on the reliable sources noticeboard?), clearly yes. Which level of reliability Crunchbase News has, I have no idea, but it does not fall under WP:UGC. MarioGom ( talk) 10:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Over at Location hypotheses of Atlantisthere are a number of sources is used for a number of claims, the source is Atlantide è il blocco continentale Sardo-Corso sommerso durante i Meltwater Pulse and (by the same author Luigi Usai,) La mappa di Atlantide. Quartucciu, Sardinia (as well as an attempt to use another of his books. They may be (as both the first one and the one I have now removed are "Independently Published" ([ [61]]) SPS. So are these works in fact RS for any claim about Atlantis being Sabrina? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
What makes these sources unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Can there be an edit made to the 2019 Pentagon Videos section under the Pentagon UFO article which adds the words: "the object flickered on their screen" before "before it eased into the water"? Because that's what it seems to do when you look at the video towards the end. 106.215.127.75 ( talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
Snopes is considered a reliable source now. Recently it turned out that their owner published dozens of plagiarised stories on the website [62]. To their credit, they admitted it and suspended him. Having said that, the articles themselves are still there (they plan to add notices to them) and in general this puts their editorial oversight in doubt. I suggest to move them to "No consensus" for now and add a note that some of the articles have been plagiarised. If/when they clean up this mess and we see that they are still cited by other reliable sources they can be moved back to reliable. Alaexis ¿question? 14:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
"In other emails from around the same time (2014-2015), Mikkelson described his vision for the site’s future 'as a platform for traffic-generating junk that people would complain about if it were on ‘classic’ snopes,' including articles copied from 'viral item of the day' sites.'"On the other hand, comments from former employees show a strong sense of ethics on the editorial team, which gives me hope that they'll be able to correct the problems caused by one "bad apple" of a founder. Once the dust settles around the plagiarism issue, I think it would make sense to reassess Snopes' reliability to see if their recent work upholds the same standard of accuracy that they were known for. Since fact-checking has become more mainstream we can probably source a lot of things to major outlets such as CNN instead of Snopes. – dlthewave ☎ 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_inclusion_of_Sigurdur_Thordarson_claims. A major source is Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment. A person said "I don't see any discussion as to whether Stundin is or is not (generally reliable)" Should Stundin be considered a reliable source in general or for this? Thanks. NadVolum ( talk) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The issue is not (for me) can it be used for a claim, the issue is can it be used to A, say this claim is a fact as in "On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported that a key witness in the United States’ case against Assange had admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment". And, B, does it (alone) carry enough weight to pass wp:undue and wp:not news? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The Washington Post consider it a reliable source; they have done secondary reporting on Stundin content, as has UK current affairs publication Private Eye。 Cambial foliage❧ 09:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Well you can see the problem at the RfC and why I raised about being a reliable source here. The Washington Post is the only major media source which covered it. There are lots of other reliable sources but they are not major media sources. The current text quotes Stundin as saying he is key and also the Wshington Post saying it disagrees. The other sources are being dismissed as not giving any weight for inclusion and the whole paragraph has an RfC saying it should all be completely deleted. As to the actual facts there's Thordarson's own words in the Icelandic version and many of them are corroborated by an ex Icelandic Interior Minister in tanscript of YouTube interview on CN-news - but that's not a major media source. The lack of coverage in major media has been noted in for instance FAIR - Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage. If the major media sources don't cover something but many others do is it then undue to include it? NadVolum ( talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
NadVolum, from what you have said above, your view seems to be that corporate media are not inherently reliable to assess WP:DUE on this issue. This is an interesting argument, however, it is not the view of Wikipedia. Size of circulation is absolutely one of the criteria we use to assess reliability of news organizations. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSVETTING.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Stundin seems to be a reasonable WP:NEWSORG, and the attempts to keep it out seem querulous. No reason not to use it; put an attribution on if necessary - David Gerard ( talk) 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No reasons whatsoever have been provided to doubt its reliability. Alaexis ¿question? 06:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Don't know if this is the right place to put this. I'm interested in a couple of sentences from a previous version of the article, "Soul patch," on Wikipedia. Here is the version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soul_patch&direction=prev&oldid=1040092104. One sentence of interest reads, "Jazz flute players who disliked the feel of the flute mouthpiece on a freshly shaven lower lip often sported the look." This sentence does not have a citation supporting it. The next sentence reads, "On the other hand, jazz trumpeters preferred the goatee for the comfort it provided when using a trumpet mouthpiece." This sentence does have a supporting citation.
I am wondering if the sentence about flute players is sufficiently supported by the sentence about trumpet players, i.e., if trumpet players got comfort from facial hair, is it reasonable to think that jazz flute players would have gotten comfort from a soul patch even if the particular statement about jazz flute players is not supported with a citation, and hence leave the statement about jazz flute players in the article? I have looked for articles that support the statement about jazz flute players and can't find any. Thanks for feedback Greg Dahlen ( talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
not delete it, but that can't stop others from doing so. As always, if you want something to stick on Wikipedia, a source is the best pushpin --
Green
C 03:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)This site is used in a number of articles. [70]. If you look at this subpage [71] it appears to be a hate site, and IMHO should be both deprecated and blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I glanced at the sites using it as a source and the first one I looked at, Muhammad in Islam, also uses Answering-Christianity.com which also looks terrible. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC) I also found and deleted one citation of answering-Islam.com. I presume these sites are all related. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with deprecating the whole bunch. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
In the course of clearing out, I've come across a few that looked like probable good faith, so I wonder if the domain registration lapsed and has been recycled? I certainly found a site (muslim-canada.org) mentioned in the same sentence that goes to some football page. Not that it really matters, we can't let non-RS links stand. (btw, they hadn't all gone, {{ duses}} has just turned up a bunch more. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Clearfrienda questioned the reliability of Social Blade, which is used to update almost every Internet personality's subscriber, follower, and view stats; some major examples of articles using Social Blade are Cr1TiKaL, TommyInnit, and That Vegan Teacher (the origin of the discussion). Pokimane also uses Social Blade, just not in the infobox. L33tm4n ( talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I've come here to ask advice in a quite complicated case.
To say it in layman's terms:
This is about some rocks that are 91+ millions of years old.
There is a single mining company that exploits and sells the deposit.
For some reason they have repeatedly claimed that their product is purely mineral and has a purely mineral origin.
