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 280 | ← | Archive 282 | Archive 283 | Archive 284 | Archive 285 | Archive 286 | → | Archive 290 |
I do find it rather concerning that perfectly good citations can be utterly destroyed due to poor RfC judgement. Why an out-right ban? This by David Gerard has removed a citation from the newspaper and place a cn tag in it's place. I see nothing wrong with the Sun article. If another article can't be found the citation should remain and maybe tagged. I've never seen an admin with such bad judgement across over this area. There has been a lot of links removed regarding The Sun's sports articles and some other topic wiki articles. Citations should be weighed on what they contain, not from who it is written. I strongly suggest more common sense and another review and I would go so far as to say I think David should be topic banned from removing citations relating to this conversation. Govvy ( talk) 00:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.Is this a score from a match, or similar facts from a match? It doesn't look like one to me. Or is it a claim contrived to sound interesting?
sports score lines et-al, so you'll excuse me if I'm deeply reluctant to trust interesting and eye-catching claims from a source that has been formally deprecated for repeated falsification of information - David Gerard ( talk) 07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.
On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with
Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.I don't see the word "controversial" in there.
many of the facts are not controversial and that was the consensusfrom? That's not in the RFC conclusion.
that it is not a problem for information that is not controversial, please do - because I'm really pretty sure its conclusion absolutely doesn't, and says - without qualification other than WP:ABOUTSELF - that its use it is
actively discouraged. But if you can quote the actual words from the RFC that you think support your claims, as I have done to support my claims, please do so - David Gerard ( talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll let you find the words and read what others have written here.This seems to indicate you have no policy or guideline backing for your opinions. Which is fine, but does nothing to counter the basis in policy, guidelines incorporated by reference into that policy, and the strong consensus of a general RFC, of my actions. So your objection seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT - David Gerard ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz insists The Sun is a better source than a {{ cn}} for a claim on BLP material concerning Brian Houston (pastor), and has edit-warred it back in - even acknowledging that the deprecated source is the only source for the claim - and said "Take it to RSN". [2] [3] So here we are. I'd think it was obvious that we can't use a deprecated source for straight-up BLP material. Opinions? - David Gerard ( talk) 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@ David Gerard: I see you ignored the addition I made in the Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News section above. Take a look and respond there instead as you're misrepresenting the point. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Accuracy in Media a reliable source for the credibility of Climate Feedback ( RSP entry)? The following was added to the Climate Feedback article in Special:Diff/936305491:
In 2018 during a dispute regarding fact checking of the Daily Caller by Google and partner Climate Feedback, Brian McNicoll of Accuracy in Media called climatefeedback.org "a highly partisan climate site," "which has had many of its facts challenged," and the Daily Caller said "Climate Feedback is not usually regarded as objective," like Snopes. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
— Newslinger talk 11:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In one of our many non-fun discussions over at the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, the following book has been removed from the article because the editor SashiRolls insists that the book has a partisan POV and disputes whether it's been authored by a recognized expert: Colleen Elizabeth Kelley's 2018 book A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (Lexington Books). The author is an an Associate Professor of Communication studies at Penn State and wrote a peer-reviewed book about the 2016 election. The book specifically includes content that evaluates whether there was media bias against Sanders in the 2016 election, with the author concluding that there was media bias in one sense but not in another. Additionally, this is one of very few peer-reviewed publications on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, which is full of borderline RS, op-eds and low-quality content (content that the same editor has on multiple occasions edit-warred back into the article), which should make this particular source very valuable. Can I please get confirmation that this peer-reviewed publication by a recognized expert is a RS and should be included? Also, this is a plea for help to get more eyes on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, and more participation on the talk page, where so so so much time goes into trying to settle pointless matters such as whether peer-reviewed studies can be added to the article (and it's primarily one editor who is editing in a way that necessitates these pointless discussions). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a debate/disagreement on whether or a particular source meets the requirements of a wp:RS? This relates (only) to satisfying wp:ver and (unfortunately) does not include a non-bias requirement or consideration. IMHO there can still be editor discussions on other matters where bias of the source can be discussed and relevant.North8000 ( talk) 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Would Playmakerstats be a RS for association football articles? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Indian media keeps on carelessly giving estimations of various Indian caste, communities, etc. on regular basis, although there hasn't been a census for those details since 1931. Are those non-scholarly estimations preferred over scholarly estimations from the experts of the field? Coming to the point, on one hand, we have a scholarly source which estimates Jat population to be 30 million in South Asia (in 2010). On the other hand, we have an article from a newspaper – which has mirrored WP before – estimating them to be 82.5 million in 2012 in India alone. Anyway please provide inputs at Talk:Jat people#Jat population in India. Thanks. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not believe Blender magazine is a reliable source of information, as the magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" and "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs...Ever" lists are incredibly biased and comes solely from one viewpoint. It is not even factual as others claim. In addition, the supposed criteria of the former list of "all songs had to have been hits at one point" leaves actually bad songs unnoticed and the "no novelty songs" rule is a lie as "Cotton Eye Joe" by Rednex is listed in the former. Therefore, all uses of it as a source must be wiped.
73.123.30.85 ( talk) 20:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Related to a recent BLP AFD editors discussed the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre (CFMDC) as source. I saw no immediate problems based on used as source on more than 30 enwiki articles, but another editor identified the source as WP:BROCHURE. Just in case I want this "on record" in the RS/N archives—the talk page would be deleted with the article—the issue could pop-up again for the other articles referencing CFMDC. – 84.46.53.192 ( talk) 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm posting this in relation to the currently ongoing AfD discussion of a new article about an 80s band, and the use of this review at Exclaim! to support notability. (Pinging Michig and Atlantic306 who have expressed views there.) Exclaim! is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as a reliable source for musical topics, following this discussion where Andrzejbanas suggested it as an RS - nobody responded either way, so it was added to the list. Exclaim! is a printed magazine, with staff and an editorial board, and all the hallmarks of an RS; however, they also accept contributions from the public. I'd like to open this out to the wider community to see whether we are comfortable with reviews on their website being used to support notability for albums and/or musicians - my concern is that it may be a form of curated UGC along the lines of Forbes Contributors (as described at RSP). I don't have a strong view either way on this, music not being my area of expertise, and I will withdraw the AfD nomination if there is consensus that the website is indeed reliable for this purpose. (Bother - forgot to sign. Re-pinging the users mentioned above - Michig, Atlantic306, Andrzejbanas) GirthSummit (blether) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Cars.com bills itself as a leading digital marketplace and solutions provider for the automotive industry that connects car shoppers with sellers. No editorial policy that I can see. I'm not sure what credentials the staff have. They seem to be employed in the industry in various roles, but is that enough? Just curious. This is spawned by the insistence to use it as a bare ref here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising"refer to AdChoices, which means that Cars.com gives its readers a way to opt-out of some types of cookie-based targeted advertising. It doesn't refer to the blog's content. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"Since being acquired by DCG in January 2016, CoinDesk has operated independently from the parent company. We work in separate offices and maintain strict policies on editorial independence and transparency, described below."While my position in the CoinDesk RfC was different than the result of the RfC, I think all sources should be treated with a consistent set of standards. Cars.com is less credible than CoinDesk, in my view, as they sell the products they write about on the same website. The phrase
"apparent conflict of interest"is a key factor quoted from the policy on questionable sources. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
While having an editorial team means that Cars.com is not a
self-published source, that alone does not make it reliable. For comparison,
The Canary also
has an editoral team, but was
poorly received due to its bias. Also, CoinDesk is not the only example of a source that was criticized for its conflict of interest.
A 2019 RfC determined that
The Points Guy (
RSP entry) should be avoided for information related to credit cards, because its core business consists of selling credit cards to its readers. Product review sites that are funded by commissions, including various
VPN comparison sites (
example 1,
example 2), are treated the same way. The Cars.com blog and other content marketing sites are generally unreliable because they have an "
apparent conflict of interest"
that is not counterbalanced by a strong reputation. Reviews on the site should also not be used to determine
notability, since content marketers tend to cover as many related topics as possible to drive more traffic to the site. —
Newslinger
talk 23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
(Unindenting) Almost all sites are marketing content sites (or blogs), but some are more marketing-infested than others. A possible objective criteria for rating amounts of advertising could be the number of sites supplying JavaScript, and the number of tracker sites involved, as these can be counted with NoScript and EFF Privacy Badger add-ons. The following results were seen for an arbitrary selection of site home pages, both on and off the RSPS list. By this objective measure, several sites on RSPS put heavier emphasis on advertising than a site like Liliputing, which was called "Advert-infested clickbait." [15] These include ArsTechnica, CNN, Forbes, USA Today, and Verge. Based on this, it appears cars.com, while certainly another "advert-infested clickbait" site, is being unfairly criticized in this regard.
