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 385 | ← | Archive 387 | Archive 388 | Archive 389 | Archive 390 | Archive 391 | → | Archive 395 |
What do you think about [1]? WP:RS are entitled to perform their own WP:OR, we aren't. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Commons has a photo of somebody's tombstone, and it's specific enough that it cannot possibly be the wrong person. If I cannot find a better secondary source for that person's DOB, (a) can I cite the grave marker and (b) how would I do so? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Is Cinestaan a reliable source? It has been debated in several AfDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Someday (2021 film). The site has an about us and team but no editorial policies, I also couldn't find evidence that the authors are subject-matter-experts. However, Atlantic306 stated that it is RS. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Rock_'n_Load but didn't get much response so I figured I should try bringing this here. In short:
I personally believe this site is deserving of at least a listing at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. QuietHere ( talk) 13:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's a fun one for you. The Tek Fog story has been thrown into disarray in the aftermath of the Wire-Meta fiasco. The entire story relies on an investigation by The Wire (India). Other news outlets have covered the Wire's investigation, but none have been able to verify the claims independently. And now, The Wire has removed the story (but not retracted it) after accusing one of its authors of deception.
To me, it's pretty clear: none of the WP:GNG are currently met, so the topic does not, for now, deserve its own article.
"Sources" should be secondary sourcesisn't met either (and never was): the investigation was a primary source on the topic, based on anonymous sources; other outlets that covered the story were secondary sources on The Wire having done an investigation, but are primary sources on the investigation itself since they attribute all claims to The Wire.
The story may not be retracted after all. But the "secondary source" requirement would still not be met, even if the reports are eventually reinstated. A journalist (who's written for the Atlantic and HuffPo, meeting WP:SPS's subject-matter expert criteria on journalism itself) has found serious issues with the investigation, with the now-fired author making incredibly bizarre claims. DFlhb ( talk) 23:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
anonymous sources and unconfirmed reportscriteria. DFlhb ( talk) 09:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
1. Source. [2]
2. Article. John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
3. Content. Special:Diff/1060577128
The specific content sourced on Newshub is the following: In November 2021 Campbell included in a video the false information that Ivermectin was responsible for a decline in COVID-19 fatalities in Japan, when in reality the drug has never been officially authorised for such use in Japan – its use was merely promoted by the chair of a doctors' group in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.
Is Newshub reliable to backup the assertion of Campbell having used false information in his Ivermectin video? Forich ( talk) 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw
Nexta with the
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant being captured by the Russian army. First they claimed that the plant was hit:
[3] As a result of the shelling at the #Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, a fire started. The exact location of the fire is being specified. CCTV cameras at the plant show flames and smoke.
which caused a lot of panic, even
Al Jazeera published their tweet. And this week
[4] they claimed that Turkish mercenaries were noticed in Putin's Z-army.
which was debunked by
Euronews. In my opinion, this is at the same level with Greek City Times and Al Masdar News. These kind of propaganda outlets shouldn't be used in Wikipedia.
Beshogur ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Folks, I know they share a lot of red-hot content, including sweet, sweet multimedia, but @UnianInfo and @nexta_tv simply are not reliable information sources. Please do All Deities a favor and stop citing them uncritically.[5]
What best describes El American's reliability?
NoonIcarus ( talk) 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
NoonIcarus, some of your examples are opinion pieces which shouldn't be used anyway and thus are irrelevant for the discussion on the reliability ( [23], [24]). Taking an article from your list which is *not* an opinion piece, can you clarify what false or fabricated information does it contain? Alaexis ¿question? 07:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
the most serious thing happens because of what happened throughout 2020 and part from 2019: the democratic legal mobilization to change the rules of the electoral game.Here, here, and here it also cites mediocre sources such as The Washington Times, which is currently marginally reliable (though latter ones are opinion). Further, here is an economics and news-related piece which states in the body (not headline, which is automatically unreliable per WP:HEADLINE)-
And to their good fortune, several major national media outlets —and pages of mass circulation across the Internet— adjusted their definitions of recession to contribute to White House propaganda. The latest was Wikipediaand seems to brand our current event tag, which is quite common and used in lots of articles, as somehow driving a biased agenda and resembling propaganda. This doesn't seem to be an accurate depiction. IMO deprecation might not gain consensus for an infrequently used source, though. Many thanks, if anything I posted was wrong please let me know! VickKiang (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I request Wikipedia community to identify this as an unreliabkle source due to multiple reasons.
1- A prominent Indian independent news site destroys its own credibility - https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/10/27/a-prominent-indian-independent-news-site-destroys-its-own-credibility
3- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/18/india-facebook-meta-the-wire/
4- https://about.fb.com/news/2022/10/what-the-wire-reports-got-wrong/
Those who have technical knowledge have explained that they were not deceived or cheated as they claim, but they intentionally made fake accusations and created a fictious tek fog app which never existed. 2402:3A80:1C3C:1155:34EA:FDF6:191B:630 ( talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Meta and tek fog are two different cases and both are taken down. You said one story, I think you didn't check all. and regarding other comment, I read tweets from verified handles. 42.105.7.4 ( talk) 16:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The website is not like 'massive circulation' newspapers that covers many cases from cities and villages, or like news channel covering many stories everyday; but they focus on few cases and evem claim to investigate the story for months. I think, you don't have experience about this website and reports they make. The journalists, editors and founders of wire have verified twitter accounts. For months they debated, defended their stories. Meta is latest but tek fog is old. There is also a third case, where a Judge Loya died, his son told media, "my father died naturally", wire tried to create sensational conspiracy theory about political murder and cover up. Recently one article about judge Loya is also deleted. If you find other existing aticles about Loya, that is not the article they deleted. 42.105.7.4 ( talk) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If any particular story is done exclusively by wire which is then picked up by other media?
A whole article was created about a software which even got international media coverage and those who first published this have now retracted.
You people are not going through the details. When their meta lies were xposed, then they also removed months old tek fog, and only one article on Justice Loya.
The editors are blaming their journalists while editors themselves were equally involved, and what they have written as apology is not whole truth.
It's not a printed or tv media. So they promote through twitter, youtube and facebook. What verified twitter accounts speak about them matters here. 2402:3A80:1A4E:513E:35F5:6C79:98BF:6107 ( talk) 06:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wire should absolutely not be used on anything contentious until they demonstrably change. My post will be long since it seems others are only applying superficial scrutiny. Mistakes are perfectly fine; what's not fine is the complete lack of proper editorial processes, since it disqualifies them from being a WP:RS.
Please make sure your browser supports "link to text fragment", since I use them extensively to save you time.
The Wire has learnt from a well-placed source at Meta, and:
in the month of September, the Meta source told The Wire. Note the singular. You never publish a groundbreaking exclusive based on a single source.
The internal Instagram report, which The Wire has accessed. That "report" is a screenshot of the instagram.workplace.com website. "Workplace" is Facebook's alternative to Slack, and is used internally. Note that anyone can create a Workplace instance (i.e. myinstance.workplace.com) on that site, for free (with a trial), just like Slack.
We stand by our stories entirely"). They make several claims:
The Wire's sources at Meta(plural, now) have confirmed that instagram.workplace.com is used internally.
At The Wire’s request, one of the sources made and shared a recording of them navigating the portal.
reiterat[ing] the faith we have in our sources,
the impossibility of this being a hoax, and calls the accusations
baseless. Then they retract after enormous international backlash, and we're here.
To recap:
stories came from multiple Meta sources—whom we know, have met & verified. He later admitted to The Verge that wasn't true; they only verified the identity of a single source.
Editors who defend The Wire are being extraordinarily lenient. There's been instances at reputable outlets (USA Today, the New York Times) where single journalists were caught manufacturing quotes on minor stories. Never for huge international stories with the editor in chief and a senior editor on the byline, who are caught manufacturing quotes, photoshopping evidence, and lying about sources (in this case, the 2 security experts).
We decide whether sources are reliable based on their among of due diligence, scrutiny, and editorial oversight. The Wire has failed all those criteria. It's on them to demonstrate they've addressed these issues. If they do, fantastic. But until they do, they can't be treated as a reliable source. They've demonstrated that they are unreliable for tech news, not just politics and science; that's worse than Fox News! DFlhb ( talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
growing questions about The Wire’s integrity and accuracy. The Editors Guild of India, their national journalistic association which had previously stood by The Wire, now calls out their circumvention of
journalistic norms and checks. It's hard to pretend it's business as usual. DFlhb ( talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Taking into account their mistake but disregarding their good work as the work of individuals is an untenable position. Through this determination you would be discarding that very work based on stories that have been retracted. Speculating on a general lack of process based on one incident is not how we make RS determinations, we look at the full scope of things.
There is no doubt that an editorial lapse occurred here but there's nothing special about that and we can clearly see there are editorial processes to rectify mistakes. We don't need to urge extra caution here because the general considerations for all reliable sources are sufficient; that one should not jump the gun with exclusive stories and for extraordinary claims one needs multiple sources. Very recently CNBC and Bloomberg fell to pranksters with joke names pretending to be fired employees from Twitter. One could say there was no editorial oversight and fact checking here. The thing is these things happen and doesn't take away from their other work. I can't say anything if you dismiss everything else as not as bad. Glass, Blair was much more extensive but I guess we can agree to disagree there.