The contention is about the last part: purely mineral origin
Some employees have published expertises, studies and articles propagating the purely mineral origin claim,(see article) a few apparently independent authors have repeated those claims, citing the company's pulications. (Lüttig, 2007; Römpp, 2015)
The recent, independent, scientific sources we used in creating the article all unanimously state and emphasize the biogenic origin for which this geological formation is special and known.
To illustrate how far the contention and confusion goes in this case, you may for example look at this source: Groteklaes, Michael (ed.). "Kieselerde, RD-11-01037". RömppOnline. Retrieved 2 January 2015. This German geology glossary first gives a definition of Kieselerde ( diatomaceous earth) as being generally of a biogenic origin, but then has an extra paragraph for making an exception only for the deposit at hand, claiming it has purely mineral origins. They cite the company's website (with a date of 2005) for this statement.
On the talk page of
Wellheim Formation I have proposed a sub-section that clearly states this contention and puts it in relation to independent mainstream research.
In other words: The company's claims about a purely mineral origin have no serious scientific support.
I have little experience in these matters and this case appears special to me.
What do you think would be a proper approach that is least misleading to the interested reader?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk •
contribs) 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a complicated matter for me, as I am not a studied geologist. One our studied geologist supporters already explained to me on the talk page what the full picture is. I didn't want to mislead you, I'd just forgotten the following:
The origin of these rocks is mixed. Over millions of years there were several additions of new biogenic material (dead animals and plants) which were then mineralized over time. So it is more correct so say:
The origin of these rocks is of a mixed biogenic and mineral nature. Just wanted to be complete, here. Insisting on a purely mineral origin is still misleading in this case, in my opinion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk •
contribs) 22:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I added two unsigned templates for my own posts. -- ΟΥΤΙΣ ( talk) 22:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a short addition:
I do not want to embarass the producing company, but I also do not want to mislead our readers. Do you think it would be okay to include a disclaiming note (perhaps within a footnote) that clarifies the sources situation, as explained above? --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk) 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I have an aversion to any websites that claim to know an individual's net worth, so when I saw https://biographypedia.org/who-is-helene-joy-biography-husband-net-worth-family/ added as a reference of a subject's age to the article on actor Hélène Joy by АРК9367 ( talk · contribs), I was suspicious. The article has an author, Benjy P., but then it seems that all of the site's content is from that author. There is no statement to indicate if there is editorial oversight. There is no board and it seems no way to correct any errors that may be in the articles they publish. Most concerning, there is no indication how the information is gleaned. Can the source be used for BLPs? It is currently only being used in one article: the one I saw it used in. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Firstly we recently had a deletion discussion for CirKis that ended with no consensus. Probably the key point was that NemesisAT found two foreign language sources that may help to prove the notability of the game: xgn.nl and reich-der-spiele.de. If we cannot establish notability, then I or Piotrus will probably re-raise the AfD.
The second issue relates to the newly created page Evolution (board game). Notability is not in doubt because we have sources from Ars Technica, The Guardian, The San Francisco Chronicle and the science journals Nature and Evolution. None of these were adequate to source a description of how the game is played. So I used some posts from the Opinionated Gamers site which I found very helpful for describing game play and some of the background history. ICv2 provided a bit more about the history, but quite frankly I am not sure how reliable they are because they seem to be just rehashing press releases to me. I believe Opinionated Gamers is probably pretty reliable, but as it is essentially a collective of blogs (and I think received free copies) I would not trust it with regards with regards to notability. To keep things simple in the telling, I have mixed up the order in which sources were applied and not mentioned some, but the key question is that our use of Opinionated Gamers was challenged in the new page review process, and I would like a second opinion on that.
More generally we are trying to systemize our evaluation of the reliability of sources, which is a particular project of Blue Pumpkin Pie. Slimy asparagus ( talk) 19:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Both AllSides and Ad Fontes Media have been discussed before, although Ad Fontes Media ended up being listed as unreliable at WP:RSP while Allsides was largely ignored. I would like to revisit this.
So they seem similar on the surface. Ad Fontes Media's chart is more granular and also provides an evaluation of reliability as well as bias. AllSides just groups sources into 5 categories (left, leaning left, center, leaning right, and right) without making any judgment about reliability. In my view, it isn't granular enough, because sources like CNN and NYT get grouped in the far left column along with Mother Jones, and National Review ends up being grouped in the far right column along with Brietbart News. That just seems weird.
The problem I see is that both sites use volunteer responses as inputs.
So, if our consensus has been that Ad Fontes Media is unreliable, should that consensus extend to Allsides? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, please see [75] (Source consensus section) Thank you. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please note - Erin Vaxx is a brand new account, they removed my note with an edit summary "Wrong, place it on yourself"
, so I’m posting the diff here -->
[76] -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 06:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not export content/conduct dispute to RSN. It isn't going to help anyone. As for the specific source in question (the tour guide). The publisher seems to specialise in the Carpathian-related topics and I'd take their word for recognition in the field of Carpathian tour guides, but his contribution to the topic in peer-reviewed publications in history of Galicia or Volhynia is close to none, or none, and, according to the short biogram on Polish Wikipedia, he's a biologist and only after that a historian. That said, I have found praise of his works from a historian at least of one of his other series of books. From the ArbCom ruling, a high-quality source is such that belongs to either of the three categories: "an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution". Theoretically, it's closer to the second, but I can't really say it's academically focused. However, the fact his books are quite well cited in scientific publications, and that endorsement makes me think that it just hovers on the threshold of high-quality and marginally reliable for the purposes of the sourcing requirements. In that case, use with care, possibly attribute. Btw, if you are looking for some more sources, here are some in Ukrainian: [78] [79] [80] and in Polish: [81], [82] - should be treated similarly to Rąkowski
On the 26 of July 1944, during the Operation Burza, his troops stopped the attack of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS near the town of SiemianówkaONLY - The rest has been entered by someone else and remains unsourced. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:07, 29 August 2021 (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.
The New Zealand Herald is a daily newspaper based in Auckland and the largest newspaper in New Zealand. How should we consider its reliability?
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Any evidence it had a poor reputation? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (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.
I'm scrolling through the source "ratings" and it is quite clear that these are all heavily biased towards liberal/left leaning political views. The new york times is considered "reliable", yet they published numerous fake stories, colluded with the NSA to hide spying on american citizens etc. Then we look at right wing sources and see the opposite, complete distrust simply based on them being conservative.