FWIW, From Duck Duck Go news search, there are several alternative sources for the topic. Page scores are shown below. These compare with 18, 19 for the cars.com source page. By this measure, the cars.com source page is less "advert-infested clickbait" than the RSPS-listed Forbes alternative, as well as two other non-listed alternatives. [16] (Page score: 31, 15) [17] (Page score: 25, 18) [18] (Page score: 23, 15). The other current source for the topic scored "only" 13, 9, which is good compared with most others. [19] -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That's an interesting analysis, but I think it misses my point. I did not call Cars.com "Advert-infested clickbait"; I said that Cars.com has an "apparent conflict of interest"
, which is a criterion listed in the
policy on questionable sources. Regarding advertising, I rarely see any display ads online because I use
uBlock Origin, which blocks ads and trackers in my web browser. Display ads are sufficiently pervasive that they are not considered conflicts of interest, and online
ad exchanges use a dynamic bidding model that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for journalists to predict the ads that will be shown alongside their writing. Display ads also change constantly. Citations in Wikipedia articles refer to the content of the cited websites, and not the extraneous site elements (such as the ads). Most concerns regarding reliability are also based on the content of cited sources – the material that ad blockers are not able to hide. While independent publications live and die by the quality of their content, Cars.com sells cars, and its content is just a promotional device for its car listings. Cars.com's business as a classified ad site benefits the most when it publishes content that convinces the reader to buy cars on its site. Cars.com has no business incentive to write articles that do anything else, and that's what separates
content marketing from actual content. —
Newslinger
talk 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Last time there was no obvious agreement on whether this self-published site counts as a WP:RS. Richard Nevell said he would come up with some information showing the author to be an expert sufficient to at least allow attributed use, though most of the links are decorative ("External Links" not sources). Is it valid as a source, rather than an external link (which is a separate matter)? Guy ( help!) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Just checking this is a reliable source? Going by our article—and the heavyweight commentators it notes as writing for the mag—it should be, and it's also indexed on JSTOR. Any views? All the best! —— SN 54129 17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
There are too many sources being deleted from Land of Punt here [20] by User:Dalhoa for me to go through them all, but two obvious examples are Dimitri Meeks [21] as well as Ian Shaw's Cambridge University Press book. [22] which is still used in the article. And of course as the entire section on Punt's possible location elsewhere was deleted, Meeks again as well as sources used in the section on Sri Lanka which I don't really know about. I'm mainly concerned about the Egyptologists in any case. This is I believe really a POV problem, see [23] and [24] - note the focus on the Horn of Africa. But I'll pursue that elsewhere if we can get agreement on the Egyptologists here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
HI, I want to know are this journal confiable for wiki ? reviewjournal. DRIS92 ( talk) 13:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In this articles Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, Reactions to the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike or 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike for example DRIS92 ( talk) 13:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.) ∯WBG converse 16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, just wanted to know if this was a reliable source: [1] The article in question is Zack Hample Idan ( talk) 05:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello everyone, I have been discussion the removal of HYPR notability maintenance tag on Talk:HYPR_Corp#Reply_15-JAN-2020, Spintendo made a checklist to show the qualifying sources but he suggested to ask an editor who is more experienced in notability requirements which is why I came here. My doubt is that he deems Fortune and Darkreading articles as not secondary because they are based on CEO Avetisov interview, I disagree because WP:secondary defines secondary source as a source that gives information about a primary source, which could be an interview. Also, he left this source out of his checklist [1]. Does HYPR have significant coverage in multiple secondary sources? Thanks everyone!. Kriptocurrency ( talk) 22:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Here is an example of Hindustan Times mirroring nearly 80% of its article's content from WP's unsourced content – copyvio report.
Mirroring by HT
|
---|
This is our unsourced version as of 14 July 2012 (the sole sourced line of the following content was actually supported by this unreliable UGC):
And this is copy-pasted version published by the Hindustan Times on 25 October 2012:
|
I have seen many more mirrors from Indian and Pakistani newspapers, but I never kept record of them. Anyway, I will report them here in the future. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in a discussion about whether mlb.com is a reliable source. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Current consensus [25] is that WP:DAILYMAIL redirects to the well-known RFC, unlike WP:BREITBART which takes you to WP:RSP.
My question is, would it be controversial/not worth the bother to add a WP:DAILYMAIL (RSP) for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Here we have Newslinger removing attributed, sourced material from a Forbes blog because it is considered "self-published." [26]
Here we have Snooganssnoogans restoring un-attributed, sourced material from a "The Guardian" blog, [27] which was acknowledged as true (blog source) in an apology here, [28] and strikethrough of personal attack here. [29]
Should similar blog sources be treated oppositely like this? Should they be used or not for this article, and if so, should they be attributed similarly? -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
A couple clarifications please: (1) Trying not to cast aspersions, but isn't using a term like "Grauniad" an example of using "derogatory, and insulting terms," or is this considered OK when directed outside Wikipedia? [30] (2) Isn't taking an isolated comment, from a long blog article with lots of details about a study, considered cherry picking or undue weight? Especially when the "highly respected and influential resource" comment is not also found in other, more reliable sources? -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion which includes the assessment of the reliability of the SPLC as a source of reference for Wikipedia article lead paragraphs is taking place here. Please feel free to participate. SITH (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The most-cited source in Legends Football League is lfl360.com . Attempts to find out anything about it are stymied right now due to a database connection error on the site, which is hardly a good sign. Archives don't show any of the indicia of reliability. Is this a usable source? It looks, on the face of it, to be a mashup of WP:FANSITE and WP:PHWOOOOOOAAAAR!. Guy ( help!) 23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.But that is just my two cents as I have been digging for any non-primary sources and RS sources trying to clean it up. Yosemiter ( talk) 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I am opening this request to seek clarification about linking to PDFs from Semantic Scholar through the OABOT tool, specifically if those PDFs do or do not violate copyright. In this way, this request for clarification is less about reliability, and more about if we can link to them without copyright infringement. I understand this topic was discussed recently here, yet I am raising this again as a result of a number of my edits, where I inserted links to these PDFs, being reverted, specifically as discussed on the OABOT Talk page here. I am seeking to follow copyright laws and uphold them here on Wikipedia, but my recent reverts seem to have conflicting arguments as to whether they should have been done or not, so I want to clarify this issue here before I take any action with either inserting more links to Semantic Scholar PDFs or reverting the reverts to my edits by citing the results of this clarification. Thank you. --- FULBERT ( talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that they may or may not violate copyright, that we have no way of telling, and that because we can't tell we shouldn't link to them. My experience to back this up is that I tried searching for my own papers there and the second one I tried was clearly the publisher copy of an otherwise-paywalled paper, clearly not uploaded there by any author, provided for free download by semanticscholar even though it's still a paywalled paper. I think it's reasonably likely that semanticscholar obtained a license from the publisher to index the papers, extremely unlikely that it obtained a license to redistribute the papers open-access, and somewhat likely that it decided to go ahead and redistribute the papers that it obtained anyway despite not having permission. Alternatively maybe they intended to index but not redistribute and their software has a bug. But guesswork is guesswork. We need clear evidence that the publishers allow redistribution in order to avoid linking to pirate copies of papers, and we don't have that evidence in this case. We shouldn't default to assuming without evidence that anything we find on the net is free for the taking, just like we shouldn't assume that any object we find lying on the street is free for us to take and walk away with; that's pirate thinking. The evidence doesn't have to be anything as formal as an explicit statement of permission from a publisher, separately for each link: a link that appears to be the original publisher, a site controlled by an author of the paper, or an institutional repository of the author, can all be reasonably safely assumed to be legitimate. We can't just assume legitimacy for sites like citeseerx that pick up pdfs from anywhere, but citeseerx allows us to check in individual cases where they got the file from and whether that looks like the publisher or author. For semanticscholar, we don't even have that, we just have a bare pdf, and that's not good enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. I'm not familiar with that particular website, but based on what I've read, one would need to check the status of an individual article to ascertain its copyright and license status and hence whether linking to it is appropriate. The other possibility for papers from years ago that are unavailable from many years ago would be to make a fair use claim. That could be difficult given that the links are to entire papers rather than portions of them, but a countervailing argument would be if there is no other practicable way to access the work even for a fee. Someone such as Moonriddengirl might be able to comment more knowledgeably on these issues. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious as to whether eBaum's World can be cited as a reliable source as a reference on a Wikipedia article?-- Bartallen2 ( talk) 07:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - I just wished to clarify that -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 08:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's a quote from WP's P. V. Sindhu (dated 2 September 2019):
Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments on the BWF circuit, including a silver medal at the 2016 Olympics ... She is the recipient of the sports honour Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri.
