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 305 | ← | Archive 309 | Archive 310 | Archive 311 | Archive 312 | Archive 313 | → | Archive 315 |
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.
(Manually unarchiving thread, setting DoNotArchive to 1 October 2020 (UTC) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC))
The Mail on Sunday is owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. They aren't the same newspaper, however, and, to quote our article, "the editorial staffs of the two papers are entirely separate". That being said, for the online version, the content of The Mail on Sunday is available under the dailymail.co.uk domain ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/). Does the RfC on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Daily Mail also apply to The Mail on Sunday? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd consider, and would tend to treat, this as yet another variant attempt at special-pleading exceptions to WP:DAILYMAILIf that's a reference to me, then I don't particularly care what the answer to the question posed is (in either direction). This is genuinely a request for clarification because I couldn't find it with a quick search of RSN, and they do appear to be different newspapers so I think it's a valid question to ask. For clarity, the consensus on this question should be added to the notes of WP:DAILYMAIL. A little good faith goes a long way y'know. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:DENY
|
---|
What about other DMGY titles?
|
So the editors that David Gerard maligned are vindicated, and the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no. I hope there's no need to continue this thread. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no.is not in any way an accurate summary of the responses you got from the original closers, and you appear to have grossly misread what they said, which contained many conditionals - David Gerard ( talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I came across The Hustler's Digest while reviewing an AfC submission and decided to investigate the source. The media company produces news articles and other content for its customers. Following are things I noted about it as a source;
Taking the above into consideration, articles written by company staff may be considered reliable at first glance. However, it should be noted that the site's editorial policy seems to allow for native advertising that is distinct from sponsored content, so sources written by staff should be used with caution. As for contributor content, said content is user-generated and as such is unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In addition, a search for citations of thehustlersdigest.com on en.wiki shows that - in 7/8 instances - the source cited was written by a contributor and not by staff. It should also be noted that while staff articles distinguish paid content from unpaid content, this standard may not apply to contributor content as most contributors seem to be digital marketers. Surmising all of the above, the source in question should probably be considered as generally unreliable with only staff articles being considered as WP:RS, and then only with proper vetting. SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 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.
As I read the guidelines about the Wikipedia reliable sources, I found that infodrips.com may be useful for reliable source, almost all the informative contents are already verified by editors as they also referenced (sources from reputed medical journals,academic journals, academic books etc.) that all in their contents. Still want to discuss it more that maybe I'm wrong, Editors are requested to have a look on it. — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 07:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Is Colombo Page a reliable source for events that occur in Sri Lanka? We have more than 400 citations to colombopage.com . VR talk 05:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Are thearkenstone.blogspot.com and medium.com/war-is-boring reliable sources for military articles? The article is Shahed 171 Simorgh, but I see that they are used elsewhere too. Pahlevun ( talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this report a reliable source. This is used in the context of [ [3]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski, the author, was the prosecutor of the local Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry during the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War ( http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi). The report broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. The source is [ [4]] page 116. Maidyouneed ( talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know where to look, but in the Vera Farmiga article it states that Freddie Highmore is the godfather to one of her children. The source used [5], the article doesn't state that he is, but he mentioned it in the podcast. The question is, can podcasts be used as a source? I've looked and can't find where it says if podcasts are reliable or not. If they are not, it's easy to find other articles to replace it as a source. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Is Android Headlines (AndroidHeadlines.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?
My opinion is they should be considered a self-published group blog (i.e. not reliable). -- Yae4 ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Android Headlines is marginally reliable at best and self-published at worst. The website simply deleted the article about the CopperheadOS situation instead of formally retracting it, which is not a positive indicator of its reliability. From my experience, editors tend to be more accepting of marginally reliable sources for niche or specialized topics, but Android in general is too popular to be considered niche. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is TuttoAndroid ( tuttoandroid.net, Italian Language) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?