If wikipedia is supposed to be objective, this is a red flag on how biased the editors here are. There needs to be a balanced/centrist view that looks at both sides of an issue, not pushes a one sided view point with stigmatization of the opposing one. Since former Wiki founder and others have discussed the bias at wiki, this would be a great place to start fixing things by rating this list with a far more balanced viewpoint. Asailum ( talk) 11:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The new york times is considered "reliable", yet they published numerous fake stories, colluded with the NSA to hide spying on american citizens etc. Then we look at right wing sources and see the opposite, complete distrust simply based on them being conservative.Three observations on that: the choice not to publish a story does not mean that the source becomes unreliable; the list of "fake stories" w/o corrections issued afterwards is wanted here; the list of "right wing sources" that do "the opposite" of the behaviour you believe to be incompatible with RS is also requested from you. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You question really should be why is that so many right wing sources are unreliable? And then hold them accountable for being unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Becuase on average those who edit Wikipedia are more likely lean to the left. Therefore, whether aware or unaware (of said implict bias), they more likely vote left leaning sources as reliable and right leaning sources and unreliable. Just have a look at the difference between the Pinknews and Fox News RfCs. But then there is the fact the many right leaning sources are geniunely unreliable as well. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 16:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 345 | ← | Archive 348 | Archive 349 | Archive 350 | Archive 351 | Archive 352 | → | Archive 355 |
I am not sure if Garden.org is reliable because they have an edit link above the info. SVcode( Talk) 01:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
is the website considered as a reliable source here? a good part of their articles seem to be from outdated sources. 176.54.42.186 ( talk) 16:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I know it doesn't exist, but I want Wikipedia to create NDTV as a reliable source here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. -- 2409:4061:2D46:D1C1:2968:8E8B:BE20:71BF ( talk) 14:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
With the ascendancy of Narendra Modi to the premiership of India, advertisers with NDTV began to be pressurised to disassociate with the company and an array of litigations were initiated against the company.[68] The government pressure against the news broadcaster was seen as part of a wider pattern of attacks on media freedom in the country.[68][69][70]The sources are NYT, Al Jazeera English, and Deutsche Welle, so that gives a reasonable spectrum of generally accepted RS. Of course, "mainstream" media doesn't necessarily mean "reliable". The issue of whether any source is reliable should ideally come from the peer-reviewed literature. A fallback is consensus among Wikipedians' opinions. If there's no dispute on a source, I don't see a need to give it an entry in the perennial sources table. There's no need to overburden an already imperfect process. Boud ( talk) 21:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
You Live Where? - Interesting and Unusual Facts about where We Live from self-publishing house iUniverse appears in about 150 articles as a source for "(placename) has been noted for its unusual place name" with a link to a raw multi-page list of names. This is clearly an unacceptable source, but I wanted to get some input from others before doing a mass removal. – dlthewave ☎ 19:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The El Greco article has a photo of a chapel in Fodele with the caption:
with two footnotes referring to meetcrete.com.
There are several problems here (already mentioned in Talk):
Thanks, -- Macrakis ( talk) 20:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
unduly self-serving, meaning we can't cite it to them at all. -- Aquillion ( talk) 00:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone. In this edit I've added a Norwegian government report. It's a report by the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety in response to a research assignment by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority. That's pretty typical government business for those two bodies. However it was published in a Sciencedomains journal, which is apparently on Beall's list. Thoughts? Invasive Spices ( talk) 21:41, 13 August 2021 (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.
I know Wikipedians consider Nytimes as a reliable source.
But for some time they are coming in support of terrorists, so it should not be used as a neutral source in Asia related articles, where they show bias for Islamists.
I am not saying that, all NYtimes sources should be removed.
Some editors will say, there is freedom of media in USA. Freedom doesn't mean that NYtimes will support terrorists and criminals. 2409:4061:2E8E:11B3:980B:14BE:5C6A:CD3C ( talk) 05:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts: 1) the NY Post has a known history of sensationalizing minor events and making a large fuss over trivial things; likely just a social media oddity. 2) opinion piece, shouldn't be treated as RS, so long as they aren't publishing this regularly I don't think its a bad sign 3) legitimate journalism 4) standard practice for most US businesses that don't work around children or high-risk materials. Hog Farm Talk 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Take a look: "The Myth of Haredi Moral Authority Haredi Judaism isn't our forefathers' religion, but a radical and dangerous new cult.". Link: https://www.haaretz.com/shahar-ilan-judaism-s-extreme-makeover-1.5266176 This fringe view does not belong on Wikipedia. How much sense is this making? Pinging Debresser IZAK 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 17:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Guess I must be a radical left-wing ultra-secular consumer of junk journalism (scratches head). Haaretz is RS, last time I looked. I would treat that article as an opinion piece by the VP for Hiddush, For Religious Freedom and Equality, whatever that is. Selfstudier ( talk) 18:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
stupid, ignorant and obviously either an antisemite or a self hating Jew guilty of a blood libel. The last three in particular are unambiguously BLP-sensitive accusations; I suggest you strike or redact your comment. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Its leftwingyness is not a reason to say its unreliable (and is a good reason to reject any argument based on such reasoning, as to whether or not it is an opp-edd. It does not seem to be lable as one, so usable with attribution I think. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment Haaretz is a reliable source, but given this is an opinion piece it should reflect that. However I feel calling them a dangerous cult to be somewhat fringe. They are vert strict religiously, but that does not make a cult. Futhemore they are an assortment of groups that hold numerous different views just look at Neturei Karta compared to Shas. 3Kingdoms ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
free countries. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
the prohibition of everything new, is newand
who would make such a prohibition? someone who feels threatened by something new. The gist: this is the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, replayed by fundamentalist Jews against secular Jews, here at Wikipedia as WP:BATTLEGROUND. tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
If you ask me, when a cult becomes large in number of believers and in time (history), it gets called a religion. So: cults are small, religions are large, that's the only difference. tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@ 155.246.151.38: this series of posts [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] would appear to violate our behavioral guidelines around on campaigning and votestacking. I take it that you were not aware of the existence of our Wikipedia:Canvassing restrictions? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Also come on... "Contacting journalists and reporters will be very helpful because sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to wikicrats who like to hide behind what they claim to be policy.” is going to get you blocked in two seconds flat... You can’t be encouraging people to take off wiki action to further a policy dispute you’re involved with. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
This is dangerous and if not stopped now, all of Judaism will be under attack!And the source of all this antisemitic propaganda is claimed to be a Jewish newspaper. See above about WP:BATTLEGROUND. The IP seems to believe that the worst enemies of Jews are Jews. Take a look at [14]. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
As does this [ [15]], which pings a lot of users, and can be seen as a call to arms with comments like (in this post [ [16]]). Slatersteven ( talk) 09:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Note the IP is also a sock. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
As I've noted elsewhere recently ( diff), and perhaps this bears repeating, Wikipedia considers Haaretz to be Israel's Paper of record (for some reason). That it often indulges in SJW excesses (and snobby paywall'ing) is to its discredit, I'd argue, but that's just my opinion. El_C 14:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think most people[outside of Israel]
consider Haaretz to be a paper of record. Fixed! El_C 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Popel keep on saying this is an Op-edd, its not marked as an opp-edd. This is the opinion section https://www.haaretz.com/opinion, and it does not seem to be there. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
What Haaretz published does not have to be gospel truth, but secular Jews are allowed to criticize fundamentalist Jews. All this fuss is about an aggressive campaign saying that secular Jews who criticize fundamentalist Jews are self-hating Jews. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Jewish fundamentalism in Israel. Britannica says Haredi are fundamentalists. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
List of WP:RS:
organised Haredi Judaism is in fact a relatively new phenomenon in Jewish history.