And here's a quote from a Mint's article (dated 25 September 2019):
Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments including a silver medal at the 2016. Sindhu is the recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri.
So careless was the copy-paste by the Mint that they even forgot to complete the sentence after "2016". - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is an example of the Dawn newspaper mirroring around 60% of its content from WP (Copyvio report: [33]):
These are relevant quotes from WP's version of 8 April 2012:
He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films. ... In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence," ... He sang his first song in the Indian film Ibrat in 1951 and got recognition. His family moved to Pakistan and settled in Karachi in 1954, where he began participating in variety shows, music programs, and children's programs on radio. In 1954, he recorded his first non-film song, "Bunder Road se Keemari", written by Mehdi Zaheer for the popular Radio Pakistan show Bachchon Ki Duniya; the song was a hit and became the steppingstone for Rushdi's future. ... After the success of "Bunder Road se Keemari", Rushdi was offered songs as a playback singer for films and quickly gained popularity. He lent his voice to many hit films like Bara Aadmi (1956), Wah Rey Zamaney (1957), Raat Ke Rahi (1957), Yeh Dunya (1958) and many more.
Here is the relevant quotes from the Dawn's article of 11 April 2012:
He sang his first song in the Indian film "Ibrat" in 1951 and got recognition. His family eventually moved to Pakistan and settled in Karachi in 1954, where he began participating in variety shows, music programs, and children's programs on radio.
In 1954, he recorded his first non-film song, "Bunder Road se Keemari", written by Mehdi Zaheer for the popular Radio Pakistan show Bachchon Ki Duniya – the song was a hit and became the steppingstone for Rushdi's future.
The success of "Bunder Road se Keemari", opened new doors for Rushdi as he got offers for playback singing for films and quickly gained popularity. He lent his voice to many hit films like "Bara Aadmi" (1956), "Wah Rey Zamaney" (1957), "Raat Ke Rahi" (1957), "Yeh Dunya" (1958) and many more.
Unfortuantely he suffered from health issues during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack having recorded about 5,000 film songs for 583 released films.
In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence."
- NitinMlk ( talk) 18:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example of Dunya News mirroring nearly whole of its article from WP (Copyvio report: [34]):
This is WP's version as of 8 April 2012
Ahmed Rushdi, SI, PP (Urdu: احمد رشدی; April 24, 1934 – April 11, 1983) was a versatile Pakistani playback singer who worked in film music and was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south asia[1] and was a natural baritone, yet could sing high tenor notes with ease. Born in Hyderabad Deccan, he migrated to Pakistan and became a leading singer in the Pakistan film industry. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south asia[2] and credited as having sung the "first-ever South asian" pop song, "Ko-Ko-Ko-reena."[3]
In 1954, he recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers.[4][5] Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages. He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films. Besides popular music, Rushdi also helped popularize the ghazals of Naseer Turabi.[6]
In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence," an honour given for distinguished merit in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science.[7] A street in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, also named Ahmed Rushdi Road.[8]
And this is the full article of Dunya News published on 11 April 2012
The 29th death anniversary of versatile playback singer Ahmed Rushdi is being observed today. Ahmed Rushdi was a versatile playback singer who worked in film music and was an important contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film music.Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south Asia. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south Asia and credited as having sung the first-ever South Asian pop song‚ Ko-Ko-Ko-reena.In 1954‚ Rushdi recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers. He recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu‚ English‚ Punjabi‚ Bengali‚ Sindhi and Gujarati languages.He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack on April 11 1983 at the age of 48‚ after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films.In 2003‚ 20 years after his death‚ Ahmed Rushdi was awarded the Sitara-e-Imtiaz while a street in Gulshan-e-Iqbal‚ Karachi‚ was also named as Ahmed Rushdi Road.
- NitinMlk ( talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example of The Nation mirroring half of its article from WP (Copyvio report: [35]):
This is WP's version as of 27 march 2011:
... was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south asia[1] and was a natural baritone, yet could sing high tenor notes with ease. Born in Hyderabad Deccan, he migrated to Pakistan and became a leading singer in the Pakistan film industry. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south asia and credited as having sung the "first-ever South asian" pop song, "Ko-Ko-Ko-reena."[2] In 1954, he recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers.[3][4] Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema. ... Since 1976, Ahmed Rushdi was a heart patient and his doctors advised him to abstain from singing but Rushdi refused by saying that music was his life. When he had a second heart attack in 1981, he was composing a musical album in the voice of singer Mujeeb Aalam. His last non film song was "Aaney walo suno" which was a duet with Mehnaz. On the night of April 11, 1983, he had a third heart attack. He was immediately taken to the hospital but pronounced dead by the doctors.
And here is the quote from The Nation's article dated 12 April 2011:
He has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema industry. He sang over 800 songs for 583 films till his death in 1983. Ahmed Rushdi , a master of all moods was adept at singing all styles, be it happy, comedy, tragedy, qawwali, lullaby, and patriotic, pop, revolutionary or folk numbers. He was an important contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film industry and considered as one of the greatest singers of South Asia. He is also considered the first regular pop singer of South Asia and credited as having sung the first ever pop song of South Asia 'Ko-Ko-Ko-reena. Since 1976, Ahmed Rushdi was a heart patient and his doctors advised him to abstain from singing but Rushdi refused by saying that music was his life. When he had a second heart attack in 1981, he was composing a musical album. On the night of April 11, 1983, he had a third heart attack. He was immediately taken to the hospital but pronounced dead by the doctors.
- NitinMlk ( talk) 18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
We have around 800 articles using this as a source. According to the article it's an aggregator. A lot of the references are to listicles, often of attractive women. It's owned by Ziff-Davis but I can't see any discussion of its editorial oversight. A lot of the content is declared as paid sponsored content, much of the rest looks like churnalism. Is this a RS? Guy ( help!) 17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
though the editors aren’t really interested in product pitches, a lot of the site’s health, sexual and divorce content come from PR pros. Here is a bit more about their writers, though it doesn't say much. But note the context, again; it seems like the unspoken reality of Askmen is that its pieces are often written by advertisers, without any disclaimer indicating this. These things make me think that it's probably not a good source - it approach is slightly more sophisticated than traditional churnalism but shares the same problems. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio report: [36]
This is WP's version as of 23 October 2014:
... was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." ... Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages and found unprecedented success as a playback artist from the mid-1950s to early 1980s. ... He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films.
Here is the relevant quote from The News International's article of 11 April 2015:
Ahmed Rushdi recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages and found unprecedented success as a playback artist from the mid 1950s to early 1980s. He recorded approximately 5000 songs for 583 released films. ... Rushdi died of a heart attack at the age of 48 on April 11 1983. He was considered as a key contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film music.
Copyvio report: [37]
These are the relevant quotes from WP's version of 23 September 2019:
In November 2010, 27 years after his death, the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the third highest honour and civilian award by the State of Pakistan, given in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science. ... Murad produced eleven films under his father's company Film Art. He was the youngest film producer in the industry at that time. Most of his produced films were either Golden Jubilee or Silver Jubilee. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he produced films like Insaan badalta hai (1961) (his first film as producer), Armaan (1966), Ehsaan (1967), Naseeb apna apna (1970) and Mastana mahi (Punjabi film of 1971). However, after Mastana Mahi he produced no film except Hero which was produced in the 1980s and was released after his death.
And here is the relevant quotes from the The News International's article dated 2 October 2019:
... in November 2010, after a long period of 27 years after his death, the Pakistani government awarded him with Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the third highest honor and civilian award by the State of Pakistan, given in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science. Murad produced eleven films under his father’s established ‘Film Art’. He was the youngest film producer in the industry at that time. Most of his produced films were either Golden Jubilee or Silver Jubilee. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he produced films like Insaan badalta hai (1961) (his first film as producer), Armaan (1966), Ehsaan (1967), Naseeb apna apna (1970) and Mastana mahi (Punjabi film of 1971). However, after Mastana Mahi he produced no film except Hero which was produced in the 1980s and was released after his death.