I was on the fence and used it before, but the more I look, the more it seems like a spammy advert-blog. I couldn't find evidence of editorial oversight. It is only used in 5 articles, 2 of which I've been involved in editing, CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS. Tuttoandroid was brought up for Talk page discussion at CopperheadOS Talk, but more opinions would help. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding: I'd forgotten Newslinger previously said at Talk:GrapheneOS "These citations clearly aren't reliable" and included TuttoAndroid in his list of sources to remove, saying about it: "No staff list. Also appears to be a summarized translation of this Liliputing article. [10] However, somehow it was put back into GrapheneOS later. Considering consensus on Liliputing was non-reliable, TuttoAndroid.net is also looking non-reliable. -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.tuttoandroid.net/modding/grapheneos-android-sicurezza-privacy-open-source-669777/
. Liliputing was already considered a self-published blog in
a 2019 RfC, so TuttoAndroid is at best also generally unreliable. —
Newslinger
talk 10:20, 4 September 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.
What is the reliability of Global Times ( globaltimes.cn )? It is used in more than a thousand Wikipedia articles.
( t · c) buidhe 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Quotes about the Global Times from reliable sources
|
---|
"China's Angriest Newspaper Doesn’t Speak for China", Foreign Policy
"China's Global Times plays a peculiar role", The Economist ( RSP entry)
"Inside the Global Times, China’s hawkish, belligerent state tabloid", Quartz
"The man taking on Hong Kong from deep inside China's propaganda machine", CNN ( RSP entry)
|
The votes above are amazing. Every single source listed by anyone notes that the Global Times is an important voice of hawkish elements within the Chinese establishment. If you take the sources seriously, its perspective is necessary to understand Chinese politics, but is obviously biased. Here on Wikipedia, editors cite these sources but then counter that we should deprecate the Global Times. What is the point of the categories Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, or Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, when we so often think in the binary terms reliable vs deprecation? - Darouet ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Horse Eye Jack & User:Anachronist: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin ( talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've found many instances of plagiarism in the book A Reflective Guide to Gender Identity Counselling (published in 2019 by Jessica Kingsley Publishers). For example, the "Trigender" glossary entry is almost identical to an old version of the lead in our "Trigender" article, including the nonsensical final sentence. The next glossary entry, "Tucking", is copied in part from a 2016 Buzzfeed article. The "Demigender" definition is copied from nonbinary.wiki, where it is sourced to a Tumblr post. I emailed Jessica Kingsley Publishers about this months ago; they never responded and they're still selling the book. (Courtesy ping to @ Mathglot:, whose work on an unrelated JKP issue reminded me of this.) Cheers, gnu 57 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I have an issue in relation to the following quote
- On 12 August 2018, a Chinese state-run tabloid, Global Times, defended the crackdown in Xinjiang [1] after a U.N. anti-discrimination committee raised concerns over China's treatment of Uyghurs. According to the Global Times, China prevented Xinjiang from becoming 'China's Syria' or 'China's Libya', and local authorities' policies saved countless lives and avoided a 'great tragedy'. [2] [3] The paper published another editorial the day after, titled "Xinjiang policies justified". [4]
References
- ^ "Protecting peace, stability is top of human rights agenda for Xinjiang". Global Times. 12 August 2018.
- ^ "China newspaper defends Xinjiang Muslim crackdown". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 13 August 2018. Archived from the original on 14 August 2018.
- ^ "China has prevented 'great tragedy' in Xinjiang, state-run paper says". Reuters. Beijing. 13 August 2018. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
- ^ Liu, Xin (13 August 2018). "Xinjiang policies justified". Global Times. Retrieved 27 August 2018.
Global Times was recently deprecated and I accordingly removed the entire paragraph, but was reverted on the grounds that the initial article received coverage in reliable sources. (Reuters and Washington Post) So I am here asking for clarification: can the the entire paragraph still be removed even though the deprecated source received coverage in reliable sources? If the answer is that the paragraph should stay, then wouldn't it be giving the initial article UNDUE importance to keep it in as it received coverage in only two reliable sources? Flaughtin ( talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
" The security law has also sent a chill through Hong Kong’s once freewheeling news media. RTHK, the public broadcaster, removed a political podcast from its website after the authorities warned that an interview with Nathan Law, a democracy activist now living abroad, could be in breach of the new law."
“The extension in Hong Kong of the Chinese regime’s practice of visa weaponisation, intended to intimidate foreign journalists, is extremely concerning and in total contradiction with the principle of press freedom enshrined in the Basic Law”, insists Cédric Alviani, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) East Asia bureau head, who sees in this phenomenon “another sign of the recent acceleration of press freedom's decline after the passing, two months ago, of a National Security Law imposed by Beijing”.