Now Fox sometimes retracts sometimes doesn't. The most problematic part of theirs is that the errors are systemic and persistent, there are entire academic papers on how they actively promote disinformation. That's not remotely comparable to a newspaper column opining that they fell for a conspiracy because of partisanship. The presence of systemic issues is why most such sources are cautioned against but there is no evidence for that in this case.
Lastly, it's not just an online site, its a news publisher and is treated like one by other RS. Their disclosures are fairly normal, news publishers don't tend to have a blow by blow account of their exact editorial process or the structure of their staff. And it's not like they emerged from nowhere, it was established by the editor-in-chief(s) of legacy newspapers, The Hindu ( RSP entry) and The Financial Express (the business news imprint of The Indian Express ( RSP entry)). Also if I'm to go into the weeds a bit, EGI does not explicitly say that it was "disturbed" by the Wire "circumventing due journalistic norms and checks", you are combining two different sentences of a guarded statement to say that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I believed that Tek Fog app really exists as many American, Arab and European newspapers supported Tek Fog story of The Wire. Only people who were not beleiving were BJP supporters, and I though they are simply being biased. Months have passed and now another meta story came out. This time people from USA disagreed and they gave detailed technical evidence, why the meta story is fake. Wire apologised and retracted their meta story.
Now also they retracted their Tek Fog story which they defended for months. Also some two or three year old Justice Loya article is removed. I repeat only one article about Justice Loya as others are available. So any kind of story or article which is done exclusively by The Wire should be treated as unreliable. Means first it was published by The Wire and then picked up by other media. I have seen many tweets by some journalists who worked for The Wire (temporarily). They said Wire has confirmation bias. 2402:3A80:1C3C:3881:5017:974D:A19F:EC11 ( talk) 03:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Other than META, please discuss about Tek Fog app. Those with technical knowledge can understand. I am not student of IT, software engineering or computer science. Only they can undertsand what Wire did in their Tek Fog story. Most discussion is focussing on META but Tek Fog is another case. I am not able to explain the technical details, which is necessary to discuss here.
Wire is removing, reinserting tek fog stories? I can still see some stories, I don't know which one they removed as they created multiple articles on Tek Fog. 2402:3A80:1C3C:3881:5017:974D:A19F:EC11 ( talk) 03:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I my third comment above I mentioned why that comparison is wrong. Big newspapers and media publish many stories, covering many areas. Compared to them, Wire type new internet based media covers less stories. The editors or head of NYTimes, TimesofIndia, The Guardian, Washington Post have less time to check all stories. And the drug addicst example you gave is same like the ISIS story. These type of cases can happen. In case of Meta and Tek Fog, their entire team was involved in pushing a fake story, and they are not so busy like NyTimes, CNN, BBC that they were fooled by one person. When their fake stories were challenged by others they defended their fake stories multiple times, and when they saw they can no longer defend it, they retracted. The retract, retract thing you all are mentioning, didn't happen instantly. Like someone said "your story is fake", and they easily accepted. "yes, our story is fake, we are sorry".
Want to gather the opinions of other editors on this particular site. Whilst it is not used for referencing that often, it has been in the past. Realtime Trains (RTT) is an industry data-based source which shows the movement of almost every train on the UK rail network, describing the real-time movements of each one. Recently, it has also started to feature unit allocations (roughly 95% accurate I would say). This was used in a recent edit to the Class 455 page, to refute an unsourced claim about one particular unit being stored, when RTT was used to show (in regards to the allocations) that it was still operational.
I want to, therefore, gather the opinions of other editors as to whether (or to what extent) this site could be used as a reliable source. Could it be used to refute unsourced claims like this example, or could it be used to show other things, likewise if other trains are shown as stored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I can add much to the debate other than I NEVER use them as a resource for Wikipedia. On discussion boards yes but on here - no. GRALISTAIR ( talk) 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I’m working on the stub Separate Reality (climbing route), and I want to improve sourcing before expanding. I am unsure about the source planetmountain.com. I would use this source for descriptions of this climbing route, as well as pulling relevant quotes from interviews with climbers.
I looked at two climbing-related archived discussions, one for Peakbagger.com here, where the discussion seemed to center around whether information was user submitted and about whether a certain author was enough of an expert to be a reliable WP:SPS; and another archive here about a climbing book, where it seems the issue was also about SPS.
For context, I did leave a more general note on the article’s talk page about the article's sourcing, but I think this one source is the crux of it. Regarding whether this is one-off or site-wide, I know that List of first ascents (sport climbing) cites this source extensively, as does Bouldering. Thank you kindly for your (volunteer) time. GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this an RS for Near death experiences, and specifically [ [28]] for claims about MEDRS statements? I doubt it vey much, but have never heard of it.
See Pam Reynolds case. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we list the website Modern Diplomacy as an unreliable source?
It’s been discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 249#Modern Diplomacy and Ahtribune. The site’s contributors include, for example, Eric Zuesse [29] of GlobalResearch.ca ( generally unreliable and blacklisted, see www.globalresearch dot ca/author/eric-zuesse), Adomas Abromaitis [30] contributor to Katehon, [31] Anna Wozniak [32] published by OpEdNews, [33] and Dmitri Trenin. [34]
It is cited in about 25 articles. [35] — Michael Z. 22:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
How would you evaluate the reliability of Catholic.org?
Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Having look at a brief sample of citations (from the first five pages that came up in an article-space search for 'Catholic.org'), I can't see much that looks obviously 'false or fabricated'. Some content seems to be press releases-based, or archived from elsewhere. One article cited an 'encyclopedia' article which probably shouldn't be used, but beyond that, from my limited sample I'd say that the website probably falls into a 'best not used for anything important' category - so probably option 2-ish, since they are unlikely to be fabricating press releases on the appointment of cardinals etc. As for the website flogging beef, if we excluded sources that tried to sell us stuff, we'd probably have to exclude the majority of web-based sources entirely. I'd need more to go on to convince me that deprecation for 'fabrication' was merited. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Would the The Pioneer (India) okay to use as a source for an author's Reception section, with any material sourced to it attributed to the publication in the article text? (The specific article in question can be found on this newspaper page; the headline is "2 authors highlight history of tribal warrior". Thanks! -- Andreas JN 466 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The FOTW webpage is generally used as reference in most of the flag related articles, including Flag of Great Britain and Flag of France, but also Flag of Canada, which is a featured article or Flag of Gdańsk, which is a good article. The page, from what it seems is a fansite, written by non-specialists, kind of similar to Fandom. They sometimes put the sources of information in the text (then we should base our articles on those sources), but there are situations, that the text has practically no confirmation in any other sources considered as reliable.
A good example of a mistake is the flag of Gmina Świdnica, Lubusz Voivodeship, as seen here: [44]. @ Bolszewski Wikipedysta, seeing no documents mentioning the flag messaged the local government and got as an answer, that the flag was only a proposal and was denied by them.
In my opinion FOTW should not be used as a reference in any article, and should be included on a list of deprecated sources. Filipny ( talk) 14:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Another examples:
- Gmina Białopole, as seen here: [45] - there is an information "that resolution was repealed by another one: # IV/18/07", because of decision of Heraldic Commision. But, unfortunately, one user added it to Commons ( here).
- Powiat górowski, as seen here: [46] - information: "Probably an unofficial flag", but, of course, also in Commons
- Powiat łosicki, as seen here: [47] - in other source, Gazeta Wyborcza ( here in Polish), "symbols was canceled"
There are few of them, but, in my opinion, they are confirmation of @ Filipny: arguments. Best wishes, Bolszewski Wikipedysta ( talk) 15:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Links to previous RSN discussions:
The conclusion always has been that this is an unreliable source for wikipedia. Abecedare ( talk) 17:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I had been defending an edit to the page David Sanders (biologist) that quoted the subject making some controversial remarks on abortion that gained noteriety in at least some circles. The subject is a public figure and the edit cited an article from the website Campus Reform and a YouTube video with 17,000 views. The edit included a direct quote from the subject so whether he said these remarks is not in dispute.
Although it has an ideological slant, in my view Campus Reform issues corrections, list it's editorial team and in the case of this particular news story, it is not engaging in gossip or the tabloid journalism that is condemned in the guidance on BLP articles. But what does the community think? Can a right-leaning website that issues corrections and lists its editorial team be a source on at least a case-by-case basis? JA1776 ( talk) 15:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, we should treat The Hindu as a newspaper of record.
So I would have thought this article in The Hindu is –
Does such use of this source strike anyone as incompatible with sourcing policies and guidelines? -- Andreas JN 466 17:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Is
this a reliable source for
Khoobsurat (TV series)? To me, this seems to be a promotional website with no editorial policies that shows a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, with its
about us page being vague and refers to social media stats. However,
Lillyput4455 contends that it is reliable critic page
.