PS: I found these & the previously mentioned mirrors from Pakistani newspapers by just having a cursory look at two Pak articles, namely Ahmed Rushdi and Waheed Murad. So the situation of Pak newspapers seem even worse. - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Over at this AFD, it is claimed that Uproxx "is not a reliable or notability-making source" without stating any evidence at all. So far we've only had one discussion about this, and even then the discussion's implications were not sufficiently broad (they were talking video games, not politics). So I ask people here at WP:RS/N to renew the consensus on Uproxx's reliability - that is, what the site is generally reliable for and what it is generally unreliable for, whether or not it counts towards notability, and whether or not it is worth a mention at WP:RSP. I am neutral. ミラ P 02:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't we update WP:RS/P with the Newspaper of record (NOR) list (or reconcile them). I do AIV work, and knowing that say The Hindu is a newspaper of record for India is very useful (eg. tidying up from edit warring over "controversy" sections in Indic BLPs – happens often). However, our WP:RS/P doesn't have the full global set of NORs? It would be great to have the NOR article brought up to GA (even FList) standard (e.g. every entry updated, validated and sourced), and which would automatically be included as WP:RS/Ps? Britishfinance ( talk) 11:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(@Britishfinance - Just a quick aside. You might want to amend your comments, and not use an abbreviation “NOR” for “Newspaper of record” (or perhaps use a different abbreviation) ... the issue is that the abbreviation “ NOR” already has an established usage on Wikipedia (it stands for “No original research”, one of our core policies). Not a big deal, but I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what you are talking about.) Blueboar ( talk) 19:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I have used the above obituary as a source for the Leah LaBelle article. It was published in The Seattle Times. I am thinking about nominating this for an FAC sometime in the far future (as I would ideally like to reach out to various editors for their opinion as I have never done a biography on the FAC level), but I was wondering if an obituary could be used as a source, particularly for a featured article? According to the FAC criteria, articles should have "high-quality reliable sources". Since the obituary was published in a reliable source, I would think it is appropriate for use, but again, I have never really worked on a lot of biographies so I am uncertain. Apologies in advance if this question about obituaries has been asked before. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
14 articles link directly to actblue and 1 to Winred.
As these are campaign pages, I don't feel they should be used a reliable source to begin with.
But my bigger issue is, they are directly linking to a donate now page for specific candidates.
So Q1: Should all references be removed? Before I embark on removing all 15, I'd like some confirmation these are bad references.
Q2: What is the process for requesting that those sites ( and any others potentially) are on the banned list so that editors are warned/stopped from adding them as a reference?
Slywriter ( talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion if including shortcuts like WP:BREITBART for specific sources is useful in the RSP-list, like in this version [38]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What is their "reputation for checking the facts," "meaningful editorial oversight," or "apparent conflict of interest"? -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
As you rejected my Draft:Burgeon Law stating
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I just wanted to as if the below link would be considered as a reliable source for the firm
https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/BURGEON-LAW-LLP/AAE-9171
The Hindu had copied misinformation from WP, and they never responded to multiple emails from an experienced WP editor – see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_68#The_Hindu_copying_misinformation_from_WP. - NitinMlk ( talk) 21:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
:
Email (21st c.) ::
Telegram :
Typed/stamped letter (20th c). I'll mail you a stamp, if you need one.
Mathglot (
talk) 22:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Saina Nehwal won the inaugural edition of Philippines Open in 2006, thereby becoming the first Indian female to win a 4-star tournament. She also remains the sole Indian to win that tournament. The relevant news articles were published by all major Indian newspapers, including The Hindu, and the info was added at WP in 2006 itself. But an anonymous user vandalised it in 2014. And it remained as such for a long time. Here is the quote from the WP article as of 16 August 2015:
In 2006, Saina became the under-19 national champion and created history by winning the prestigious Asian Satellite Badminton tournament (India Chapter) twice, becoming the first player to do so. In 2006, Saina appeared on the global scene when she became the second Indian woman to win a 4-star tournament, the Philippines Open.
And here is the quote from an article of The Hindu dated 27 August 2015
In 2006, Nehwal became the under-19 national champion and created history by winning the celebrated Asian Satellite Badminton tournament (India Chapter) twice, becoming the first player to do so. She also became the second Indian woman to win the Philippines Open.
The journalist thought that the "4-star tournament" was just some excessive detail, thereby discarding that bit, although that was the main point, as no Indian female had won a tournament of that grading before. Anyway, they ended up making it more silly as 2006 was the inaugural tournament of the Philippines Open, and no other Indian has ever won that event. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Does a restaurant having a Michelin star rating, especially if its the only source, make the restaurant notable? I know the notability guidelines say top 100 and similar lists are not reliable sources, but I'm not sure if Michelin ratings would fit into that or not. The star rating system doesn't seem to give a detailed review of the restaurant receiving the rating. So I think that should disqualify it automatically, but even if there was details I don't think it would be a reliable source on its own or even with other better sources backing it up. I ask because I requested an article for the restaurant 't Brouwerskolkje be deleted due to lack of notability, but two people said the restaurant having a Michelin star rating was enough to keep the article. Although, the article lacks any other reliable sources. Let alone broad coverage. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 04:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Are books published by New Leaf Publishing (or New Leaf Publishing Group) considered self-published? I didn't find much information about it, although it appears to be focused on religion. Can books published through it on seemingly other topics be used as sources like at Interdimensional hypothesis (unless I'm mistaken, this book attempts to cover UFOs using Biblical interpretations)? Lastly, I'm not sure if this is a correct association, but I've seen reference to "Master Books" in the description of one book published under it, would this really be Institute for Creation Research's, where Master Books redirects? These books are currently found as sources or in "further reading" for various articles ( insource search for "new leaf publishing", insource search for "master books"). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 11:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I started to remove some, will continue as time permits. In some cases books are authored by school teachers for a young audience, in other cases no particular information about the author is available. The book descriptions and reviews on Google Books often also reveal their creationist teaching. My impression is that these are not reliable for anything other than about the author's opinions (that may be WP:DUE for a particular topic if relevant and the author notable or expert in the field, with no better source available, with attribution)... — Paleo Neonate – 05:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I ask editors to please be wary of some sources on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects. This has been raised here before, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews, but that was 2007.
The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, [1] requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. [2] [3] People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed. [4] [2]
The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country ( Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.
The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. [5] [6]
How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to New Pages Patrol) HLHJ ( talk) 19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples of Saudi government position changes
|
---|
Obviously it has an interest in portraying the Saudi government as capable, and Saudi Arabia as a thriving country in which nearly everything is going very well (and as an appealing tourist destination). I read a headline a couple says ago which said ~"Saudi Arabia excels in human rights". However, sometimes it can be more complex. For instance, until a few years ago, Saudi Arabia supported some groups of official clerics, who controlled the information ministry and the religious police. Then they ran a media campaign against them preparatory to transferring control of the ministry and stripping the religious police of most of their powers; the media were criticizing part of the government with support of a more powerful faction. Until a few years ago the Muslim Brotherhood were officially praised and members were appointed to official roles; the media followed suit. Now they are declared a terrorist organization, and condemned in the news. Relations to Qatar; once an ally to be praised, it can now be death to support them, or, sometimes, fail to oppose them actively enough. Yemen and Canada have also suffered abrupt reversals of esteem. Women driving was opposed, then supported (with the government explicitly honouring some activists in a public-opinion campaign), then it was announced that it would be permitted and and the activists who had called for it were arrested, so that activism to win concessions from the government would not be encouraged (this was in 2018; many are still in jail). Tourism was illegal in Saudi Arabia until recently, pilgrimage tours excepted; now the government is promoting it.
|
References
Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2020 (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 280 | ← | Archive 282 | Archive 283 | Archive 284 | Archive 285 | Archive 286 | → | Archive 290 |
I do find it rather concerning that perfectly good citations can be utterly destroyed due to poor RfC judgement. Why an out-right ban? This by David Gerard has removed a citation from the newspaper and place a cn tag in it's place. I see nothing wrong with the Sun article. If another article can't be found the citation should remain and maybe tagged. I've never seen an admin with such bad judgement across over this area. There has been a lot of links removed regarding The Sun's sports articles and some other topic wiki articles. Citations should be weighed on what they contain, not from who it is written. I strongly suggest more common sense and another review and I would go so far as to say I think David should be topic banned from removing citations relating to this conversation. Govvy ( talk) 00:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
any uncontroversial information which can be sourced to the Sun (sports score-lines et al) can almost-always be sourced to another source of repute.Is this a score from a match, or similar facts from a match? It doesn't look like one to me. Or is it a claim contrived to sound interesting?
sports score lines et-al, so you'll excuse me if I'm deeply reluctant to trust interesting and eye-catching claims from a source that has been formally deprecated for repeated falsification of information - David Gerard ( talk) 07:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources.
On Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.The words "reliable source" link further down the page to #What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, which is headed with
Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
the Sun is designated as a generally-unreliable publication. References from the Sun shall be actively discouraged from being used in any article.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So the burden of proof for addition or restoration of deprecated sources is entirely on the person doing so, and not on the person removing the deprecated sources.