WP:CITED by tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
After days of discussion, still have not gotten a clear answer. Have been hearing all sorts of wiki disputes about opinion or not opinion. Is it Haaretz or not. This user wants a clear answer. Is this particular article reliable or not? 155.246.151.38 ( talk) 00:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
However, secular critics describe the Haredim as radical fundamentalists.So, it is not even presented as objective fact. It's not in the voice of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
radicalmean? It means they want to have stringent rules and an austere morality. It's a free country, so they are free to do so.
fundamentalistmean? It is about who's the boss:
This is not a soapbox, we are discussing this source, not users or any religious sects. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:26, 14 August 2021 (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.
Why is it that pagesix.com is a reliable source for Kim Kardashian's sex tape, while Newsweek isn't a reliable enough for Hunter Biden's butt-naked pillow talk with a hooker? In this pillow talk with said hooker Hunter recounts "crazy f***ing sex" with other hookers, and mentions another laptop he lost earlier, possibly stolen by Russians to blackmail him. According to some editors, this video and all other laptop related material should be considered "conspiracy theory" because the 2020 Biden campaign said so - even though Hunter is quoted in CNN as saying the laptop this video was pulled from probably his [18], and even though Politico says the US government has delayed actions in investigating the case for the sake of not messing up the 2020 elections [19]. CutePeach ( talk) 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I just reverted the addition to one article, Sinhalese people, of a footnote sourced to The Joshua Project's website. I ran a link search, [20], and found hundreds of other footnotes linked to this site.
This source has been discussed here before: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. The first of these discussionhs followed the removal by an editor of numerous links to the source. It seems to me the consensus was that the data on that site isn't reliable. A mix of opinions can be found in other discussions.
As far as I could discern from my skimming, though, none of these sources mentioned the six disclaimers at the bottom of the source's own pages:
1. Joshua Project data is drawn from many sources and of varying accuracy depending on source and editorial decisions. Populations are scaled to the current year. Other data may have varying ages. We welcome suggested updates.
2. A displayed zero can mean true zero, a very small rounded number or sometimes unknown. Blanks mean an unknown value.
3. The data is sometimes not as precise as it appears. Values for %Christian Adherent and %Evangelical (which determine unreached status) are often informed estimates, some more accurate than others. We recommend against using %Christian Adherent and %Evangelical to calculate absolute numbers.
4. Joshua Project makes every effort to ensure that the subject in an image is in fact from the specific people group. In rare instances a representative photo may be used.
5. Joshua Project may be able to provide more information than what is published on this site. Please contact us.
6. On-the-ground reality may vary from what is presented here. Before making travel plans based on data presented here, please confirm with other sources to the extent possible.
I'm reading this as a virtual acknowledgement by the organization itself that the site doesn't rise to the level of a reliable source for our purposes.
What do you all think of this source in light of these disclaimers? Is this sufficient justification to remove all these footnotes? Largoplazo ( talk) 11:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This website seems to primarily be a press release aggregator. They have a news section and employ journalists, but I'm not sure if their content is editorially independent. What type of reliability does this source have?
The specific article in question from this source is this, to be used for Dick's Sporting Goods. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 15:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I’ve been researching Indian institutions in the past couple of weeks for a personal project. I noticed that Moneylife has been used as a reference on Indian-related pages and came here to check its credibility. I first spotted it on the National Stock Exchange of India. After that, I found it on a few other pages, as seen below.
University of Mumbai List of chairmen of the State Bank of India
There doesn’t seem to be anything controversial about the coverage that I’ve found so far, but I’m a bit unsure about its editorial standards and therefore accuracy. Should its use as a reference be discouraged or is it okay to use? FelixFLB ( talk) 12:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment - To expand on my initial post, Moneylife and Sucheta Dalal made allegations about National Stock Exchange of India in 2015, which can viewed on Wikipedia here. It led to a defamation lawsuit by NSE against the publication shortly afterward. Moneylife then set up a dedicated topic on its website here where it lists various articles about the stock exchange and even has the topic in its navigation bar (seems highly unethical?). The majority of the articles in the topic/section are titled "scam" or "illegal." FelixFLB ( talk) 15:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The actual reliability of a source is it's expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. IMO any overall generalization about any source is faulty. Such should be eliminated and certainly not expanded. North8000 ( talk) 23:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I am coming here to raise concern over the aggressive POV being pushed in the article Flamenco by TagaworShah that Flamenco is at its origin Romani music and only Romani music.
The origins of Flamenco have been studied in great detail by numerous academics in what is known as the field of Flamencology which involves a number of historiographical currents. Although there are a number of theories on possible roots of the musical genre (which encompasses a range of sub-genres known as palos and none of which are mutually exclusive) the general academic consensus is that its roots are syncretic and unique to Andalusia's history with influence from the Byzantine period, medieval Islamic period, Jewish, Berber and sub-saharan African, gitano/romani together with various modern influences specific to their time (reorientalizing casticismo etc).