VickKiang
(talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I have used Britannica as a source in my articles, and when expanding new ones. But is is reliable, can I use it as a source? I have heard that the articles on Britannica are created by experts, but I don't know if that's true or not. I don't think I've seen Britannica be used as a source in other articles, I however have used it as a source before. Lyricca ( talk) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
In Kari Lake, her date of birth is sourced to this article at world-wire.com. World-Wire used to be a press/news release distributor ( about a dozen-and-a-half mainspace articles link to press releases that used to be available from it) but appears to have transitioned to be a conservative news website providing "quality information content for Conservatives, politics, current events and affairs from USA and around the globe." Here is their editorial policy. Any thoughts on the acceptability as a reliable source of the cited article or of world-wire.com as a whole? – Archer1234 ( talk) 03:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
User:GEMNCNY who has been around for some years appears to only add what appears to be linkspam to articles - often when there is a perfectly reliable alternative source that can be used. Sources used are:
Old edits also include:
I would welcome views on these sites and propose that they be blacklisted. Velella Velella Talk 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No problem I understand and I feel the same, just to reiterate, the following all criticize the aforementioned theory by S.R. Driver, further developed by J.J. Collins:
Many of these are given by Collins:
Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton
Young and Baldwin.
The studies of C. F. Boutflower,
D. J. Wiseman
Gerhard Hasel,
K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965)
W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis (1983)
Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978)
Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." (2008)
Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).
— User:Billyball998
Please chime in if these sources count as WP:RS, especially in view of WP:RSAGE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
When you say:
"As far as dual authorship, the jury is still out. The idea was first put forth by Spinoza..."I would note that you do not need to be looking further back in time to look for current updates on scholarship but forwards. Anything older than a 100 years is almost totally void in terms of modern scholarship except as an example of the history of the modern scholarship. For current updates on a debate you are looking at the last two, three decades max. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
a controversy raging in the mainstream academiaand looking at Billyball998's edit and arguments, the clear answer from WP:RSN should be no, that's an inappropriate use of sources, move along. fiveby( zero) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Note: Andrews, JETS, Themelios, and Tyndale publish only evangelical scholars (if we count the SDA Church among evangelicals). tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thompson (2020) is in fact a reprint of Thompson, Henry O. (1993). The book of Daniel : an annotated bibliography. New York: Garland Pub. ISBN 0-8240-4873-3. OCLC 25507833. at Thompson, Henry O. (2020). Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography. Taylor & Francis. p. xxx. ISBN 978-1-135-77658-9. Retrieved 2022-11-06. it says that the liberal perspective did not became normative until the 19th century, i.e. the opposite of Billyball998's POV. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Source 1: Mark S. Haughwout, "Dating the Book of Daniel. A Survey of the Evidence for an Early Date", self-published, M.A. The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2013, http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.pdf
Source 2: Beckwith, Roger, "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel", Tyndale Bulletin, scholarly article, 2002, https://web.archive.org/web/20211018172928/https://nevt.org/doc_474318.pdf
Source 3: Vasholz, Robert I., "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel", The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, scholarly article, December 1978, https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-4/21-4-pp315-321_JETS.pdf
Source 4: Arthur J. Ferch, "The Book of Daniel and the 'Maccabean Thesis'", Andrews University Seminary Studies, scholarly article, Summer 1983, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1609&context=auss;THE
Source 5: K.A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel", The Tyndale Press, part of a book, 1965, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_kitchen.pdf
Source 6: Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Identity of the 'Saints of the Most High' in Daniel 7", Biblica, scholarly article, 1975, https://www.jstor.org/stable/42610712
Source 7: D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel", The Tyndale Press, part of a book, 1965, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_wiseman.pdf
Source 8: Boutflower, Charles, "In and around the Book of Daniel", Society for promoting Christian knowledge, book, 1923, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=W-g2AAAAMAAJ
Source 9: E.J. Young, "Daniel's Vision of a Son of Man", Tyndale, book, 1958, not on public web
Source 10: E.J. Young, "The Messianic Prophecies of Daniel", Eerdmans, book, 1954, not on public web
Source 11: E.J. Young, "The Prophecy of Daniel", Eerdmans, book, 1949, not on public web
Source 12: Joyce G. Baldwin, "Daniel", Inter-Varsity Press, book, 1978, not on public web
Source 13: Joyce G. Baldwin, "Is There Pseudonimity in the Old Testament?", Themelios, scholarly article, 1978-1979, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/themelios/pseudonymity_baldwin.pdf
Source 14: Joyce G. Baldwin, "Some Literary Affinities of the Book of Daniel", Tyndale Bulletin, scholarly article, 1979, https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30610-some-literary-affinities-of-the-book-of-daniel.pdf
Source 15: Robert Dick Wilson, "Studies In The Book Of Daniel: A Discussion Of The Historical Questions", G. P. Putnam's Sons, book, 1917, https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Book-Daniel-Discussion-Historical/dp/1437138012
Source 15: S.R. Driver, "The Book of Daniel. With Introduction and Notes", The Macmillan Co., book, 1900, https://books.google.com/books?id=YC82AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Source 16: Wegner, Walter E., "The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls", Quartalschrift-Theological Quarterly, scholarly article, 1958, http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/626/WegnerDaniel.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Source 17: Thompson, Henry O., "The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography", Routledge, book, 2020, https://www.routledge.com/Book-of-Daniel-An-Annotated-Bibliography/Thompson/p/book/9781315056609 relevant section: https://ibb.co/s9YVy5b
Source x:
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheesh! we are debating whether an SPS by Austin Bessey is a RS. I believe that this assessment boils down to 3 elements: 1. Whether Bessey is a subject matter expert for songs, 2. Whether his work has been published and 3. whether this particular review which is just 3 sentences about the song " Sheesh!" constituted WP:SIGCOV. Bessey asserts here that he has "over 6 years directing and managing the music programming for the national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations". As a college radio DJ in the 1980s, I imagine that a radio music programmers job in the 2010s (era of digital and streaming submissions) included determining which fraction of 1% of all music submissions for airplay would be included in the airplay rotation and how heavily they should be rotated. At this AFD, I am unable to get a concession that a professional music programmer for a national radio network constitutes a subject matter expert on songs. In regards to whether his work has been published, I submit that the fraction of 1% of the songs that he endorsed for airplay on the national Disney Radio networks are considered publications of his opinion of their quality and merit. Back when I was assessing whether works by relatively unknown up and coming acts such as Run DMC, Beastie Boys and Whitney Houston should be aired on our station in the 1980s, I presented my opinion on songs and albums that came in for consideration. If Bessey reviewed hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of songs in a week and wrote 3 positive sentences about one of them, that is a significant opinion. The fact that songs made the airwaves was a form of publication for the field of musical programming. The third consideration is whether a 2-sentence paragraph about a song and a 3rd sentence declaring it a landmark for the band constitutes significant coverage.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
TimesNext is being used as a source in a few articles. It doesn't seem a reliable source to me, I can't find any indication of it being considered a mainstream news source and the about page does not inspire confidence with the heavy blockchain focus. There's a related issue that some of the links have been added by one of their founders User:Heena Vinayak but I'd appreciate a general opinion on if they're a RS. JaggedHamster ( talk) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
As in the edit I reverted here[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pi-HaHiroth&action=history] and similar by same new editor. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Context: Original poorly formatted notification here. However, it contains how the authors and organization are covered in reliable sources. In addition, since the original listing, I created an article for Health Liberation Now!
Question: Can we use Health Liberation Now! as a source for factual information?
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 04:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptableis worth heeding here.There is a narrow exception for expert sources, which is reserved for people
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Along those lines, @ TheTranarchist: has the research of the two people who run this website previously been published by independent, reliable publications, such as academic or peer-reviewed journals? If so, would you be willing to provide links to some examples? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
a trans researcher and health activist who has extensively documented the origins of what he calls TAnon
researcherwho
researches TERFs because she used to be one. She’s written extensively about being sucked into a cult-like “detransition” movement which convinced young transmasculine people that their dysphoria was caused by misogyny and could only be cured by radical feminism.. They also state
She has been my most patient guide through the world of organized transphobia, having previously spoken to me about the rise of anti-trans activism targeting doctors and gender clinics; every conversation is a whirlwind of names, dates, times and bizarre blog posts from TERF havens, illuminating the underbelly of an obsessive and increasingly dangerous movement.
a researcher who tracks anti-trans activity
trans journalist
HLN researcher
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender. And, frankly, none of the other publications appear to provide evidence that either of the founders of the website have previously published their work in reliable, independent publications; merely being referred to as a researcher or a journalist by the popular press is not evidence that an individual is an SME in light of our guidelines on self-published sources. As such, this appears to be a non-SME SPS, though if you can provide evidence either founder has actually published their research in reputable, independent publications, I'd be happy to look it over. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender, the fact that Schevers has verifiably been on both sides of the issue adds credence to her expertise. The Florence Ashley paper described her factually as
heavily involved in detransitioner advocacy for 6 years. There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (I can't imagine that writing an op-ed or commentary piece in the WSJ or the The NY Times instantly qualified someone as a subject-matter expert when we don't typically consider their regular columnists to be reliable for statements of fact.) I think the guideline looks more for academic sources or something published by reputable think tanks like Brookings Institution or the like; we typically don't even consider independent journalists who formerly worked at a major newspapers to be SMEs.