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.I don't see the word "controversial" in there.
many of the facts are not controversial and that was the consensusfrom? That's not in the RFC conclusion.
that it is not a problem for information that is not controversial, please do - because I'm really pretty sure its conclusion absolutely doesn't, and says - without qualification other than WP:ABOUTSELF - that its use it is
actively discouraged. But if you can quote the actual words from the RFC that you think support your claims, as I have done to support my claims, please do so - David Gerard ( talk) 19:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll let you find the words and read what others have written here.This seems to indicate you have no policy or guideline backing for your opinions. Which is fine, but does nothing to counter the basis in policy, guidelines incorporated by reference into that policy, and the strong consensus of a general RFC, of my actions. So your objection seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT - David Gerard ( talk) 20:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz insists The Sun is a better source than a {{ cn}} for a claim on BLP material concerning Brian Houston (pastor), and has edit-warred it back in - even acknowledging that the deprecated source is the only source for the claim - and said "Take it to RSN". [2] [3] So here we are. I'd think it was obvious that we can't use a deprecated source for straight-up BLP material. Opinions? - David Gerard ( talk) 17:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@ David Gerard: I see you ignored the addition I made in the Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News section above. Take a look and respond there instead as you're misrepresenting the point. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Accuracy in Media a reliable source for the credibility of Climate Feedback ( RSP entry)? The following was added to the Climate Feedback article in Special:Diff/936305491:
In 2018 during a dispute regarding fact checking of the Daily Caller by Google and partner Climate Feedback, Brian McNicoll of Accuracy in Media called climatefeedback.org "a highly partisan climate site," "which has had many of its facts challenged," and the Daily Caller said "Climate Feedback is not usually regarded as objective," like Snopes. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
— Newslinger talk 11:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In one of our many non-fun discussions over at the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, the following book has been removed from the article because the editor SashiRolls insists that the book has a partisan POV and disputes whether it's been authored by a recognized expert: Colleen Elizabeth Kelley's 2018 book A Rhetoric of Divisive Partisanship: The 2016 American Presidential Campaign Discourse of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (Lexington Books). The author is an an Associate Professor of Communication studies at Penn State and wrote a peer-reviewed book about the 2016 election. The book specifically includes content that evaluates whether there was media bias against Sanders in the 2016 election, with the author concluding that there was media bias in one sense but not in another. Additionally, this is one of very few peer-reviewed publications on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, which is full of borderline RS, op-eds and low-quality content (content that the same editor has on multiple occasions edit-warred back into the article), which should make this particular source very valuable. Can I please get confirmation that this peer-reviewed publication by a recognized expert is a RS and should be included? Also, this is a plea for help to get more eyes on the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, and more participation on the talk page, where so so so much time goes into trying to settle pointless matters such as whether peer-reviewed studies can be added to the article (and it's primarily one editor who is editing in a way that necessitates these pointless discussions). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there a debate/disagreement on whether or a particular source meets the requirements of a wp:RS? This relates (only) to satisfying wp:ver and (unfortunately) does not include a non-bias requirement or consideration. IMHO there can still be editor discussions on other matters where bias of the source can be discussed and relevant.North8000 ( talk) 17:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Would Playmakerstats be a RS for association football articles? The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 15:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone. Indian media keeps on carelessly giving estimations of various Indian caste, communities, etc. on regular basis, although there hasn't been a census for those details since 1931. Are those non-scholarly estimations preferred over scholarly estimations from the experts of the field? Coming to the point, on one hand, we have a scholarly source which estimates Jat population to be 30 million in South Asia (in 2010). On the other hand, we have an article from a newspaper – which has mirrored WP before – estimating them to be 82.5 million in 2012 in India alone. Anyway please provide inputs at Talk:Jat people#Jat population in India. Thanks. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I do not believe Blender magazine is a reliable source of information, as the magazine's "50 Worst Songs Ever" and "50 Most Awesomely Bad Songs...Ever" lists are incredibly biased and comes solely from one viewpoint. It is not even factual as others claim. In addition, the supposed criteria of the former list of "all songs had to have been hits at one point" leaves actually bad songs unnoticed and the "no novelty songs" rule is a lie as "Cotton Eye Joe" by Rednex is listed in the former. Therefore, all uses of it as a source must be wiped.
73.123.30.85 ( talk) 20:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Related to a recent BLP AFD editors discussed the Canadian Filmmakers Distribution Centre (CFMDC) as source. I saw no immediate problems based on used as source on more than 30 enwiki articles, but another editor identified the source as WP:BROCHURE. Just in case I want this "on record" in the RS/N archives—the talk page would be deleted with the article—the issue could pop-up again for the other articles referencing CFMDC. – 84.46.53.192 ( talk) 03:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm posting this in relation to the currently ongoing AfD discussion of a new article about an 80s band, and the use of this review at Exclaim! to support notability. (Pinging Michig and Atlantic306 who have expressed views there.) Exclaim! is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources as a reliable source for musical topics, following this discussion where Andrzejbanas suggested it as an RS - nobody responded either way, so it was added to the list. Exclaim! is a printed magazine, with staff and an editorial board, and all the hallmarks of an RS; however, they also accept contributions from the public. I'd like to open this out to the wider community to see whether we are comfortable with reviews on their website being used to support notability for albums and/or musicians - my concern is that it may be a form of curated UGC along the lines of Forbes Contributors (as described at RSP). I don't have a strong view either way on this, music not being my area of expertise, and I will withdraw the AfD nomination if there is consensus that the website is indeed reliable for this purpose. (Bother - forgot to sign. Re-pinging the users mentioned above - Michig, Atlantic306, Andrzejbanas) GirthSummit (blether) 19:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Cars.com bills itself as a leading digital marketplace and solutions provider for the automotive industry that connects car shoppers with sellers. No editorial policy that I can see. I'm not sure what credentials the staff have. They seem to be employed in the industry in various roles, but is that enough? Just curious. This is spawned by the insistence to use it as a bare ref here. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 08:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising"refer to AdChoices, which means that Cars.com gives its readers a way to opt-out of some types of cookie-based targeted advertising. It doesn't refer to the blog's content. — Newslinger talk 10:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
"Since being acquired by DCG in January 2016, CoinDesk has operated independently from the parent company. We work in separate offices and maintain strict policies on editorial independence and transparency, described below."While my position in the CoinDesk RfC was different than the result of the RfC, I think all sources should be treated with a consistent set of standards. Cars.com is less credible than CoinDesk, in my view, as they sell the products they write about on the same website. The phrase
"apparent conflict of interest"is a key factor quoted from the policy on questionable sources. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
While having an editorial team means that Cars.com is not a
self-published source, that alone does not make it reliable. For comparison,
The Canary also
has an editoral team, but was
poorly received due to its bias. Also, CoinDesk is not the only example of a source that was criticized for its conflict of interest.
A 2019 RfC determined that
The Points Guy (
RSP entry) should be avoided for information related to credit cards, because its core business consists of selling credit cards to its readers. Product review sites that are funded by commissions, including various
VPN comparison sites (
example 1,
example 2), are treated the same way. The Cars.com blog and other content marketing sites are generally unreliable because they have an "
apparent conflict of interest"
that is not counterbalanced by a strong reputation. Reviews on the site should also not be used to determine
notability, since content marketers tend to cover as many related topics as possible to drive more traffic to the site. —
Newslinger
talk 23:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
(Unindenting) Almost all sites are marketing content sites (or blogs), but some are more marketing-infested than others. A possible objective criteria for rating amounts of advertising could be the number of sites supplying JavaScript, and the number of tracker sites involved, as these can be counted with NoScript and EFF Privacy Badger add-ons. The following results were seen for an arbitrary selection of site home pages, both on and off the RSPS list. By this objective measure, several sites on RSPS put heavier emphasis on advertising than a site like Liliputing, which was called "Advert-infested clickbait." [15] These include ArsTechnica, CNN, Forbes, USA Today, and Verge. Based on this, it appears cars.com, while certainly another "advert-infested clickbait" site, is being unfairly criticized in this regard.