Flamencologists such as Manuel Bohórquez [26] are categorical in stating that Flamenco does not originate in the Romani people and others such as Austrian Flamencologist (perhaps one of the most renown professors of flamencology) agree with this in their academic studies on the origins of Flamenco which he traces to the Byzantine period, roughly 8 centuries before Romanis started migrating to Spain. [27] I could go on but since there are many such specialist professors in the in the field of flamencology and this is a rather mainstream view. Among these its worth mentioning Hipolito Rossy - perhaps the father of modern flamencology who explains how the roots of flamenco lie in the fusion of christian/Mozarabic, Jewish, Muslim and Romani musical traditions in the lower Andalusia. [28]
The point is that, since the 28th of June when TagaworShah (an editor also interested in Romani activism and seemingly unacquainted with Spanish, Andalusian or Gitano culture) first completely rewrote the stable version of the article without seeking consensus, leveraging dubious sources coming from obscure Romani activists such as Ronald Lee, Ian Hancock and dance teachers in Mid-west US universities (typically Americans interested in Romanticism associated to Gypsies such as this person [29]) to aggressively pursue the line that actually all flamencologists are wrong and that Flamenco is, in fact, a Romani art form and it originates with the Romani people, pushing this in the lead of the article. [30] [31] Almost surreally, he claims that anyone who works with Spanish public universities are inherently biased and they are less credible than his artsy non-specialist activist sources - please read his justification carefully here: [32] This tactic of using the ignorance (for lack of a better word) of non-specialist, activist or enthusiasts to trump peer-reviewed studies in order to aggressively push fringe views is common enough on wikipedia and I am wondering how to deal with it and whether there is any policy to deal with it. I reitirate none of the sources (except Leblon and Holguin) provided by Tagawor are reputable academics in the field of Flamencology nor does he provide any citation from any study to support his claims. Interestingly one of the few reliable sources he claims to rely on (Holguin) does not support the POV he is pushing as shown here: [33], i.e. he is systematically misportraying the statments of the few reliable sources he can get his hands on and flooding the article with sources that do not meet WP:RS.
I understand the policy of "wrong version" (I forgot its exact name) but I would ask User:Cwmhiraeth to unprotect the article since I have already stated that I personally do not intend to revert any more edits by this user. I will simply provide additional sourcing, understanding that edit wars through reverts are a wrong way to approach activist users. Cristodelosgitanos ( talk) 18:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Again you are misconstruing my points. I have never once said Flamenco was purely Romani, In contrast I literally recognized it’s not a purely Romani dance. [34] Cristodelosgitanos is a single purpose account that has contributed to engage in disruptive editing, edit warring my good faith additions while I asked to reach a consensus and misusing WP:Stable. It is policy to boldly edit articles in good faith which is what I am doing. I have proven in the talk page the merits of all my sources and how they completely fit within WP:RS guidelines. This user has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me and just purely mocking me for my interest in Romani people as we can see in the talk discussion. They have also used an IP to make their reverts instead of their accounts which is also problematic and say they have been an editor since 2006 which leads to suspicions about abuse of multiple accounts. I have tried multiple times to reach consensus and have a civil conversation but this user has refused. All my sources are from peer reviewed well regarded academic sources from specialists in ethnomusicology, flamenco, and the Romani people. Cristodelosgitanos has not given any adequate reason as to why these sources shouldn’t be included in the article except that they are written by “hippies” which is far from the case. Also Holguin does support my stance here “The music, born of gypsies in the country’s southern regions, was embraced by foreigners long before it became a national symbol” [35]. This user has repeatedly cherry picked my sources and outright lied about my intentions. In addition he has also canvassed the entire Wikiproject:Spain with a clear POV violation [36] I ask that careful consideration be taken when looking at our conversation, I have proven that all my sources fit WP:RS guidelines while this user has refused to follow Wikipedia policy when it comes to content disputes and has now taken the matter here when I was trying to reach a consensus. TagaworShah ( talk) 19:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Here is a copy of me proving that all my sources are reliable and not a fringe theory: “Bonnie C Wade was an esteemed professor of Ethnomusicology at some of the top universities in the United States, her work was published in the peer reviewed and very well respected Oxford University Press. The Encyclopedia Britannica, including it’s online version has an incredible reputation of fact-checking and reliability. They recruit editors who they recognize as specialists in the domain and have extensive peer review by the editors. Just like any Encyclopedia, it relies on the current academic consensus and it being updated fairly recently provides that this is the current academic consensus. Ninotchka Devorah Bennahum Ninotchka Devorah Bennahumis an associate professor of communication studies, performance studies, and theater at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University. This means she is in her tenure track and has a reputation to uphold which according to Wikipedia reliable sourcing guidelines makes her a reliable source. She has also been a professor at UC Santa Barbara. [37] She is a specialist on Flamenco co-authoring the book “Flamenco on the Global Stage: Historical, Critical and Theoretical Perspectives” [38] as well as writing the books “Antonia Mercé "La Argentina": Flamenco and the Spanish Avant-Garde.” and “Carmen, a Gypsy Geography” also about Flamenco and from the well respected Weseleyan University Press. Encyclopedia Britannica has recognized her as an expert in Flamenco so unless you have any evidence to dispute that, that’s what she is. Sandie Holguin is a European cultural and intellectual historian with a focus on modern Spain. Her research is supported by the US National Endowment of the Humanities. She agrees that the dance was birthed in the 18th-19th century by the Calé Roma mixing various Gitano and Non-Gitano traditions as my edits suggest. Her work Flamenco Nation, published in the peer reviewed and well regarded University of Wisconsin Press, was met with widespread critical praise. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] a Flamenco dancer and scholar wrote this about Holguin, “I did not have to read very far to find reassurance in the depth of not only her research, her mastery of primary and secondary sources, but also her understanding of Flamenco as a complex and multifaceted art form. [44] Now, Holguin does make clear that Flamenco is not a purely Romani dance, as does my edit, but she does recognize the part of the Calé Roma in birthing the dance by combining various cultural elements. [45] I would be happy to include her stance in an origins sections that “While Flamenco originates in the folkloric traditions of the Calé Roma, it incorporates aspects of various non-Roma Andalusian dances, as well as , dances from continental Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean and, later, from African American dance forms.” I think that would be a proper compromise. I’m also willing to work with you to create a broader origins section here on the talk page. You seem to agree that Bernard Leblon is reliable so I’ll skip discussing him.” This is straight from the talk page, as you can see I explicitly said that Flamenco is not a purely Romani dance unlike what Cristodelosgitanos suggests. He has also never given any argument on why these sources shouldn’t be included except that they are from “hippie activists.” He insists that only his POV is fact and refuses to engage in meaningful middle ground conversation. TagaworShah ( talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (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.
Hi everyone I have an interesting article to create and I am not sure about the reference can I give
The Times Bulletin as an reference?
This is the the link
https://www.timesbulletin.com/
Is
The Times Bulletin a reliable source for nrws reference for an article?