There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to, I don't think that I've ever advocated for discounting trans people's writings or opinions on the basis of their gender identity. I also don't think that being trans makes one an SME on the social and political forces opposing trans people, much in the same way that being Muslim or being Jewish doesn't make one an SME on the various Islamophobic or antisemitic social and political forces that prowl about the world, respectively. Is one's baseline awareness higher? I imagine so, but that's not really relevant to source analysis here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There is disagreement about the credibility of https://polarguidebook.com in the Flag of Antarctica page in relation to the claim "[The flag] is widely considered to be the official flag of Antarctica and is the only one to be recognized by [Antarctic] treaty members" from their article Who Owns Antarctica? I personally consider this to be a credible source for two reasons.
1. The website seems to do its due diligence
2. The claim in the article is corroborated by multiple sources
Not A Witty Fish 15:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at WT:BLP, and it may have implications for the ways WP:RS are used. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Both RFCs were started without prior consensus on their scope or wording. One ran into an impasse (with editors disagreeing on what the options would actually mean if applied), and the other seems to have sputtered out. I've started a discussion to workshop a new RFC, with proper consensus on its scope & options, that would subsume both RFCs above. Everyone is invited to join us in workshopping it; the outcome of this future RFC may have very wide-ranging effects for all BLPs, and on our sourcing requirements for denials, so it's important that it reflect a wide consensus. DFlhb ( talk) 08:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Does this book review on news18.com pass WP:RS?
2. What are editors' views on news18.com more generally? It's cited in about 1,000 articles and is a sister site of Firstpost, Forbes India and CNN-News18. -- Andreas JN 466 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
See [ https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-jerusalem-post-recycles-old-claims-about-goliaths-skull-at-golgotha?fbclid=IwAR2Ew2Yl4oedbIAJAirKD4Rl03Q3LRYiKmS5u8H3wZJD_48Cm27Dx_sfSRk] and [ https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/08/11/no-archaeologists-have-not-found-the-trojan-horse/?fbclid=IwAR3Gk7p60w4XHdTC18_RNGWL6kk-oiT6DeqF0tKx63tBusldDnpqPcAhMu8]. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Above I brought forth a RS regarding this contested subject and have been convinced it should be accorded minimal weight and does not pass the test for RS. However, I believe that there are 3 RS. On a scale of 1-10 in terms of RS, many of the sources are 1s, 2s and 3s. However, I think I have 3 sources upon which a stub could be created that achieves WP:SIGCOV. I don't think this subject is being treated fairly in terms of its presentation of RS in regard to the following three sources:
Victoria Arakelova is particularly used as source for Azerbaijanis and other related articles, especially for the population estimates. After listing some of her estimates on the demographics of the Iranian provinces that Azerbaijanis inhabit, she ends up at "a comparatively safe figure of the Iranian Turkophone groups (i.e. Azaris, alias ― “Azerbaijanis”) ― 6-6,5 millions, maximum less than 5 % of the total population of Iran" [1] Now, considering that this source is from the year 2015, the population of Iran was 78,492,208 in 2015. ( [54]) When we divide 6 million (the lowest estimate) by this number, we get 7.64407 % of the total population, not "maximum less than 5 % of the total population of Iran." Moreover, the total population of each Azerbaijani-inhabited Iranian province that she based her estimate on apparently comes from the 2011 census. Then, Iran's population was 75,149,669 ( [55], this is the site she cited), which is even less than 78,492,208. So, she definitely didn't do the calculations correctly. Does this still make her a reliable source? Because she is deflating the percentage of the Iranian Azerbaijanis for her population estimate by more than 50 percent, which I would regard as a clear manifestation of bias and the arbitrary nature of the article. I am currently on a rush, but we can also discuss later who she is, her tone in this article, and put all of this into context to reconsider her reliability. Thank you so much to anyone who reads and responds. Ayıntaplı ( talk) 02:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
References
EurAsian Times is an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them. In particular, the articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine War are full of tabloid-like headlines and sometimes outright regurgitation of Russian propaganda without any attempt at verification. The site is supposedly an Indian-Canadian venture, and I'm not sure if their questionable reporting quality is the result of an agenda or laziness, but some articles are making extraordinary claims when citing EurAsian Times. Steve7c8 ( talk) 06:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, could I get an assessment on the reliability of this website? I haven't come across it before, or seen it cited in wikipedia. It's based in London, the main editor is Daniel Johnson, with articles by numerous writers. Specifically, can this be treated as a reliable source with respect to the reported death of Brian Eley? ( https://www.thearticle.com/brian-eley-the-jimmy-savile-of-chess). There does at least appear to be some degree of editorial oversight here. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm worried that we're still going to be saying Eley's alive 50 years from nowconsidering that our article doesn't say that he's alive now I don't see that's really a concern. At worst we won't be saying that he's dead, and our readers will be capable of concluding for themselves that a man born in 1946 probably isn't still alive in 2072. We have articles on people who lived a lot longer ago which don't explicitly say their subjects died: Wikipedia hasn't fallen because Thutmose (18th-dynasty vizier) doesn't give a date of death, and he lived 3500 years ago!
This is the article concerned: [57] Good to go? -- Andreas JN 466 11:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Is trójmiasto.pl a reliable source for articles about the Tricity area? It doesn't cite sources, however I still would call it a primary source of information and I need an opinion from the general Wikipedia public. I am not trying to cite ther website in an article right now, but information about what is and isn't reliable still would be helpful. Thanks! :-) Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 14:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Eg []Sphinx water erosion hypothesis]] for this.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Twentieth_Dynasty_of_Egypt&curid=28830264&diff=1121297053&oldid=1116995428]. See [ https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Ramesses_XI/] and [ https://pantheon.world/data/faq]. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Pantheon is project that uses biographical data to expose patterns of human collective memory. Pantheon contains data on more than 70k biographies, which Pantheon distributes through a powerful data visualization engine centered on locations, occupations, and biographies. Pantheon’s biographical data contains information on the age, occupation, place of birth, and place of death, of historical characters with a presence in more than 15 language editions of Wikipedia.So, as Slatersteven says, I think that's a solid no. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently,
WP:TWITTER notes that In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way
. Recently, Twitter has made changes to what it means to be "verified" on Twitter, allowing any subscriber or
Twitter Blue to be marked as "verified". My understanding is that we can't actually verify that an account belongs to a particular person the account claims to be if it is "verified" by virtue of its subscription to Twitter Blue. I would like to get input from other editors regarding how we treat Twitter accounts with the blue checkmark granted by purchasing Twitter Blue when we're applying
WP:BLPSPS and
WP:ABOUTSELF. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 02:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue. Even some legacy-verified users are now showing this after subscribing to Twitter Blue, so the transition has already happened to some. DFlhb ( talk) 03:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Elon Musk, warned that bankruptcy was a possibility. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sourceswould have covered this situation, but then I recalled that some pretty famous names are leaving the site, and I would assume that those handles will at some point become available for cybersquatting. Unless we want to caveat that caveat with something like
and who have not been confirmed to have left the site based on reliable third-party sources? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 05:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
and that reputation for accuracy has been lost at least temporarily
ceased to be a reliable indicator(I'd agree within reason), or is it Twitter as a whole? Good arguments have been presented for the former, but while I've seen some assert the latter, none yet have presented arguments; doing so would significantly strengthen that case. Cheers DFlhb ( talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This account is verified because it’s notable in government, news, [...]notice). I was wrong, celebrities and politicians who bought Twitter Blue still show the old notice. So thankfully we can still tell the difference (for now). I'd suggest we add an endnote to WP:RSPTWITTER to explain how to do this: click on the blue check, and see if it says the above, or says
because it's subscribed to Twitter Blue. If anything changes, we can rediscuss, but I'd say that change is sufficient for now. DFlhb ( talk) 23:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we use Steam as a reliable third-party source specifically for a game's release date, publisher and/or developer? For example, see the fact box for Stardew Valley. ERegion ( talk) 15:05, 2 November 2022 (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 385 | ← | Archive 387 | Archive 388 | Archive 389 | Archive 390 | Archive 391 | → | Archive 395 |
What do you think about [1]? WP:RS are entitled to perform their own WP:OR, we aren't. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Commons has a photo of somebody's tombstone, and it's specific enough that it cannot possibly be the wrong person. If I cannot find a better secondary source for that person's DOB, (a) can I cite the grave marker and (b) how would I do so? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Is Cinestaan a reliable source? It has been debated in several AfDs, including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Someday (2021 film). The site has an about us and team but no editorial policies, I also couldn't find evidence that the authors are subject-matter-experts. However, Atlantic306 stated that it is RS. VickKiang (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Rock_'n_Load but didn't get much response so I figured I should try bringing this here. In short:
I personally believe this site is deserving of at least a listing at WP:NOTRSMUSIC. QuietHere ( talk) 13:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Here's a fun one for you. The Tek Fog story has been thrown into disarray in the aftermath of the Wire-Meta fiasco. The entire story relies on an investigation by The Wire (India). Other news outlets have covered the Wire's investigation, but none have been able to verify the claims independently. And now, The Wire has removed the story (but not retracted it) after accusing one of its authors of deception.