( t · c) buidhe 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am seeking opinions about what I believe to be use of a tabloid to source an edit in Megxit about Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. See the discussion at Talk:Megxit#Edit sourced to a tabloid. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:
Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References
This website contains many pages which, on first glance, appear to contain plausible information such as the page on the
Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Their
about page would seem to suggest reliability. However, there are also pages like
Prisoners of War of the Japanese 1939-1945. Scrolling all the way down to the bottom there is a statement Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from
, followed by a long list of Wikipedia articles. Obviously that would disqualify that page as a reliable reference due to
WP:CIRCULAR, but does that impact the reliability of the rest of the site?
FDW777 (
talk) 12:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
We currently have 1,375 citations to webmd.com , Is WebMD MEDRS compliant? I've heard mostly negative things about the website over the years, mostly about their close relationship to pharmaceutical companies. Vox NYTimes Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A question has come to the fore on the Talk-Page of Qarawat Bani Hassan, shown here, about the reliability of a 11-volume Hebrew published work entitled, "Israel Guide, A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country," published by the Keter Publishing House in Israel, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence, between the years 1978–1980. For more details, see volume 8 of this edition: Shorer, Yaakov; Grossman, David, eds. (1980). Israel Guide - The Northern Valleys, Mount Carmel and Samaria (in Hebrew). Vol. 8. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence. OCLC 745203905.. The chief-editor of the encyclopedia is a man by the name of Arieh Yitzhaki. Each volume speaks about a different section of the country and has its invidual editor. The title of this work has caused some confusion, as one editor thought that it may strictly be a tourist guide when, in fact, it is much more than that. The back-cover of each volume carries a short description of the entire work, which reads as follows (translated from the Hebrew):
Since this work is written in Hebrew and, most likely, not found in English-speaking libraries, perhaps Wikipedians in Israel (e.g. User:Deror avi, User:Yoninah, User:Debresser, User:Netanel h, User:Gilabrand, User:Tzahy, User:IsraeliteoftheShephelah, User:Tomerarazy, User:Bolter21, User:Ynhockey, User:Shrike, User:Amoruso) can voice their opinion about the worthiness, or un-worthiness, of this 11-volume publication. See also Madrikh Yisrael - (Israel Guide); Israel Guide (on Google Books). By the way: The editor of the 2nd volume is a scholar by the name of Raphael (Rafael / Rafi) Frankel who has written extensively about sites in the Galilee. Among his other publications, one may notice this, "The Map of Achziv", as well as the following publications: 1) Frankel, Rafael; Getzov, Nimrod; Aviam, Mordechai; Degani, Avi (2001). "Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee (Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee)". Israel Antiquities Authority. 14.; 2) Frankel, Raphael; Finkelstein, I. (1983). "'The Northwest Corner of Eretz-Israel' in the Baraita 'Boundaries of Eretz-Israel'". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv. 27 (27): 39–46. JSTOR 23398920.; 3) Frankel, Raphael (1979). "'Bibra' — A Forbidden Village in the Territory of Tyre". Israel Exploration Journal. 29 (3/4): 194–196.; 4) Rafael, Frankel, "Kabri, Nahal Ga‘aton Aqueduct: Final Report" ( JSTOR 26601478), among others.