Boti2481 (
talk) 01:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC
:I got some biography on an actor with his latest movie and soap opera with some additional information
Boti2481 (
talk) 01:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Note: this section was opened by a now-banned sockpuppet account. I've struck their comments above. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 06:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Greetings! Can you all weigh in on the reliability of this source > https://www.tghat.com/victim-list/ and whether it's should be deprecated or blacklisted? It is being used for articles related to Tigray war (claimed) massacres such as Adi Hageray massacre, Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The very few reliable sources are mentioned several times over on the list, seemingly to inflate the number of reliable source, even inflated it makes less than 10%(estimate) of the list.
The Tghat source is also used at Sheraro massacre, February 2021 Wukro massacre, Grizana massacre, Dansha massacre and potentially more articles, where they cite Tghat Relatives and Eyewitnesses which has no external sources beyond Tghat.
Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 05:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Ethiopian Human Rights Comission is mentioned 24 times(same source 24 times) which is one pdf source published by Addis Standards (sic): the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has gained in indepedendence and resources since former political prisoner Daniel Bekele's nomination as its head. It unfortunately only publishes its reports, such as the Humera, Dansha and Bissober report, on a GAFAM-run etherpad instead of on its own website, but that doesn't make it an unreliable source - it only shows that the EHRC lacks basic internet skills and understanding. However, the fact that Addis Standard ("Standard", not "Standards"; a major Ethiopian English-language newspaper with a reputation for independence from the various federal governments that Ethiopia has had) hosts an identical copy of the pdf (same sha512sum) adds to the EHRC's credibility rather than weakens it. Tghat publishes its victim list on the same GAFAM-run etherpad; this again is unwise and violates both authors' and readers' privacy and security, but it does not make the general reporting itself unreliable. Boud ( talk) 16:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
blog reported Ethiopian soldiers had killed 100 civilians at the same monastery on Jan 5. no credit given to Tghat by name and not corresponding with the date given by @ Rastakwere, but i stress, there's no doubt killings happend at Debre Abay since this is a video footage, and according to the article under investigation by EHRC.
The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. How should we consider its reliability?
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
propaganda and disinformationwould be appreciated. – robertsky ( talk) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Any evidence it had a poor reputation? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
very bad” in the Press Freedom Index.
supposedly privately-owned but the government appoints those who run it. As a result, self-censorship is widespread, including within the alternative independent media, which are intimidated by the judicial and economic pressure."
We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record, but limited by government censorship and the promotion of state propaganda."
Personally I did consider opening up a discussion at least on WT:SG on the general reliability of local sites individually (i.e. Strait Times, Newpaper, Mothership, The Online Citizen, The Independent, etc), but it isn't done yet as I have yet to do an analysis on the use of these sites on Wikipedia. (I just got back from an excursion at AfC. Many fires to put out here. xD) I am pretty sure that there are other sg based editors wanting to do a discussion as well but are busy/occupied with their own editing tempos. – robertsky ( talk) 05:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The truth is, given the rather heavy restrictions on speech and press freedom, there is no totally independent reliable news source. The Straits Times, Today and Channel NewsAsia however are quite reputable, and they can be generally trusted. The problem with most of the other so-called independent outlets, like Mothership, is that they are self-published and does not have the reputability compared to "official news sources". -- ZKang123 ( talk) 12:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Should Crunchbase News be treated differently than Crunchbase on the reliable sources noticeboard? Here's a link to an earlier discussion I tried to start without making it an RfC, and it had a limited response: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Crunchbase News And here's a link to the page describing the difference between Crunchbase and Crunchbase News, trying to show journalistic independence. [ [51]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
TechCrunch isn't a clear RS - it's yellow-rated, because it's boosterism that fails WP:ORGIND per previous discussions, linked from WP:RSP#TechCrunch. There's no reason to presume Crunchbase News should be treated as an in the clear NEWSORG, given its parent fails to clear the bar.
There's no discussion yet of the actual usages of Crunchbase News on Wikipedia. We have 82 usages of Crunchbase News. The content used is mostly barely-churned press releases (e.g., [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]) with a bit of the sort of "analysis" that's indistinguishable from boosterism (e.g., [58]). You'd have to be really stretching to consider this in any way comparable to independent third-party journalism on the companies.
Even if we declare that the "news" site isn't technically deprecated, it's the sort of stuff that's at best a slightly worse version of the primary sources it's based on. Unusable for notability - it's precisely the sort of promotional boosterism that leads to funding rounds having been considered not usable for notability or WP:CORPDEPTH - and barely usable for facts.
I should note also: going through the Crunchbase backlog, a disproportionate number of these articles are just corporate spam, or barely above that. I keep hitting things warranting PRODs and speedies, orphans created by an SPA and not substantively edited in the several years since their creation, undisclosed paid editing, etc. I keep having to apply {{ advert}} and/or {{ puffery}} tags. Even in non-spam articles, Crunchbase or Crunchbase News adds information primarily of interest to the company's boardroom.