To me, it's pretty clear: none of the WP:GNG are currently met, so the topic does not, for now, deserve its own article.
"Sources" should be secondary sourcesisn't met either (and never was): the investigation was a primary source on the topic, based on anonymous sources; other outlets that covered the story were secondary sources on The Wire having done an investigation, but are primary sources on the investigation itself since they attribute all claims to The Wire.
The story may not be retracted after all. But the "secondary source" requirement would still not be met, even if the reports are eventually reinstated. A journalist (who's written for the Atlantic and HuffPo, meeting WP:SPS's subject-matter expert criteria on journalism itself) has found serious issues with the investigation, with the now-fired author making incredibly bizarre claims. DFlhb ( talk) 23:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
anonymous sources and unconfirmed reportscriteria. DFlhb ( talk) 09:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
1. Source. [2]
2. Article. John_Campbell_(YouTuber)
3. Content. Special:Diff/1060577128
The specific content sourced on Newshub is the following: In November 2021 Campbell included in a video the false information that Ivermectin was responsible for a decline in COVID-19 fatalities in Japan, when in reality the drug has never been officially authorised for such use in Japan – its use was merely promoted by the chair of a doctors' group in Tokyo, and it has no established benefit as a COVID-19 treatment.
Is Newshub reliable to backup the assertion of Campbell having used false information in his Ivermectin video? Forich ( talk) 21:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I saw
Nexta with the
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant being captured by the Russian army. First they claimed that the plant was hit:
[3] As a result of the shelling at the #Zaporozhye nuclear power plant, a fire started. The exact location of the fire is being specified. CCTV cameras at the plant show flames and smoke.
which caused a lot of panic, even
Al Jazeera published their tweet. And this week
[4] they claimed that Turkish mercenaries were noticed in Putin's Z-army.
which was debunked by
Euronews. In my opinion, this is at the same level with Greek City Times and Al Masdar News. These kind of propaganda outlets shouldn't be used in Wikipedia.
Beshogur ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Folks, I know they share a lot of red-hot content, including sweet, sweet multimedia, but @UnianInfo and @nexta_tv simply are not reliable information sources. Please do All Deities a favor and stop citing them uncritically.[5]
What best describes El American's reliability?
NoonIcarus ( talk) 21:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
NoonIcarus, some of your examples are opinion pieces which shouldn't be used anyway and thus are irrelevant for the discussion on the reliability ( [23], [24]). Taking an article from your list which is *not* an opinion piece, can you clarify what false or fabricated information does it contain? Alaexis ¿question? 07:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
the most serious thing happens because of what happened throughout 2020 and part from 2019: the democratic legal mobilization to change the rules of the electoral game.Here, here, and here it also cites mediocre sources such as The Washington Times, which is currently marginally reliable (though latter ones are opinion). Further, here is an economics and news-related piece which states in the body (not headline, which is automatically unreliable per WP:HEADLINE)-
And to their good fortune, several major national media outlets —and pages of mass circulation across the Internet— adjusted their definitions of recession to contribute to White House propaganda. The latest was Wikipediaand seems to brand our current event tag, which is quite common and used in lots of articles, as somehow driving a biased agenda and resembling propaganda. This doesn't seem to be an accurate depiction. IMO deprecation might not gain consensus for an infrequently used source, though. Many thanks, if anything I posted was wrong please let me know! VickKiang (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I request Wikipedia community to identify this as an unreliabkle source due to multiple reasons.
1- A prominent Indian independent news site destroys its own credibility - https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/10/27/a-prominent-indian-independent-news-site-destroys-its-own-credibility
3- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/10/18/india-facebook-meta-the-wire/
4- https://about.fb.com/news/2022/10/what-the-wire-reports-got-wrong/
Those who have technical knowledge have explained that they were not deceived or cheated as they claim, but they intentionally made fake accusations and created a fictious tek fog app which never existed. 2402:3A80:1C3C:1155:34EA:FDF6:191B:630 ( talk) 15:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Meta and tek fog are two different cases and both are taken down. You said one story, I think you didn't check all. and regarding other comment, I read tweets from verified handles. 42.105.7.4 ( talk) 16:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The website is not like 'massive circulation' newspapers that covers many cases from cities and villages, or like news channel covering many stories everyday; but they focus on few cases and evem claim to investigate the story for months. I think, you don't have experience about this website and reports they make. The journalists, editors and founders of wire have verified twitter accounts. For months they debated, defended their stories. Meta is latest but tek fog is old. There is also a third case, where a Judge Loya died, his son told media, "my father died naturally", wire tried to create sensational conspiracy theory about political murder and cover up. Recently one article about judge Loya is also deleted. If you find other existing aticles about Loya, that is not the article they deleted. 42.105.7.4 ( talk) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
If any particular story is done exclusively by wire which is then picked up by other media?
A whole article was created about a software which even got international media coverage and those who first published this have now retracted.
You people are not going through the details. When their meta lies were xposed, then they also removed months old tek fog, and only one article on Justice Loya.
The editors are blaming their journalists while editors themselves were equally involved, and what they have written as apology is not whole truth.
It's not a printed or tv media. So they promote through twitter, youtube and facebook. What verified twitter accounts speak about them matters here. 2402:3A80:1A4E:513E:35F5:6C79:98BF:6107 ( talk) 06:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The Wire should absolutely not be used on anything contentious until they demonstrably change. My post will be long since it seems others are only applying superficial scrutiny. Mistakes are perfectly fine; what's not fine is the complete lack of proper editorial processes, since it disqualifies them from being a WP:RS.
Please make sure your browser supports "link to text fragment", since I use them extensively to save you time.
The Wire has learnt from a well-placed source at Meta, and:
in the month of September, the Meta source told The Wire. Note the singular. You never publish a groundbreaking exclusive based on a single source.
The internal Instagram report, which The Wire has accessed. That "report" is a screenshot of the instagram.workplace.com website. "Workplace" is Facebook's alternative to Slack, and is used internally. Note that anyone can create a Workplace instance (i.e. myinstance.workplace.com) on that site, for free (with a trial), just like Slack.
We stand by our stories entirely"). They make several claims:
The Wire's sources at Meta(plural, now) have confirmed that instagram.workplace.com is used internally.
At The Wire’s request, one of the sources made and shared a recording of them navigating the portal.
reiterat[ing] the faith we have in our sources,
the impossibility of this being a hoax, and calls the accusations
baseless. Then they retract after enormous international backlash, and we're here.
To recap:
stories came from multiple Meta sources—whom we know, have met & verified. He later admitted to The Verge that wasn't true; they only verified the identity of a single source.
Editors who defend The Wire are being extraordinarily lenient. There's been instances at reputable outlets (USA Today, the New York Times) where single journalists were caught manufacturing quotes on minor stories. Never for huge international stories with the editor in chief and a senior editor on the byline, who are caught manufacturing quotes, photoshopping evidence, and lying about sources (in this case, the 2 security experts).
We decide whether sources are reliable based on their among of due diligence, scrutiny, and editorial oversight. The Wire has failed all those criteria. It's on them to demonstrate they've addressed these issues. If they do, fantastic. But until they do, they can't be treated as a reliable source. They've demonstrated that they are unreliable for tech news, not just politics and science; that's worse than Fox News! DFlhb ( talk) 21:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
growing questions about The Wire’s integrity and accuracy. The Editors Guild of India, their national journalistic association which had previously stood by The Wire, now calls out their circumvention of
journalistic norms and checks. It's hard to pretend it's business as usual. DFlhb ( talk) 01:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Taking into account their mistake but disregarding their good work as the work of individuals is an untenable position. Through this determination you would be discarding that very work based on stories that have been retracted. Speculating on a general lack of process based on one incident is not how we make RS determinations, we look at the full scope of things.
There is no doubt that an editorial lapse occurred here but there's nothing special about that and we can clearly see there are editorial processes to rectify mistakes. We don't need to urge extra caution here because the general considerations for all reliable sources are sufficient; that one should not jump the gun with exclusive stories and for extraordinary claims one needs multiple sources. Very recently CNBC and Bloomberg fell to pranksters with joke names pretending to be fired employees from Twitter. One could say there was no editorial oversight and fact checking here. The thing is these things happen and doesn't take away from their other work. I can't say anything if you dismiss everything else as not as bad. Glass, Blair was much more extensive but I guess we can agree to disagree there.
Now Fox sometimes retracts sometimes doesn't. The most problematic part of theirs is that the errors are systemic and persistent, there are entire academic papers on how they actively promote disinformation. That's not remotely comparable to a newspaper column opining that they fell for a conspiracy because of partisanship. The presence of systemic issues is why most such sources are cautioned against but there is no evidence for that in this case.