Davidbena ( talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason other than it being Israeli for some to discredit it? It's written by scholars, right? So shouldn't it be a RS, regardless of the clunky title and funding? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a procedural objection. I feel like leaping straight to a four-option depreciation RFC is a bit premature, both per WP:RFCBEFORE and because it sort of obscures the real question that brought you here. The dispute is very specifically over whether it can be used for this claim, which at first glance seems at least slightly WP:EXCEPTIONAL or highly technical (requiring a suitably technical source) in the sense that it touches on a controversial archeological claim; the question of whether this source is valid for that specific claim is worth considering, and I don't think a general RFC about the source as a whole can meaningfully answer it. These sorts of RFCs are for sources that are constant recurring issues or ones with glaring problems; they're not what you're supposed to do when you have one extremely specific question over "can source X be used to cite statement Y." Also, RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded, which this 100% is not - you overtly dismiss the arguments you're trying to get an RFC outcome against in your summary. I'm particularly bothered that you devoted a ton of text to how notable the source is, but didn't even vaguely reference the specific claim people are debating. In any case, I'm also not convinced by your "tots not a travel guide" summary. The translated bit you quote strikes me as somewhat blithe; ultimately it emphasizes its value to travelers above all else. Obviously a guide to Israel is going to state that it is historically-accurate, since that history is a big part of why people travel to Israel, and it could be perhaps used for uncontroversial claims (the way we might use any other general encyclopedia), but for something as potentially-controversial as this we ought to be citing more academic or professional sources, not just guides that boast vaguely about using the best available research. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 03:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)This is more a question as to this source. I personally in the past have avoided not only in WP but in my normal work, as because while the "data" is visible, the sourcing for it is behind paywall, and when I have been lucky to find corroborating data I generally find discrepancies, or generally the clear original source of the data, so the site is just skimming others' work and tossing a paywall on top. Technically doesn't violation any immediate policies and I'm not asking for a full blown deprecation or the like, just what others' opinion is on this site. (If we want to poll for RS/P, we can). -- Masem ( t) 13:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, This journal sounds and looks ok to me but there are suggestions otherwise; p73 on summary of legislation, in Offending religious feelings:
Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, "Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years".[6] During this evolution of the legal wording, the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs.[6]
The Legal Culture. The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture ; other views sought - thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 09:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
ie, without the summary, but sourced to the same, perhaps even just until some much more leftwing source for the same is found? Or is this source and this high-up government legal scholar so "fringe" that even this is absolutely beyond the pale? Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, "Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years".[6]
due to the fact that this organization apparently doesn't publicly rejoice in the slaughter, without their consent, of innocent beingshas doomed your efforts. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Are twitter tweets a reliable source for the following statements at Alex Morse?
References
Fortliberty ( talk) 05:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 03:36, 5 September 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.
What is the reliability of the Daily Star (United Kingdom)?
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
We currently have around 1,500 citations to the Daily Star per dailystar.co.uk , most of which appear to be on BLP articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It has become a pathetic article, a travesty of a newspaper, having lost any sense of purpose. Yet it obviously fills some need, because it sells 355,000 copies a day, and its print decline is no worse than that of its rivals.
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)It survives on a diet of sex, still featuring a topless model on Page 3 each day, and on celebrity trivia. The Star is a newspaper without either news or views. If it can be said to have any political outlook at all, then it is rightwing. There is no passion, no commitment, no soul.
Are these four historians ( [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]) reliable for the allegation that US DEA agent Kiki Camarena was likely tortured and killed with complicity of the CIA in 1985? Their work is disputed [27] at Kiki Camarena. The historians argue that Camarena may have discovered that the Contra affair, funding anticommunist guerrillas in Nicaragua, was financed by Mexican drug money with CIA support. Some investigative journalists have concluded the same thing [28], and in February the US Justice Department reopened a case on the matter [29] [30].
Note that I earlier brought this issue to this noticeboard here [31], garnering these responses [32] [33]. There are additional newspaper articles on the topic: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41].
I've launched an RfC, where I hope you'll comment on whether these historians can be used as reliable sources for the attributed claim that the CIA participated in Camarena's torture. - Darouet ( talk) 23:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Edited per request of Buidhe. - Darouet ( talk) 12:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Academic
Newspaper articles
Reopened Justice Department Investigation
A user recently added a paragraph cited to culturalanalysis.net at Existential risk of artificial general intelligence ( diff). The statement attempts to describe research implying that AGIs are inherently amoral. Is it a reliable source? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
A while ago, QuackWatch was declared to be self-published, thus effectively excluding one of the most prominent critics of quackery from biographies of quacks and charlatans. I noticed today that QuackWatch is now listed as a project of the Center for Inquiry. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Quackwatch, which is sourced to their website in 2007 says they have no salaried employees and the current website does not list any. The website says that stories are checked by at least one expert, but news stories are not checked. And I assume these experts are scientists who evaluate the accuracy of scientific claims. But that's only part of the story. Also important are the identities and backgrounds of the quacks, the size of their operation, how much money they took in, what legal issues they faced, who aided them, whether the publications they advertised with were at fault.
I also am wary of using investigative journalism as a source unless it gets picked up by other publications because of weight. If Dr. X is a notable respected physician with an article sourced to mainstream media, I don't want to see an accusation from Quackwatch that mainstream media has ignored. If mainstream media pick up on the accusation, they will allow Dr. X to reply and determine whether the accusation is true and how serious it is.