FWIW, From Duck Duck Go news search, there are several alternative sources for the topic. Page scores are shown below. These compare with 18, 19 for the cars.com source page. By this measure, the cars.com source page is less "advert-infested clickbait" than the RSPS-listed Forbes alternative, as well as two other non-listed alternatives. [16] (Page score: 31, 15) [17] (Page score: 25, 18) [18] (Page score: 23, 15). The other current source for the topic scored "only" 13, 9, which is good compared with most others. [19] -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
That's an interesting analysis, but I think it misses my point. I did not call Cars.com "Advert-infested clickbait"; I said that Cars.com has an "apparent conflict of interest"
, which is a criterion listed in the
policy on questionable sources. Regarding advertising, I rarely see any display ads online because I use
uBlock Origin, which blocks ads and trackers in my web browser. Display ads are sufficiently pervasive that they are not considered conflicts of interest, and online
ad exchanges use a dynamic bidding model that makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for journalists to predict the ads that will be shown alongside their writing. Display ads also change constantly. Citations in Wikipedia articles refer to the content of the cited websites, and not the extraneous site elements (such as the ads). Most concerns regarding reliability are also based on the content of cited sources – the material that ad blockers are not able to hide. While independent publications live and die by the quality of their content, Cars.com sells cars, and its content is just a promotional device for its car listings. Cars.com's business as a classified ad site benefits the most when it publishes content that convinces the reader to buy cars on its site. Cars.com has no business incentive to write articles that do anything else, and that's what separates
content marketing from actual content. —
Newslinger
talk 01:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Last time there was no obvious agreement on whether this self-published site counts as a WP:RS. Richard Nevell said he would come up with some information showing the author to be an expert sufficient to at least allow attributed use, though most of the links are decorative ("External Links" not sources). Is it valid as a source, rather than an external link (which is a separate matter)? Guy ( help!) 13:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Just checking this is a reliable source? Going by our article—and the heavyweight commentators it notes as writing for the mag—it should be, and it's also indexed on JSTOR. Any views? All the best! —— SN 54129 17:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
There are too many sources being deleted from Land of Punt here [20] by User:Dalhoa for me to go through them all, but two obvious examples are Dimitri Meeks [21] as well as Ian Shaw's Cambridge University Press book. [22] which is still used in the article. And of course as the entire section on Punt's possible location elsewhere was deleted, Meeks again as well as sources used in the section on Sri Lanka which I don't really know about. I'm mainly concerned about the Egyptologists in any case. This is I believe really a POV problem, see [23] and [24] - note the focus on the Horn of Africa. But I'll pursue that elsewhere if we can get agreement on the Egyptologists here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
HI, I want to know are this journal confiable for wiki ? reviewjournal. DRIS92 ( talk) 13:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
In this articles Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752, Reactions to the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike or 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike for example DRIS92 ( talk) 13:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.) ∯WBG converse 16:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello all, just wanted to know if this was a reliable source: [1] The article in question is Zack Hample Idan ( talk) 05:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Hello everyone, I have been discussion the removal of HYPR notability maintenance tag on Talk:HYPR_Corp#Reply_15-JAN-2020, Spintendo made a checklist to show the qualifying sources but he suggested to ask an editor who is more experienced in notability requirements which is why I came here. My doubt is that he deems Fortune and Darkreading articles as not secondary because they are based on CEO Avetisov interview, I disagree because WP:secondary defines secondary source as a source that gives information about a primary source, which could be an interview. Also, he left this source out of his checklist [1]. Does HYPR have significant coverage in multiple secondary sources? Thanks everyone!. Kriptocurrency ( talk) 22:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Here is an example of Hindustan Times mirroring nearly 80% of its article's content from WP's unsourced content – copyvio report.
Mirroring by HT
|
---|
This is our unsourced version as of 14 July 2012 (the sole sourced line of the following content was actually supported by this unreliable UGC):
And this is copy-pasted version published by the Hindustan Times on 25 October 2012:
|
I have seen many more mirrors from Indian and Pakistani newspapers, but I never kept record of them. Anyway, I will report them here in the future. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Editors here may be interested in a discussion about whether mlb.com is a reliable source. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Current consensus [25] is that WP:DAILYMAIL redirects to the well-known RFC, unlike WP:BREITBART which takes you to WP:RSP.
My question is, would it be controversial/not worth the bother to add a WP:DAILYMAIL (RSP) for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Here we have Newslinger removing attributed, sourced material from a Forbes blog because it is considered "self-published." [26]
Here we have Snooganssnoogans restoring un-attributed, sourced material from a "The Guardian" blog, [27] which was acknowledged as true (blog source) in an apology here, [28] and strikethrough of personal attack here. [29]
Should similar blog sources be treated oppositely like this? Should they be used or not for this article, and if so, should they be attributed similarly? -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
A couple clarifications please: (1) Trying not to cast aspersions, but isn't using a term like "Grauniad" an example of using "derogatory, and insulting terms," or is this considered OK when directed outside Wikipedia? [30] (2) Isn't taking an isolated comment, from a long blog article with lots of details about a study, considered cherry picking or undue weight? Especially when the "highly respected and influential resource" comment is not also found in other, more reliable sources? -- Yae4 ( talk) 15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
A discussion which includes the assessment of the reliability of the SPLC as a source of reference for Wikipedia article lead paragraphs is taking place here. Please feel free to participate. SITH (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The most-cited source in Legends Football League is lfl360.com . Attempts to find out anything about it are stymied right now due to a database connection error on the site, which is hardly a good sign. Archives don't show any of the indicia of reliability. Is this a usable source? It looks, on the face of it, to be a mashup of WP:FANSITE and WP:PHWOOOOOOAAAAR!. Guy ( help!) 23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.But that is just my two cents as I have been digging for any non-primary sources and RS sources trying to clean it up. Yosemiter ( talk) 03:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I am opening this request to seek clarification about linking to PDFs from Semantic Scholar through the OABOT tool, specifically if those PDFs do or do not violate copyright. In this way, this request for clarification is less about reliability, and more about if we can link to them without copyright infringement. I understand this topic was discussed recently here, yet I am raising this again as a result of a number of my edits, where I inserted links to these PDFs, being reverted, specifically as discussed on the OABOT Talk page here. I am seeking to follow copyright laws and uphold them here on Wikipedia, but my recent reverts seem to have conflicting arguments as to whether they should have been done or not, so I want to clarify this issue here before I take any action with either inserting more links to Semantic Scholar PDFs or reverting the reverts to my edits by citing the results of this clarification. Thank you. --- FULBERT ( talk) 14:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that they may or may not violate copyright, that we have no way of telling, and that because we can't tell we shouldn't link to them. My experience to back this up is that I tried searching for my own papers there and the second one I tried was clearly the publisher copy of an otherwise-paywalled paper, clearly not uploaded there by any author, provided for free download by semanticscholar even though it's still a paywalled paper. I think it's reasonably likely that semanticscholar obtained a license from the publisher to index the papers, extremely unlikely that it obtained a license to redistribute the papers open-access, and somewhat likely that it decided to go ahead and redistribute the papers that it obtained anyway despite not having permission. Alternatively maybe they intended to index but not redistribute and their software has a bug. But guesswork is guesswork. We need clear evidence that the publishers allow redistribution in order to avoid linking to pirate copies of papers, and we don't have that evidence in this case. We shouldn't default to assuming without evidence that anything we find on the net is free for the taking, just like we shouldn't assume that any object we find lying on the street is free for us to take and walk away with; that's pirate thinking. The evidence doesn't have to be anything as formal as an explicit statement of permission from a publisher, separately for each link: a link that appears to be the original publisher, a site controlled by an author of the paper, or an institutional repository of the author, can all be reasonably safely assumed to be legitimate. We can't just assume legitimacy for sites like citeseerx that pick up pdfs from anywhere, but citeseerx allows us to check in individual cases where they got the file from and whether that looks like the publisher or author. For semanticscholar, we don't even have that, we just have a bare pdf, and that's not good enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here. I'm not familiar with that particular website, but based on what I've read, one would need to check the status of an individual article to ascertain its copyright and license status and hence whether linking to it is appropriate. The other possibility for papers from years ago that are unavailable from many years ago would be to make a fair use claim. That could be difficult given that the links are to entire papers rather than portions of them, but a countervailing argument would be if there is no other practicable way to access the work even for a fee. Someone such as Moonriddengirl might be able to comment more knowledgeably on these issues. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm curious as to whether eBaum's World can be cited as a reliable source as a reference on a Wikipedia article?-- Bartallen2 ( talk) 07:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks everyone - I just wished to clarify that -- Bartallen2 ( talk) 08:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's a quote from WP's P. V. Sindhu (dated 2 September 2019):
Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments on the BWF circuit, including a silver medal at the 2016 Olympics ... She is the recipient of the sports honour Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri.
And here's a quote from a Mint's article (dated 25 September 2019):
Having made her international debut in 2009, she rose to a career high ranking of no. 2 in April 2017. Over the course of her career, Sindhu has won medals at numerous tournaments including a silver medal at the 2016. Sindhu is the recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna award, and India's fourth highest civilian award, the Padma Shri.
So careless was the copy-paste by the Mint that they even forgot to complete the sentence after "2016". - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is an example of the Dawn newspaper mirroring around 60% of its content from WP (Copyvio report: [33]):
These are relevant quotes from WP's version of 8 April 2012:
He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films. ... In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence," ... He sang his first song in the Indian film Ibrat in 1951 and got recognition. His family moved to Pakistan and settled in Karachi in 1954, where he began participating in variety shows, music programs, and children's programs on radio. In 1954, he recorded his first non-film song, "Bunder Road se Keemari", written by Mehdi Zaheer for the popular Radio Pakistan show Bachchon Ki Duniya; the song was a hit and became the steppingstone for Rushdi's future. ... After the success of "Bunder Road se Keemari", Rushdi was offered songs as a playback singer for films and quickly gained popularity. He lent his voice to many hit films like Bara Aadmi (1956), Wah Rey Zamaney (1957), Raat Ke Rahi (1957), Yeh Dunya (1958) and many more.