Lastly, it's not just an online site, its a news publisher and is treated like one by other RS. Their disclosures are fairly normal, news publishers don't tend to have a blow by blow account of their exact editorial process or the structure of their staff. And it's not like they emerged from nowhere, it was established by the editor-in-chief(s) of legacy newspapers, The Hindu ( RSP entry) and The Financial Express (the business news imprint of The Indian Express ( RSP entry)). Also if I'm to go into the weeds a bit, EGI does not explicitly say that it was "disturbed" by the Wire "circumventing due journalistic norms and checks", you are combining two different sentences of a guarded statement to say that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I believed that Tek Fog app really exists as many American, Arab and European newspapers supported Tek Fog story of The Wire. Only people who were not beleiving were BJP supporters, and I though they are simply being biased. Months have passed and now another meta story came out. This time people from USA disagreed and they gave detailed technical evidence, why the meta story is fake. Wire apologised and retracted their meta story.
Now also they retracted their Tek Fog story which they defended for months. Also some two or three year old Justice Loya article is removed. I repeat only one article about Justice Loya as others are available. So any kind of story or article which is done exclusively by The Wire should be treated as unreliable. Means first it was published by The Wire and then picked up by other media. I have seen many tweets by some journalists who worked for The Wire (temporarily). They said Wire has confirmation bias. 2402:3A80:1C3C:3881:5017:974D:A19F:EC11 ( talk) 03:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Other than META, please discuss about Tek Fog app. Those with technical knowledge can understand. I am not student of IT, software engineering or computer science. Only they can undertsand what Wire did in their Tek Fog story. Most discussion is focussing on META but Tek Fog is another case. I am not able to explain the technical details, which is necessary to discuss here.
Wire is removing, reinserting tek fog stories? I can still see some stories, I don't know which one they removed as they created multiple articles on Tek Fog. 2402:3A80:1C3C:3881:5017:974D:A19F:EC11 ( talk) 03:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I my third comment above I mentioned why that comparison is wrong. Big newspapers and media publish many stories, covering many areas. Compared to them, Wire type new internet based media covers less stories. The editors or head of NYTimes, TimesofIndia, The Guardian, Washington Post have less time to check all stories. And the drug addicst example you gave is same like the ISIS story. These type of cases can happen. In case of Meta and Tek Fog, their entire team was involved in pushing a fake story, and they are not so busy like NyTimes, CNN, BBC that they were fooled by one person. When their fake stories were challenged by others they defended their fake stories multiple times, and when they saw they can no longer defend it, they retracted. The retract, retract thing you all are mentioning, didn't happen instantly. Like someone said "your story is fake", and they easily accepted. "yes, our story is fake, we are sorry".
Want to gather the opinions of other editors on this particular site. Whilst it is not used for referencing that often, it has been in the past. Realtime Trains (RTT) is an industry data-based source which shows the movement of almost every train on the UK rail network, describing the real-time movements of each one. Recently, it has also started to feature unit allocations (roughly 95% accurate I would say). This was used in a recent edit to the Class 455 page, to refute an unsourced claim about one particular unit being stored, when RTT was used to show (in regards to the allocations) that it was still operational.
I want to, therefore, gather the opinions of other editors as to whether (or to what extent) this site could be used as a reliable source. Could it be used to refute unsourced claims like this example, or could it be used to show other things, likewise if other trains are shown as stored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattdaviesfsic ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I can add much to the debate other than I NEVER use them as a resource for Wikipedia. On discussion boards yes but on here - no. GRALISTAIR ( talk) 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I’m working on the stub Separate Reality (climbing route), and I want to improve sourcing before expanding. I am unsure about the source planetmountain.com. I would use this source for descriptions of this climbing route, as well as pulling relevant quotes from interviews with climbers.
I looked at two climbing-related archived discussions, one for Peakbagger.com here, where the discussion seemed to center around whether information was user submitted and about whether a certain author was enough of an expert to be a reliable WP:SPS; and another archive here about a climbing book, where it seems the issue was also about SPS.
For context, I did leave a more general note on the article’s talk page about the article's sourcing, but I think this one source is the crux of it. Regarding whether this is one-off or site-wide, I know that List of first ascents (sport climbing) cites this source extensively, as does Bouldering. Thank you kindly for your (volunteer) time. GuineaPigC77 ( 𒅗𒌤) ☕ 07:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Is this an RS for Near death experiences, and specifically [ [28]] for claims about MEDRS statements? I doubt it vey much, but have never heard of it.
See Pam Reynolds case. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we list the website Modern Diplomacy as an unreliable source?
It’s been discussed before at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 249#Modern Diplomacy and Ahtribune. The site’s contributors include, for example, Eric Zuesse [29] of GlobalResearch.ca ( generally unreliable and blacklisted, see www.globalresearch dot ca/author/eric-zuesse), Adomas Abromaitis [30] contributor to Katehon, [31] Anna Wozniak [32] published by OpEdNews, [33] and Dmitri Trenin. [34]
It is cited in about 25 articles. [35] — Michael Z. 22:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
How would you evaluate the reliability of Catholic.org?
Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Having look at a brief sample of citations (from the first five pages that came up in an article-space search for 'Catholic.org'), I can't see much that looks obviously 'false or fabricated'. Some content seems to be press releases-based, or archived from elsewhere. One article cited an 'encyclopedia' article which probably shouldn't be used, but beyond that, from my limited sample I'd say that the website probably falls into a 'best not used for anything important' category - so probably option 2-ish, since they are unlikely to be fabricating press releases on the appointment of cardinals etc. As for the website flogging beef, if we excluded sources that tried to sell us stuff, we'd probably have to exclude the majority of web-based sources entirely. I'd need more to go on to convince me that deprecation for 'fabrication' was merited. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Would the The Pioneer (India) okay to use as a source for an author's Reception section, with any material sourced to it attributed to the publication in the article text? (The specific article in question can be found on this newspaper page; the headline is "2 authors highlight history of tribal warrior". Thanks! -- Andreas JN 466 16:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The FOTW webpage is generally used as reference in most of the flag related articles, including Flag of Great Britain and Flag of France, but also Flag of Canada, which is a featured article or Flag of Gdańsk, which is a good article. The page, from what it seems is a fansite, written by non-specialists, kind of similar to Fandom. They sometimes put the sources of information in the text (then we should base our articles on those sources), but there are situations, that the text has practically no confirmation in any other sources considered as reliable.
A good example of a mistake is the flag of Gmina Świdnica, Lubusz Voivodeship, as seen here: [44]. @ Bolszewski Wikipedysta, seeing no documents mentioning the flag messaged the local government and got as an answer, that the flag was only a proposal and was denied by them.
In my opinion FOTW should not be used as a reference in any article, and should be included on a list of deprecated sources. Filipny ( talk) 14:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Another examples:
- Gmina Białopole, as seen here: [45] - there is an information "that resolution was repealed by another one: # IV/18/07", because of decision of Heraldic Commision. But, unfortunately, one user added it to Commons ( here).
- Powiat górowski, as seen here: [46] - information: "Probably an unofficial flag", but, of course, also in Commons
- Powiat łosicki, as seen here: [47] - in other source, Gazeta Wyborcza ( here in Polish), "symbols was canceled"
There are few of them, but, in my opinion, they are confirmation of @ Filipny: arguments. Best wishes, Bolszewski Wikipedysta ( talk) 15:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Links to previous RSN discussions:
The conclusion always has been that this is an unreliable source for wikipedia. Abecedare ( talk) 17:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I had been defending an edit to the page David Sanders (biologist) that quoted the subject making some controversial remarks on abortion that gained noteriety in at least some circles. The subject is a public figure and the edit cited an article from the website Campus Reform and a YouTube video with 17,000 views. The edit included a direct quote from the subject so whether he said these remarks is not in dispute.
Although it has an ideological slant, in my view Campus Reform issues corrections, list it's editorial team and in the case of this particular news story, it is not engaging in gossip or the tabloid journalism that is condemned in the guidance on BLP articles. But what does the community think? Can a right-leaning website that issues corrections and lists its editorial team be a source on at least a case-by-case basis? JA1776 ( talk) 15:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, we should treat The Hindu as a newspaper of record.
So I would have thought this article in The Hindu is –
Does such use of this source strike anyone as incompatible with sourcing policies and guidelines? -- Andreas JN 466 17:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Is
this a reliable source for
Khoobsurat (TV series)? To me, this seems to be a promotional website with no editorial policies that shows a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
, with its
about us page being vague and refers to social media stats. However,
Lillyput4455 contends that it is reliable critic page
.