Also, I don't see anything in the recent newsletter that could be used as a source for articles. It's all links to primary sources: FDA warning letters, ads by quacks, peer-reviewed articles, letters by experts. [49] While these primary sources may be reliable sources, there is no need to cite the newsletter itself.
Incidentally, declaring a publication self-published does not exclude its use. It means that each article must be assessed for reliability. Generally it can be used if written by an expert in his or her field.
Can you provide an example of where you would use the site as a source?
TFD ( talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Another question has come to the fore on Talk:China–United States trade war and which discussion can be accessed here. The question put forward by a contributing editor is whether or not we are permitted to cite a reference taken from the media outlets CGTN America or CGTN, both Chinese media outlets, without infringing upon Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources whenever they show an American scholar, such as the likes of Stephen S. Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, who speaks out and gives his professional opinion about the economic situation facing America and who clearly does not speak on behalf of the Communist party of China or the Peoples Republic of China, but takes a different approach to the subject of the US-China trade war and US trade deficit with China. By the way, he opines that the US trade deficit with China is the direct result of America's lack of domestic savings, rather than a by-product of unfair trading practices. Of course, IP theft is a different matter altogether. Can we still use Stephen Roach's assessment even though it comes to us under the auspices of this Chinese state-run media outlet? There is currently a majority of editors who wish to make use of Stephen Roach's quotes and citations. Davidbena ( talk) 22:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Why I think that the source is not reliable for the claim:
Outside of the obvious problem of equating search engine results with popularity, there is a common misconception that the only "computers" the average person owns are desktop PCs, laptops, and smart phones, and that the only "computer languages" are the ones that run on those platforms.
Actually, those are a tiny percentage of the total number of computers. Most people have computers inside their microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, digital watch, toaster, thermostat, air conditioner, radio, many toys, TV, TV remote, etc. A new car typically has at least 20 or 30 computers in it. Mine has one in each wheel that controls the antilock brakes, another inside each valve stem that wireless reports tire pressure, one in each taillight housing that controls the brake lights and turn signals, and so on.
Even your desktop PC has built into it other, smaller computers. There is one inside your keyboard, another inside your mouse, one inside your disk drive, another inside your power supply, one in your router, several in your monitor, and so on.
Most of these small computers are programmed in assembly language, with a smaller number (but still bigger than any desktop PC language) programmed in embedded C or ARM Thumb. Assembly language is still by far the most popular language by number of computers that run it.
Consider this analogy: the internet is full of webpages that talk about making your own clothes by sewing, knitting, crocheting, etc. There are far fewer webpages that talk about large, industrial machines that make most clothes. Does that mean that handmade clothes are more popular than store-bought clothes? Likewise with webpages about home woodworking vs. webpages about large furniture factories and webpages about printing one page on a laser printer vs. webpages about printing a million pages on an offset press. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of talk lately about which programming language is best. The following should clear up any confusion.[ Citation Need ed
The best programming language is, of course, the BEST programming language. BEST is a programming language that I developed to answer the frequently asked question "Which programming language is best?" once and for all.
BEST is an RFC2795[6.66...]-and-RFC2324[Q]-compliant Befunge-93[2] pseudocompiler written in x87 Malborge[3][7] with library calls to routines written in Microsoft[4] Visual BogusFORTH++[5] (!Xóõ edition)[9] that invoke various functions written in[6] Silbo Gomero{π} Reverse Polish Whitespace[1] (for clarity). It requires the GLaDOS operating system or RUM emulator.
I hope this helps...
References:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:40, 10 September 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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of wikitia.com?
the encyclopedia where only verified editors who have proven records can edit an article on a particular topic or field, this appears to be a load of rubbish. For example see the history of Draft:Mohammed Abu El-Naga. The corresponding article at wikitia says it was copied from that draft, on 15 June according to the history. But then if you go back to the history of the draft you see this edit on 7 July adding the wikitia article as a reference, which is as circular as it gets. This is a pattern that's repeated at Draft:Diana Simán ( offending edit), Draft:Gowri Nadella ( offending edit). So while wikitia may claim to be Citizendium type model, all they do is copy and paste drafts from here. Listing so it can be formally deprecated for edit filter warnings. FDW777 ( talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There are no uses in article space because I removed them. There are however uses in draft space, and they will continue to be added there and in article space unless something is done. Which won't be by me any more. FDW777 ( talk) 15:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Wartime in Baseball, which can be found here [51], is often used as a source for what happened to baseball players who had to serve during World War II. An example is Morrie Martin where it is the source for Martin being badly wounded at the Battle of the Bulge.