Here is the relevant quotes from the Dawn's article of 11 April 2012:
He sang his first song in the Indian film "Ibrat" in 1951 and got recognition. His family eventually moved to Pakistan and settled in Karachi in 1954, where he began participating in variety shows, music programs, and children's programs on radio.
In 1954, he recorded his first non-film song, "Bunder Road se Keemari", written by Mehdi Zaheer for the popular Radio Pakistan show Bachchon Ki Duniya – the song was a hit and became the steppingstone for Rushdi's future.
The success of "Bunder Road se Keemari", opened new doors for Rushdi as he got offers for playback singing for films and quickly gained popularity. He lent his voice to many hit films like "Bara Aadmi" (1956), "Wah Rey Zamaney" (1957), "Raat Ke Rahi" (1957), "Yeh Dunya" (1958) and many more.
Unfortuantely he suffered from health issues during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack having recorded about 5,000 film songs for 583 released films.
In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence."
- NitinMlk ( talk) 18:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example of Dunya News mirroring nearly whole of its article from WP (Copyvio report: [34]):
This is WP's version as of 8 April 2012
Ahmed Rushdi, SI, PP (Urdu: احمد رشدی; April 24, 1934 – April 11, 1983) was a versatile Pakistani playback singer who worked in film music and was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south asia[1] and was a natural baritone, yet could sing high tenor notes with ease. Born in Hyderabad Deccan, he migrated to Pakistan and became a leading singer in the Pakistan film industry. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south asia[2] and credited as having sung the "first-ever South asian" pop song, "Ko-Ko-Ko-reena."[3]
In 1954, he recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers.[4][5] Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages. He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films. Besides popular music, Rushdi also helped popularize the ghazals of Naseer Turabi.[6]
In 2003, 20 years after his death, Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the "star of excellence," an honour given for distinguished merit in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science.[7] A street in Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, also named Ahmed Rushdi Road.[8]
And this is the full article of Dunya News published on 11 April 2012
The 29th death anniversary of versatile playback singer Ahmed Rushdi is being observed today. Ahmed Rushdi was a versatile playback singer who worked in film music and was an important contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film music.Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south Asia. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south Asia and credited as having sung the first-ever South Asian pop song‚ Ko-Ko-Ko-reena.In 1954‚ Rushdi recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers. He recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu‚ English‚ Punjabi‚ Bengali‚ Sindhi and Gujarati languages.He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack on April 11 1983 at the age of 48‚ after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films.In 2003‚ 20 years after his death‚ Ahmed Rushdi was awarded the Sitara-e-Imtiaz while a street in Gulshan-e-Iqbal‚ Karachi‚ was also named as Ahmed Rushdi Road.
- NitinMlk ( talk) 18:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example of The Nation mirroring half of its article from WP (Copyvio report: [35]):
This is WP's version as of 27 march 2011:
... was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." Rushdi is acclaimed as one of the greatest singers ever lived in south asia[1] and was a natural baritone, yet could sing high tenor notes with ease. Born in Hyderabad Deccan, he migrated to Pakistan and became a leading singer in the Pakistan film industry. He is considered to be one of the most versatile vocalists of the subcontinent and was capable of singing variety of songs. He is also considered to be the first regular pop singer of south asia and credited as having sung the "first-ever South asian" pop song, "Ko-Ko-Ko-reena."[2] In 1954, he recorded the official National anthem of Pakistan with several other singers.[3][4] Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema. ... Since 1976, Ahmed Rushdi was a heart patient and his doctors advised him to abstain from singing but Rushdi refused by saying that music was his life. When he had a second heart attack in 1981, he was composing a musical album in the voice of singer Mujeeb Aalam. His last non film song was "Aaney walo suno" which was a duet with Mehnaz. On the night of April 11, 1983, he had a third heart attack. He was immediately taken to the hospital but pronounced dead by the doctors.
And here is the quote from The Nation's article dated 12 April 2011:
He has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema industry. He sang over 800 songs for 583 films till his death in 1983. Ahmed Rushdi , a master of all moods was adept at singing all styles, be it happy, comedy, tragedy, qawwali, lullaby, and patriotic, pop, revolutionary or folk numbers. He was an important contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film industry and considered as one of the greatest singers of South Asia. He is also considered the first regular pop singer of South Asia and credited as having sung the first ever pop song of South Asia 'Ko-Ko-Ko-reena. Since 1976, Ahmed Rushdi was a heart patient and his doctors advised him to abstain from singing but Rushdi refused by saying that music was his life. When he had a second heart attack in 1981, he was composing a musical album. On the night of April 11, 1983, he had a third heart attack. He was immediately taken to the hospital but pronounced dead by the doctors.
- NitinMlk ( talk) 18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
We have around 800 articles using this as a source. According to the article it's an aggregator. A lot of the references are to listicles, often of attractive women. It's owned by Ziff-Davis but I can't see any discussion of its editorial oversight. A lot of the content is declared as paid sponsored content, much of the rest looks like churnalism. Is this a RS? Guy ( help!) 17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
though the editors aren’t really interested in product pitches, a lot of the site’s health, sexual and divorce content come from PR pros. Here is a bit more about their writers, though it doesn't say much. But note the context, again; it seems like the unspoken reality of Askmen is that its pieces are often written by advertisers, without any disclaimer indicating this. These things make me think that it's probably not a good source - it approach is slightly more sophisticated than traditional churnalism but shares the same problems. -- Aquillion ( talk) 11:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Copyvio report: [36]
This is WP's version as of 23 October 2014:
... was "an important contributor to the Golden Age of Pakistani film music." ... Rushdi has recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages and found unprecedented success as a playback artist from the mid-1950s to early 1980s. ... He suffered from poor health during the latter part of his life and died of a heart attack at the age of 48, after recording approximately five thousand film songs for 583 released films.
Here is the relevant quote from The News International's article of 11 April 2015:
Ahmed Rushdi recorded the highest number of film songs in the history of Pakistani cinema in Urdu, English, Punjabi, Bengali, Sindhi and Gujarati languages and found unprecedented success as a playback artist from the mid 1950s to early 1980s. He recorded approximately 5000 songs for 583 released films. ... Rushdi died of a heart attack at the age of 48 on April 11 1983. He was considered as a key contributor to the golden age of Pakistani film music.
Copyvio report: [37]
These are the relevant quotes from WP's version of 23 September 2019:
In November 2010, 27 years after his death, the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari awarded him the Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the third highest honour and civilian award by the State of Pakistan, given in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science. ... Murad produced eleven films under his father's company Film Art. He was the youngest film producer in the industry at that time. Most of his produced films were either Golden Jubilee or Silver Jubilee. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he produced films like Insaan badalta hai (1961) (his first film as producer), Armaan (1966), Ehsaan (1967), Naseeb apna apna (1970) and Mastana mahi (Punjabi film of 1971). However, after Mastana Mahi he produced no film except Hero which was produced in the 1980s and was released after his death.
And here is the relevant quotes from the The News International's article dated 2 October 2019:
... in November 2010, after a long period of 27 years after his death, the Pakistani government awarded him with Sitara-e-Imtiaz, the third highest honor and civilian award by the State of Pakistan, given in the fields of literature, arts, sports, medicine, or science. Murad produced eleven films under his father’s established ‘Film Art’. He was the youngest film producer in the industry at that time. Most of his produced films were either Golden Jubilee or Silver Jubilee. During the 1960s and early 1970s, he produced films like Insaan badalta hai (1961) (his first film as producer), Armaan (1966), Ehsaan (1967), Naseeb apna apna (1970) and Mastana mahi (Punjabi film of 1971). However, after Mastana Mahi he produced no film except Hero which was produced in the 1980s and was released after his death.