VickKiang
(talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I have used Britannica as a source in my articles, and when expanding new ones. But is is reliable, can I use it as a source? I have heard that the articles on Britannica are created by experts, but I don't know if that's true or not. I don't think I've seen Britannica be used as a source in other articles, I however have used it as a source before. Lyricca ( talk) 18:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
In Kari Lake, her date of birth is sourced to this article at world-wire.com. World-Wire used to be a press/news release distributor ( about a dozen-and-a-half mainspace articles link to press releases that used to be available from it) but appears to have transitioned to be a conservative news website providing "quality information content for Conservatives, politics, current events and affairs from USA and around the globe." Here is their editorial policy. Any thoughts on the acceptability as a reliable source of the cited article or of world-wire.com as a whole? – Archer1234 ( talk) 03:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
User:GEMNCNY who has been around for some years appears to only add what appears to be linkspam to articles - often when there is a perfectly reliable alternative source that can be used. Sources used are:
Old edits also include:
I would welcome views on these sites and propose that they be blacklisted. Velella Velella Talk 12:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No problem I understand and I feel the same, just to reiterate, the following all criticize the aforementioned theory by S.R. Driver, further developed by J.J. Collins:
Many of these are given by Collins:
Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton
Young and Baldwin.
The studies of C. F. Boutflower,
D. J. Wiseman
Gerhard Hasel,
K. A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel." Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel 31 (1965)
W. H. Shea, A. J. Ferch, “The Book of Daniel and the ‘Maccabean Thesis (1983)
Vasholz, Robert I. "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel." JETS 21.4 (1978)
Beckwith, Roger. "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel." (2008)
Haughwout, Mark S. "Dating the Book of Daniel." (2013).
— User:Billyball998
Please chime in if these sources count as WP:RS, especially in view of WP:RSAGE. tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
When you say:
"As far as dual authorship, the jury is still out. The idea was first put forth by Spinoza..."I would note that you do not need to be looking further back in time to look for current updates on scholarship but forwards. Anything older than a 100 years is almost totally void in terms of modern scholarship except as an example of the history of the modern scholarship. For current updates on a debate you are looking at the last two, three decades max. Iskandar323 ( talk) 07:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
a controversy raging in the mainstream academiaand looking at Billyball998's edit and arguments, the clear answer from WP:RSN should be no, that's an inappropriate use of sources, move along. fiveby( zero) 16:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Note: Andrews, JETS, Themelios, and Tyndale publish only evangelical scholars (if we count the SDA Church among evangelicals). tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Thompson (2020) is in fact a reprint of Thompson, Henry O. (1993). The book of Daniel : an annotated bibliography. New York: Garland Pub. ISBN 0-8240-4873-3. OCLC 25507833. at Thompson, Henry O. (2020). Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography. Taylor & Francis. p. xxx. ISBN 978-1-135-77658-9. Retrieved 2022-11-06. it says that the liberal perspective did not became normative until the 19th century, i.e. the opposite of Billyball998's POV. tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Source 1: Mark S. Haughwout, "Dating the Book of Daniel. A Survey of the Evidence for an Early Date", self-published, M.A. The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 2013, http://markhaughwout.com/Bible/Dating_Daniel.pdf
Source 2: Beckwith, Roger, "Early Traces of the Book of Daniel", Tyndale Bulletin, scholarly article, 2002, https://web.archive.org/web/20211018172928/https://nevt.org/doc_474318.pdf
Source 3: Vasholz, Robert I., "Qumran and the Dating of Daniel", The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, scholarly article, December 1978, https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-4/21-4-pp315-321_JETS.pdf
Source 4: Arthur J. Ferch, "The Book of Daniel and the 'Maccabean Thesis'", Andrews University Seminary Studies, scholarly article, Summer 1983, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1609&context=auss;THE
Source 5: K.A. Kitchen, "The Aramaic of Daniel", The Tyndale Press, part of a book, 1965, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_kitchen.pdf
Source 6: Gerhard F. Hasel, "The Identity of the 'Saints of the Most High' in Daniel 7", Biblica, scholarly article, 1975, https://www.jstor.org/stable/42610712
Source 7: D. J. Wiseman, "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel", The Tyndale Press, part of a book, 1965, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tp/notes-daniel/daniel_wiseman.pdf
Source 8: Boutflower, Charles, "In and around the Book of Daniel", Society for promoting Christian knowledge, book, 1923, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=W-g2AAAAMAAJ
Source 9: E.J. Young, "Daniel's Vision of a Son of Man", Tyndale, book, 1958, not on public web
Source 10: E.J. Young, "The Messianic Prophecies of Daniel", Eerdmans, book, 1954, not on public web
Source 11: E.J. Young, "The Prophecy of Daniel", Eerdmans, book, 1949, not on public web
Source 12: Joyce G. Baldwin, "Daniel", Inter-Varsity Press, book, 1978, not on public web
Source 13: Joyce G. Baldwin, "Is There Pseudonimity in the Old Testament?", Themelios, scholarly article, 1978-1979, https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/themelios/pseudonymity_baldwin.pdf
Source 14: Joyce G. Baldwin, "Some Literary Affinities of the Book of Daniel", Tyndale Bulletin, scholarly article, 1979, https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/30610-some-literary-affinities-of-the-book-of-daniel.pdf
Source 15: Robert Dick Wilson, "Studies In The Book Of Daniel: A Discussion Of The Historical Questions", G. P. Putnam's Sons, book, 1917, https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Book-Daniel-Discussion-Historical/dp/1437138012
Source 15: S.R. Driver, "The Book of Daniel. With Introduction and Notes", The Macmillan Co., book, 1900, https://books.google.com/books?id=YC82AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Source 16: Wegner, Walter E., "The Book of Daniel and the Dead Sea Scrolls", Quartalschrift-Theological Quarterly, scholarly article, 1958, http://essays.wisluthsem.org:8080/bitstream/handle/123456789/626/WegnerDaniel.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Source 17: Thompson, Henry O., "The Book of Daniel: An Annotated Bibliography", Routledge, book, 2020, https://www.routledge.com/Book-of-Daniel-An-Annotated-Bibliography/Thompson/p/book/9781315056609 relevant section: https://ibb.co/s9YVy5b
Source x:
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheesh! we are debating whether an SPS by Austin Bessey is a RS. I believe that this assessment boils down to 3 elements: 1. Whether Bessey is a subject matter expert for songs, 2. Whether his work has been published and 3. whether this particular review which is just 3 sentences about the song " Sheesh!" constituted WP:SIGCOV. Bessey asserts here that he has "over 6 years directing and managing the music programming for the national Radio Disney and Radio Disney Country stations". As a college radio DJ in the 1980s, I imagine that a radio music programmers job in the 2010s (era of digital and streaming submissions) included determining which fraction of 1% of all music submissions for airplay would be included in the airplay rotation and how heavily they should be rotated. At this AFD, I am unable to get a concession that a professional music programmer for a national radio network constitutes a subject matter expert on songs. In regards to whether his work has been published, I submit that the fraction of 1% of the songs that he endorsed for airplay on the national Disney Radio networks are considered publications of his opinion of their quality and merit. Back when I was assessing whether works by relatively unknown up and coming acts such as Run DMC, Beastie Boys and Whitney Houston should be aired on our station in the 1980s, I presented my opinion on songs and albums that came in for consideration. If Bessey reviewed hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of songs in a week and wrote 3 positive sentences about one of them, that is a significant opinion. The fact that songs made the airwaves was a form of publication for the field of musical programming. The third consideration is whether a 2-sentence paragraph about a song and a 3rd sentence declaring it a landmark for the band constitutes significant coverage.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
TimesNext is being used as a source in a few articles. It doesn't seem a reliable source to me, I can't find any indication of it being considered a mainstream news source and the about page does not inspire confidence with the heavy blockchain focus. There's a related issue that some of the links have been added by one of their founders User:Heena Vinayak but I'd appreciate a general opinion on if they're a RS. JaggedHamster ( talk) 14:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
As in the edit I reverted here[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pi-HaHiroth&action=history] and similar by same new editor. Doug Weller talk 21:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Context: Original poorly formatted notification here. However, it contains how the authors and organization are covered in reliable sources. In addition, since the original listing, I created an article for Health Liberation Now!
Question: Can we use Health Liberation Now! as a source for factual information?
TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 04:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptableis worth heeding here.There is a narrow exception for expert sources, which is reserved for people
whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Along those lines, @ TheTranarchist: has the research of the two people who run this website previously been published by independent, reliable publications, such as academic or peer-reviewed journals? If so, would you be willing to provide links to some examples? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
a trans researcher and health activist who has extensively documented the origins of what he calls TAnon
researcherwho
researches TERFs because she used to be one. She’s written extensively about being sucked into a cult-like “detransition” movement which convinced young transmasculine people that their dysphoria was caused by misogyny and could only be cured by radical feminism.. They also state
She has been my most patient guide through the world of organized transphobia, having previously spoken to me about the rise of anti-trans activism targeting doctors and gender clinics; every conversation is a whirlwind of names, dates, times and bizarre blog posts from TERF havens, illuminating the underbelly of an obsessive and increasingly dangerous movement.
a researcher who tracks anti-trans activity
trans journalist
HLN researcher
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender. And, frankly, none of the other publications appear to provide evidence that either of the founders of the website have previously published their work in reliable, independent publications; merely being referred to as a researcher or a journalist by the popular press is not evidence that an individual is an SME in light of our guidelines on self-published sources. As such, this appears to be a non-SME SPS, though if you can provide evidence either founder has actually published their research in reputable, independent publications, I'd be happy to look it over. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
the social and political forces acting in opposition to health liberation for transgender, detransitioned, retransitioned, and gender diverse people, as well as those questioning their gender, the fact that Schevers has verifiably been on both sides of the issue adds credence to her expertise. The Florence Ashley paper described her factually as
heavily involved in detransitioner advocacy for 6 years. There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 17:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (I can't imagine that writing an op-ed or commentary piece in the WSJ or the The NY Times instantly qualified someone as a subject-matter expert when we don't typically consider their regular columnists to be reliable for statements of fact.) I think the guideline looks more for academic sources or something published by reputable think tanks like Brookings Institution or the like; we typically don't even consider independent journalists who formerly worked at a major newspapers to be SMEs.