As far as Wikipedia goes, Crunchbase is in practice a trashy source largely used for puffery, and looking for Crunchbase links is a good way to track down promotional editing - David Gerard ( talk) 08:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Should Crunchbase News be treated differently than Crunchbase on the reliable sources noticeboard?), clearly yes. Which level of reliability Crunchbase News has, I have no idea, but it does not fall under WP:UGC. MarioGom ( talk) 10:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Over at Location hypotheses of Atlantisthere are a number of sources is used for a number of claims, the source is Atlantide è il blocco continentale Sardo-Corso sommerso durante i Meltwater Pulse and (by the same author Luigi Usai,) La mappa di Atlantide. Quartucciu, Sardinia (as well as an attempt to use another of his books. They may be (as both the first one and the one I have now removed are "Independently Published" ([ [61]]) SPS. So are these works in fact RS for any claim about Atlantis being Sabrina? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
What makes these sources unreliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantern15 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Can there be an edit made to the 2019 Pentagon Videos section under the Pentagon UFO article which adds the words: "the object flickered on their screen" before "before it eased into the water"? Because that's what it seems to do when you look at the video towards the end. 106.215.127.75 ( talk) 11:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Chantern15
Snopes is considered a reliable source now. Recently it turned out that their owner published dozens of plagiarised stories on the website [62]. To their credit, they admitted it and suspended him. Having said that, the articles themselves are still there (they plan to add notices to them) and in general this puts their editorial oversight in doubt. I suggest to move them to "No consensus" for now and add a note that some of the articles have been plagiarised. If/when they clean up this mess and we see that they are still cited by other reliable sources they can be moved back to reliable. Alaexis ¿question? 14:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
"In other emails from around the same time (2014-2015), Mikkelson described his vision for the site’s future 'as a platform for traffic-generating junk that people would complain about if it were on ‘classic’ snopes,' including articles copied from 'viral item of the day' sites.'"On the other hand, comments from former employees show a strong sense of ethics on the editorial team, which gives me hope that they'll be able to correct the problems caused by one "bad apple" of a founder. Once the dust settles around the plagiarism issue, I think it would make sense to reassess Snopes' reliability to see if their recent work upholds the same standard of accuracy that they were known for. Since fact-checking has become more mainstream we can probably source a lot of things to major outlets such as CNN instead of Snopes. – dlthewave ☎ 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Talk:Julian_Assange#RFC_inclusion_of_Sigurdur_Thordarson_claims. A major source is Key witness in Assange case admits to lies in indictment. A person said "I don't see any discussion as to whether Stundin is or is not (generally reliable)" Should Stundin be considered a reliable source in general or for this? Thanks. NadVolum ( talk) 21:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The issue is not (for me) can it be used for a claim, the issue is can it be used to A, say this claim is a fact as in "On 26 June 2021, Stundin, an Icelandic newspaper, reported that a key witness in the United States’ case against Assange had admitted to giving false testimony used in the superseding U.S. indictment". And, B, does it (alone) carry enough weight to pass wp:undue and wp:not news? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The Washington Post consider it a reliable source; they have done secondary reporting on Stundin content, as has UK current affairs publication Private Eye。 Cambial foliage❧ 09:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Well you can see the problem at the RfC and why I raised about being a reliable source here. The Washington Post is the only major media source which covered it. There are lots of other reliable sources but they are not major media sources. The current text quotes Stundin as saying he is key and also the Wshington Post saying it disagrees. The other sources are being dismissed as not giving any weight for inclusion and the whole paragraph has an RfC saying it should all be completely deleted. As to the actual facts there's Thordarson's own words in the Icelandic version and many of them are corroborated by an ex Icelandic Interior Minister in tanscript of YouTube interview on CN-news - but that's not a major media source. The lack of coverage in major media has been noted in for instance FAIR - Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage. If the major media sources don't cover something but many others do is it then undue to include it? NadVolum ( talk) 10:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
NadVolum, from what you have said above, your view seems to be that corporate media are not inherently reliable to assess WP:DUE on this issue. This is an interesting argument, however, it is not the view of Wikipedia. Size of circulation is absolutely one of the criteria we use to assess reliability of news organizations. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:RSVETTING.— Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 18:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Stundin seems to be a reasonable WP:NEWSORG, and the attempts to keep it out seem querulous. No reason not to use it; put an attribution on if necessary - David Gerard ( talk) 19:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
No reasons whatsoever have been provided to doubt its reliability. Alaexis ¿question? 06:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
References
Don't know if this is the right place to put this. I'm interested in a couple of sentences from a previous version of the article, "Soul patch," on Wikipedia. Here is the version: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Soul_patch&direction=prev&oldid=1040092104. One sentence of interest reads, "Jazz flute players who disliked the feel of the flute mouthpiece on a freshly shaven lower lip often sported the look." This sentence does not have a citation supporting it. The next sentence reads, "On the other hand, jazz trumpeters preferred the goatee for the comfort it provided when using a trumpet mouthpiece." This sentence does have a supporting citation.
I am wondering if the sentence about flute players is sufficiently supported by the sentence about trumpet players, i.e., if trumpet players got comfort from facial hair, is it reasonable to think that jazz flute players would have gotten comfort from a soul patch even if the particular statement about jazz flute players is not supported with a citation, and hence leave the statement about jazz flute players in the article? I have looked for articles that support the statement about jazz flute players and can't find any. Thanks for feedback Greg Dahlen ( talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
{{
fact}}
not delete it, but that can't stop others from doing so. As always, if you want something to stick on Wikipedia, a source is the best pushpin --
Green
C 03:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)This site is used in a number of articles. [70]. If you look at this subpage [71] it appears to be a hate site, and IMHO should be both deprecated and blacklisted. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I glanced at the sites using it as a source and the first one I looked at, Muhammad in Islam, also uses Answering-Christianity.com which also looks terrible. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC) I also found and deleted one citation of answering-Islam.com. I presume these sites are all related. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with deprecating the whole bunch. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
In the course of clearing out, I've come across a few that looked like probable good faith, so I wonder if the domain registration lapsed and has been recycled? I certainly found a site (muslim-canada.org) mentioned in the same sentence that goes to some football page. Not that it really matters, we can't let non-RS links stand. (btw, they hadn't all gone, {{ duses}} has just turned up a bunch more. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Clearfrienda questioned the reliability of Social Blade, which is used to update almost every Internet personality's subscriber, follower, and view stats; some major examples of articles using Social Blade are Cr1TiKaL, TommyInnit, and That Vegan Teacher (the origin of the discussion). Pokimane also uses Social Blade, just not in the infobox. L33tm4n ( talk) 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I've come here to ask advice in a quite complicated case.
To say it in layman's terms:
This is about some rocks that are 91+ millions of years old.
There is a single mining company that exploits and sells the deposit.
For some reason they have repeatedly claimed that their product is purely mineral and has a purely mineral origin.
The contention is about the last part: purely mineral origin
Some employees have published expertises, studies and articles propagating the purely mineral origin claim,(see article) a few apparently independent authors have repeated those claims, citing the company's pulications. (Lüttig, 2007; Römpp, 2015)
The recent, independent, scientific sources we used in creating the article all unanimously state and emphasize the biogenic origin for which this geological formation is special and known.
To illustrate how far the contention and confusion goes in this case, you may for example look at this source: Groteklaes, Michael (ed.). "Kieselerde, RD-11-01037". RömppOnline. Retrieved 2 January 2015. This German geology glossary first gives a definition of Kieselerde ( diatomaceous earth) as being generally of a biogenic origin, but then has an extra paragraph for making an exception only for the deposit at hand, claiming it has purely mineral origins. They cite the company's website (with a date of 2005) for this statement.
On the talk page of
Wellheim Formation I have proposed a sub-section that clearly states this contention and puts it in relation to independent mainstream research.
In other words: The company's claims about a purely mineral origin have no serious scientific support.
I have little experience in these matters and this case appears special to me.
What do you think would be a proper approach that is least misleading to the interested reader?