PS: I found these & the previously mentioned mirrors from Pakistani newspapers by just having a cursory look at two Pak articles, namely Ahmed Rushdi and Waheed Murad. So the situation of Pak newspapers seem even worse. - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Over at this AFD, it is claimed that Uproxx "is not a reliable or notability-making source" without stating any evidence at all. So far we've only had one discussion about this, and even then the discussion's implications were not sufficiently broad (they were talking video games, not politics). So I ask people here at WP:RS/N to renew the consensus on Uproxx's reliability - that is, what the site is generally reliable for and what it is generally unreliable for, whether or not it counts towards notability, and whether or not it is worth a mention at WP:RSP. I am neutral. ミラ P 02:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't we update WP:RS/P with the Newspaper of record (NOR) list (or reconcile them). I do AIV work, and knowing that say The Hindu is a newspaper of record for India is very useful (eg. tidying up from edit warring over "controversy" sections in Indic BLPs – happens often). However, our WP:RS/P doesn't have the full global set of NORs? It would be great to have the NOR article brought up to GA (even FList) standard (e.g. every entry updated, validated and sourced), and which would automatically be included as WP:RS/Ps? Britishfinance ( talk) 11:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
(@Britishfinance - Just a quick aside. You might want to amend your comments, and not use an abbreviation “NOR” for “Newspaper of record” (or perhaps use a different abbreviation) ... the issue is that the abbreviation “ NOR” already has an established usage on Wikipedia (it stands for “No original research”, one of our core policies). Not a big deal, but I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what you are talking about.) Blueboar ( talk) 19:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I have used the above obituary as a source for the Leah LaBelle article. It was published in The Seattle Times. I am thinking about nominating this for an FAC sometime in the far future (as I would ideally like to reach out to various editors for their opinion as I have never done a biography on the FAC level), but I was wondering if an obituary could be used as a source, particularly for a featured article? According to the FAC criteria, articles should have "high-quality reliable sources". Since the obituary was published in a reliable source, I would think it is appropriate for use, but again, I have never really worked on a lot of biographies so I am uncertain. Apologies in advance if this question about obituaries has been asked before. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 20:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
14 articles link directly to actblue and 1 to Winred.
As these are campaign pages, I don't feel they should be used a reliable source to begin with.
But my bigger issue is, they are directly linking to a donate now page for specific candidates.
So Q1: Should all references be removed? Before I embark on removing all 15, I'd like some confirmation these are bad references.
Q2: What is the process for requesting that those sites ( and any others potentially) are on the banned list so that editors are warned/stopped from adding them as a reference?
Slywriter ( talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Discussion if including shortcuts like WP:BREITBART for specific sources is useful in the RSP-list, like in this version [38]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 14:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
What is their "reputation for checking the facts," "meaningful editorial oversight," or "apparent conflict of interest"? -- Yae4 ( talk) 19:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
As you rejected my Draft:Burgeon Law stating
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
I just wanted to as if the below link would be considered as a reliable source for the firm
https://www.zaubacorp.com/company/BURGEON-LAW-LLP/AAE-9171
The Hindu had copied misinformation from WP, and they never responded to multiple emails from an experienced WP editor – see Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_68#The_Hindu_copying_misinformation_from_WP. - NitinMlk ( talk) 21:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
:
Email (21st c.) ::
Telegram :
Typed/stamped letter (20th c). I'll mail you a stamp, if you need one.
Mathglot (
talk) 22:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Saina Nehwal won the inaugural edition of Philippines Open in 2006, thereby becoming the first Indian female to win a 4-star tournament. She also remains the sole Indian to win that tournament. The relevant news articles were published by all major Indian newspapers, including The Hindu, and the info was added at WP in 2006 itself. But an anonymous user vandalised it in 2014. And it remained as such for a long time. Here is the quote from the WP article as of 16 August 2015:
In 2006, Saina became the under-19 national champion and created history by winning the prestigious Asian Satellite Badminton tournament (India Chapter) twice, becoming the first player to do so. In 2006, Saina appeared on the global scene when she became the second Indian woman to win a 4-star tournament, the Philippines Open.
And here is the quote from an article of The Hindu dated 27 August 2015
In 2006, Nehwal became the under-19 national champion and created history by winning the celebrated Asian Satellite Badminton tournament (India Chapter) twice, becoming the first player to do so. She also became the second Indian woman to win the Philippines Open.
The journalist thought that the "4-star tournament" was just some excessive detail, thereby discarding that bit, although that was the main point, as no Indian female had won a tournament of that grading before. Anyway, they ended up making it more silly as 2006 was the inaugural tournament of the Philippines Open, and no other Indian has ever won that event. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Does a restaurant having a Michelin star rating, especially if its the only source, make the restaurant notable? I know the notability guidelines say top 100 and similar lists are not reliable sources, but I'm not sure if Michelin ratings would fit into that or not. The star rating system doesn't seem to give a detailed review of the restaurant receiving the rating. So I think that should disqualify it automatically, but even if there was details I don't think it would be a reliable source on its own or even with other better sources backing it up. I ask because I requested an article for the restaurant 't Brouwerskolkje be deleted due to lack of notability, but two people said the restaurant having a Michelin star rating was enough to keep the article. Although, the article lacks any other reliable sources. Let alone broad coverage. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 04:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Are books published by New Leaf Publishing (or New Leaf Publishing Group) considered self-published? I didn't find much information about it, although it appears to be focused on religion. Can books published through it on seemingly other topics be used as sources like at Interdimensional hypothesis (unless I'm mistaken, this book attempts to cover UFOs using Biblical interpretations)? Lastly, I'm not sure if this is a correct association, but I've seen reference to "Master Books" in the description of one book published under it, would this really be Institute for Creation Research's, where Master Books redirects? These books are currently found as sources or in "further reading" for various articles ( insource search for "new leaf publishing", insource search for "master books"). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 11:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I started to remove some, will continue as time permits. In some cases books are authored by school teachers for a young audience, in other cases no particular information about the author is available. The book descriptions and reviews on Google Books often also reveal their creationist teaching. My impression is that these are not reliable for anything other than about the author's opinions (that may be WP:DUE for a particular topic if relevant and the author notable or expert in the field, with no better source available, with attribution)... — Paleo Neonate – 05:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I ask editors to please be wary of some sources on subjects in which the Saudi government takes a strong interest. Sadly, there may not be reliable, independent sources of information available on many Saudi-Arabia-related subjects. This has been raised here before, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5#ArabNews, but that was 2007.
The Saudi Arabian government exerts very close control over the domestic media; it appoints editors, issues national bans on employing specific journalists, sends out guidelines on how stories are to be covered, [1] requests that influential public figures make specific statements in support of the government on specific occasions, and so on. [2] [3] People who publish the wrong thing, or fail to publish the right thing, may be disappeared, arrested, imprisoned, kept in solitary confinement, tortured, or killed. [4] [2]
The result is a press that strongly resembles a government PR department, and publications that resemble press releases. With the best will in the world, I don't think that Saudi-government-controlled sources can reasonably be considered independent of the government. This includes any media outlet operating from a .sa website, and some Saudi-owned media outlets run from outside the country ( Asharq Al-Awsat, for instance). In other countries in which there is little freedom of the press, and the censors are beholden to the Saudi government, the media also publish some stories which seem to come from the same copybook.
The Saudi Arabian government also attempts to exert control over foreign media (see Jamal Khashoggi and Jeff Bezos#Politics). Saudi Arabia is spending large sums on overt and covert influencers (those who do not declare their conflicts of interest). It seems to be doing this to improve its public image abroad, especially in the wake of Jamal Khashoggi's death, and attract tourists. [5] [6]
How did I come across this? I decided to rescue an abandoned AFC draft on a book fair. In my ignorance, I really didn't expect the topic to be that political, at least not to the extent that I'd wind up writing about torture... (crossposted to New Pages Patrol) HLHJ ( talk) 19:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Examples of Saudi government position changes
|
---|
Obviously it has an interest in portraying the Saudi government as capable, and Saudi Arabia as a thriving country in which nearly everything is going very well (and as an appealing tourist destination). I read a headline a couple says ago which said ~"Saudi Arabia excels in human rights". However, sometimes it can be more complex. For instance, until a few years ago, Saudi Arabia supported some groups of official clerics, who controlled the information ministry and the religious police. Then they ran a media campaign against them preparatory to transferring control of the ministry and stripping the religious police of most of their powers; the media were criticizing part of the government with support of a more powerful faction. Until a few years ago the Muslim Brotherhood were officially praised and members were appointed to official roles; the media followed suit. Now they are declared a terrorist organization, and condemned in the news. Relations to Qatar; once an ally to be praised, it can now be death to support them, or, sometimes, fail to oppose them actively enough. Yemen and Canada have also suffered abrupt reversals of esteem. Women driving was opposed, then supported (with the government explicitly honouring some activists in a public-opinion campaign), then it was announced that it would be permitted and and the activists who had called for it were arrested, so that activism to win concessions from the government would not be encouraged (this was in 2018; many are still in jail). Tourism was illegal in Saudi Arabia until recently, pilgrimage tours excepted; now the government is promoting it.
|
References
Reuters noted that many of those detained had failed to sufficiently back Saudi policies, including the policy of isolating Qatar. A relative of Salman al-Awda told Human Rights Watch he said he believed that authorities arrested al-Awda because he hadn't complied with an order from Saudi authorities to tweet a specific text to support the Saudi-led isolation of Qatar
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)