There's also the fun aspect that transgender people pay much closer attention to legislative attacks on our rights, since they affect us directly, than cis colleagues are likely to, I don't think that I've ever advocated for discounting trans people's writings or opinions on the basis of their gender identity. I also don't think that being trans makes one an SME on the social and political forces opposing trans people, much in the same way that being Muslim or being Jewish doesn't make one an SME on the various Islamophobic or antisemitic social and political forces that prowl about the world, respectively. Is one's baseline awareness higher? I imagine so, but that's not really relevant to source analysis here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
There is disagreement about the credibility of https://polarguidebook.com in the Flag of Antarctica page in relation to the claim "[The flag] is widely considered to be the official flag of Antarctica and is the only one to be recognized by [Antarctic] treaty members" from their article Who Owns Antarctica? I personally consider this to be a credible source for two reasons.
1. The website seems to do its due diligence
2. The claim in the article is corroborated by multiple sources
Not A Witty Fish 15:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There is an RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials taking place at WT:BLP, and it may have implications for the ways WP:RS are used. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial ( talk) 03:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Both RFCs were started without prior consensus on their scope or wording. One ran into an impasse (with editors disagreeing on what the options would actually mean if applied), and the other seems to have sputtered out. I've started a discussion to workshop a new RFC, with proper consensus on its scope & options, that would subsume both RFCs above. Everyone is invited to join us in workshopping it; the outcome of this future RFC may have very wide-ranging effects for all BLPs, and on our sourcing requirements for denials, so it's important that it reflect a wide consensus. DFlhb ( talk) 08:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Does this book review on news18.com pass WP:RS?
2. What are editors' views on news18.com more generally? It's cited in about 1,000 articles and is a sister site of Firstpost, Forbes India and CNN-News18. -- Andreas JN 466 18:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
See [ https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-jerusalem-post-recycles-old-claims-about-goliaths-skull-at-golgotha?fbclid=IwAR2Ew2Yl4oedbIAJAirKD4Rl03Q3LRYiKmS5u8H3wZJD_48Cm27Dx_sfSRk] and [ https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/08/11/no-archaeologists-have-not-found-the-trojan-horse/?fbclid=IwAR3Gk7p60w4XHdTC18_RNGWL6kk-oiT6DeqF0tKx63tBusldDnpqPcAhMu8]. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Above I brought forth a RS regarding this contested subject and have been convinced it should be accorded minimal weight and does not pass the test for RS. However, I believe that there are 3 RS. On a scale of 1-10 in terms of RS, many of the sources are 1s, 2s and 3s. However, I think I have 3 sources upon which a stub could be created that achieves WP:SIGCOV. I don't think this subject is being treated fairly in terms of its presentation of RS in regard to the following three sources:
Victoria Arakelova is particularly used as source for Azerbaijanis and other related articles, especially for the population estimates. After listing some of her estimates on the demographics of the Iranian provinces that Azerbaijanis inhabit, she ends up at "a comparatively safe figure of the Iranian Turkophone groups (i.e. Azaris, alias ― “Azerbaijanis”) ― 6-6,5 millions, maximum less than 5 % of the total population of Iran" [1] Now, considering that this source is from the year 2015, the population of Iran was 78,492,208 in 2015. ( [54]) When we divide 6 million (the lowest estimate) by this number, we get 7.64407 % of the total population, not "maximum less than 5 % of the total population of Iran." Moreover, the total population of each Azerbaijani-inhabited Iranian province that she based her estimate on apparently comes from the 2011 census. Then, Iran's population was 75,149,669 ( [55], this is the site she cited), which is even less than 78,492,208. So, she definitely didn't do the calculations correctly. Does this still make her a reliable source? Because she is deflating the percentage of the Iranian Azerbaijanis for her population estimate by more than 50 percent, which I would regard as a clear manifestation of bias and the arbitrary nature of the article. I am currently on a rush, but we can also discuss later who she is, her tone in this article, and put all of this into context to reconsider her reliability. Thank you so much to anyone who reads and responds. Ayıntaplı ( talk) 02:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
References
EurAsian Times is an extremely questionable source that seems to lift news or work from other sources without any attempt to vet them. In particular, the articles relating to the Russia-Ukraine War are full of tabloid-like headlines and sometimes outright regurgitation of Russian propaganda without any attempt at verification. The site is supposedly an Indian-Canadian venture, and I'm not sure if their questionable reporting quality is the result of an agenda or laziness, but some articles are making extraordinary claims when citing EurAsian Times. Steve7c8 ( talk) 06:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, could I get an assessment on the reliability of this website? I haven't come across it before, or seen it cited in wikipedia. It's based in London, the main editor is Daniel Johnson, with articles by numerous writers. Specifically, can this be treated as a reliable source with respect to the reported death of Brian Eley? ( https://www.thearticle.com/brian-eley-the-jimmy-savile-of-chess). There does at least appear to be some degree of editorial oversight here. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 01:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm worried that we're still going to be saying Eley's alive 50 years from nowconsidering that our article doesn't say that he's alive now I don't see that's really a concern. At worst we won't be saying that he's dead, and our readers will be capable of concluding for themselves that a man born in 1946 probably isn't still alive in 2072. We have articles on people who lived a lot longer ago which don't explicitly say their subjects died: Wikipedia hasn't fallen because Thutmose (18th-dynasty vizier) doesn't give a date of death, and he lived 3500 years ago!
This is the article concerned: [57] Good to go? -- Andreas JN 466 11:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Is trójmiasto.pl a reliable source for articles about the Tricity area? It doesn't cite sources, however I still would call it a primary source of information and I need an opinion from the general Wikipedia public. I am not trying to cite ther website in an article right now, but information about what is and isn't reliable still would be helpful. Thanks! :-) Luxtay the IInd ( talketh to me) 14:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Eg []Sphinx water erosion hypothesis]] for this.[ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Twentieth_Dynasty_of_Egypt&curid=28830264&diff=1121297053&oldid=1116995428]. See [ https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Ramesses_XI/] and [ https://pantheon.world/data/faq]. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Pantheon is project that uses biographical data to expose patterns of human collective memory. Pantheon contains data on more than 70k biographies, which Pantheon distributes through a powerful data visualization engine centered on locations, occupations, and biographies. Pantheon’s biographical data contains information on the age, occupation, place of birth, and place of death, of historical characters with a presence in more than 15 language editions of Wikipedia.So, as Slatersteven says, I think that's a solid no. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently,
WP:TWITTER notes that In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way
. Recently, Twitter has made changes to what it means to be "verified" on Twitter, allowing any subscriber or
Twitter Blue to be marked as "verified". My understanding is that we can't actually verify that an account belongs to a particular person the account claims to be if it is "verified" by virtue of its subscription to Twitter Blue. I would like to get input from other editors regarding how we treat Twitter accounts with the blue checkmark granted by purchasing Twitter Blue when we're applying
WP:BLPSPS and
WP:ABOUTSELF. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 02:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This account is verified because it’s subscribed to Twitter Blue. Even some legacy-verified users are now showing this after subscribing to Twitter Blue, so the transition has already happened to some. DFlhb ( talk) 03:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Elon Musk, warned that bankruptcy was a possibility. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sourceswould have covered this situation, but then I recalled that some pretty famous names are leaving the site, and I would assume that those handles will at some point become available for cybersquatting. Unless we want to caveat that caveat with something like
and who have not been confirmed to have left the site based on reliable third-party sources? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 05:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
and that reputation for accuracy has been lost at least temporarily
ceased to be a reliable indicator(I'd agree within reason), or is it Twitter as a whole? Good arguments have been presented for the former, but while I've seen some assert the latter, none yet have presented arguments; doing so would significantly strengthen that case. Cheers DFlhb ( talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
This account is verified because it’s notable in government, news, [...]notice). I was wrong, celebrities and politicians who bought Twitter Blue still show the old notice. So thankfully we can still tell the difference (for now). I'd suggest we add an endnote to WP:RSPTWITTER to explain how to do this: click on the blue check, and see if it says the above, or says
because it's subscribed to Twitter Blue. If anything changes, we can rediscuss, but I'd say that change is sufficient for now. DFlhb ( talk) 23:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we use Steam as a reliable third-party source specifically for a game's release date, publisher and/or developer? For example, see the fact box for Stardew Valley. ERegion ( talk) 15:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)