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk •
contribs) 22:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, this is a complicated matter for me, as I am not a studied geologist. One our studied geologist supporters already explained to me on the talk page what the full picture is. I didn't want to mislead you, I'd just forgotten the following:
The origin of these rocks is mixed. Over millions of years there were several additions of new biogenic material (dead animals and plants) which were then mineralized over time. So it is more correct so say:
The origin of these rocks is of a mixed biogenic and mineral nature. Just wanted to be complete, here. Insisting on a purely mineral origin is still misleading in this case, in my opinion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk •
contribs) 22:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I added two unsigned templates for my own posts. -- ΟΥΤΙΣ ( talk) 22:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Just a short addition:
I do not want to embarass the producing company, but I also do not want to mislead our readers. Do you think it would be okay to include a disclaiming note (perhaps within a footnote) that clarifies the sources situation, as explained above? --
ΟΥΤΙΣ (
talk) 15:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I have an aversion to any websites that claim to know an individual's net worth, so when I saw https://biographypedia.org/who-is-helene-joy-biography-husband-net-worth-family/ added as a reference of a subject's age to the article on actor Hélène Joy by АРК9367 ( talk · contribs), I was suspicious. The article has an author, Benjy P., but then it seems that all of the site's content is from that author. There is no statement to indicate if there is editorial oversight. There is no board and it seems no way to correct any errors that may be in the articles they publish. Most concerning, there is no indication how the information is gleaned. Can the source be used for BLPs? It is currently only being used in one article: the one I saw it used in. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Firstly we recently had a deletion discussion for CirKis that ended with no consensus. Probably the key point was that NemesisAT found two foreign language sources that may help to prove the notability of the game: xgn.nl and reich-der-spiele.de. If we cannot establish notability, then I or Piotrus will probably re-raise the AfD.
The second issue relates to the newly created page Evolution (board game). Notability is not in doubt because we have sources from Ars Technica, The Guardian, The San Francisco Chronicle and the science journals Nature and Evolution. None of these were adequate to source a description of how the game is played. So I used some posts from the Opinionated Gamers site which I found very helpful for describing game play and some of the background history. ICv2 provided a bit more about the history, but quite frankly I am not sure how reliable they are because they seem to be just rehashing press releases to me. I believe Opinionated Gamers is probably pretty reliable, but as it is essentially a collective of blogs (and I think received free copies) I would not trust it with regards with regards to notability. To keep things simple in the telling, I have mixed up the order in which sources were applied and not mentioned some, but the key question is that our use of Opinionated Gamers was challenged in the new page review process, and I would like a second opinion on that.
More generally we are trying to systemize our evaluation of the reliability of sources, which is a particular project of Blue Pumpkin Pie. Slimy asparagus ( talk) 19:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Both AllSides and Ad Fontes Media have been discussed before, although Ad Fontes Media ended up being listed as unreliable at WP:RSP while Allsides was largely ignored. I would like to revisit this.
So they seem similar on the surface. Ad Fontes Media's chart is more granular and also provides an evaluation of reliability as well as bias. AllSides just groups sources into 5 categories (left, leaning left, center, leaning right, and right) without making any judgment about reliability. In my view, it isn't granular enough, because sources like CNN and NYT get grouped in the far left column along with Mother Jones, and National Review ends up being grouped in the far right column along with Brietbart News. That just seems weird.
The problem I see is that both sites use volunteer responses as inputs.
So, if our consensus has been that Ad Fontes Media is unreliable, should that consensus extend to Allsides? ~ Anachronist ( talk) 18:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors, please see [75] (Source consensus section) Thank you. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 05:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please note - Erin Vaxx is a brand new account, they removed my note with an edit summary "Wrong, place it on yourself"
, so I’m posting the diff here -->
[76] -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 06:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Please do not export content/conduct dispute to RSN. It isn't going to help anyone. As for the specific source in question (the tour guide). The publisher seems to specialise in the Carpathian-related topics and I'd take their word for recognition in the field of Carpathian tour guides, but his contribution to the topic in peer-reviewed publications in history of Galicia or Volhynia is close to none, or none, and, according to the short biogram on Polish Wikipedia, he's a biologist and only after that a historian. That said, I have found praise of his works from a historian at least of one of his other series of books. From the ArbCom ruling, a high-quality source is such that belongs to either of the three categories: "an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution". Theoretically, it's closer to the second, but I can't really say it's academically focused. However, the fact his books are quite well cited in scientific publications, and that endorsement makes me think that it just hovers on the threshold of high-quality and marginally reliable for the purposes of the sourcing requirements. In that case, use with care, possibly attribute. Btw, if you are looking for some more sources, here are some in Ukrainian: [78] [79] [80] and in Polish: [81], [82] - should be treated similarly to Rąkowski
On the 26 of July 1944, during the Operation Burza, his troops stopped the attack of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS near the town of SiemianówkaONLY - The rest has been entered by someone else and remains unsourced. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:07, 29 August 2021 (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.
The New Zealand Herald is a daily newspaper based in Auckland and the largest newspaper in New Zealand. How should we consider its reliability?
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Please see above for rationale about why I am opening this discussion. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 18:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Any evidence it had a poor reputation? Slatersteven ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (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.
I'm scrolling through the source "ratings" and it is quite clear that these are all heavily biased towards liberal/left leaning political views. The new york times is considered "reliable", yet they published numerous fake stories, colluded with the NSA to hide spying on american citizens etc. Then we look at right wing sources and see the opposite, complete distrust simply based on them being conservative.
If wikipedia is supposed to be objective, this is a red flag on how biased the editors here are. There needs to be a balanced/centrist view that looks at both sides of an issue, not pushes a one sided view point with stigmatization of the opposing one. Since former Wiki founder and others have discussed the bias at wiki, this would be a great place to start fixing things by rating this list with a far more balanced viewpoint. Asailum ( talk) 11:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The new york times is considered "reliable", yet they published numerous fake stories, colluded with the NSA to hide spying on american citizens etc. Then we look at right wing sources and see the opposite, complete distrust simply based on them being conservative.Three observations on that: the choice not to publish a story does not mean that the source becomes unreliable; the list of "fake stories" w/o corrections issued afterwards is wanted here; the list of "right wing sources" that do "the opposite" of the behaviour you believe to be incompatible with RS is also requested from you. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 16:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
You question really should be why is that so many right wing sources are unreliable? And then hold them accountable for being unreliable. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Becuase on average those who edit Wikipedia are more likely lean to the left. Therefore, whether aware or unaware (of said implict bias), they more likely vote left leaning sources as reliable and right leaning sources and unreliable. Just have a look at the difference between the Pinknews and Fox News RfCs. But then there is the fact the many right leaning sources are geniunely unreliable as well. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 16:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)