Wartime appears to be a personal website with just one writer involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This is regarding the publisher Sarup & Sons which is cited at around 800 WP articles. The particular book in question is:
I have compared this book's first 70 pages with Jadunath Sarkar's following book: A History of Jaipur, c. 1503-1938 (1984). And every page of Sarkar's book (which is available to me in Google Books preview) is copy-pasted by this book. Here are the details:
I) Page nos. 1–37 copy-pasted from page nos. 75–111 of the Sarkar's book
ii) Page nos. 42–70 copy-pasted from page nos. 118–144 of Sarkar's book
The only difference is that the chapter titles are different. And there is no attribution to Sarkar anywhere. I haven't checked the remaining pages yet, but they also seem copy-pasted. The Sarkar's book is copyrighted till 2047 – see User talk:Diannaa:Query about the copyright status of a book. So this is a case of clear copyright violation, and we should not even provide its link in an external-links section or in a citation, per WP:COPYVIOEL. Anyway, is such blatant copyright violator (Sarup & Sons) considered reliable for anything on this project? - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Book no. 2
Book no. 3
Book no. 4
Pinging Buidhe & Hemiauchenia so that they can have a look at the book no. 3 & 4. BTW, I was a bit busy in real life for the last few days, but I am sure I will find more such examples in the coming days. - NitinMlk ( talk) 16:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Book no. 5
Book no. 6
The only difference is that few of the chapter titles are shortened a bit. Note that, leaving behind notes and index, the Kliebard's book has just 137 pages. So basically Sarup & Sons is providing his whole book for preview at Google Books. - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I am working on the Wikipedia article for the music project, Enigma. Should The Enigma Archives be used as a reliable source?
Pick an option below and explain your reasoning.
- Lazman321 ( talk) 19:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
First created in 1993, the document is updated regularly (last updated April 2002) and has been checked by Michael Cretu and seen to be correct.[53]. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Michael didn't read the FAQ but looked over it and said he thinks most of it is OK.I don't think one member of the band "looking it over" makes it a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I have been topic banned from articles related to India and Pakistan (see my talk page) and want to avoid any further sanctions. I want to edit the article on Kafir, so please let me know if this is a reliable source? What about this, this, this or this?— Dr2Rao ( talk) 12:31, 13 September 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 305 | ← | Archive 309 | Archive 310 | Archive 311 | Archive 312 | Archive 313 | → | Archive 315 |
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.
(Manually unarchiving thread, setting DoNotArchive to 1 October 2020 (UTC) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC))
The Mail on Sunday is owned by the same company that owns Daily Mail. They aren't the same newspaper, however, and, to quote our article, "the editorial staffs of the two papers are entirely separate". That being said, for the online version, the content of The Mail on Sunday is available under the dailymail.co.uk domain ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsunday/). Does the RfC on the reliability (or lack thereof) of the Daily Mail also apply to The Mail on Sunday? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 10:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd consider, and would tend to treat, this as yet another variant attempt at special-pleading exceptions to WP:DAILYMAILIf that's a reference to me, then I don't particularly care what the answer to the question posed is (in either direction). This is genuinely a request for clarification because I couldn't find it with a quick search of RSN, and they do appear to be different newspapers so I think it's a valid question to ask. For clarity, the consensus on this question should be added to the notes of WP:DAILYMAIL. A little good faith goes a long way y'know. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 12:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:DENY
|
---|
What about other DMGY titles?
|
So the editors that David Gerard maligned are vindicated, and the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no. I hope there's no need to continue this thread. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
the OP's question "Does Daily Mail RfC apply to the Mail on Sunday?" is answered: no.is not in any way an accurate summary of the responses you got from the original closers, and you appear to have grossly misread what they said, which contained many conditionals - David Gerard ( talk) 21:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I came across The Hustler's Digest while reviewing an AfC submission and decided to investigate the source. The media company produces news articles and other content for its customers. Following are things I noted about it as a source;
Taking the above into consideration, articles written by company staff may be considered reliable at first glance. However, it should be noted that the site's editorial policy seems to allow for native advertising that is distinct from sponsored content, so sources written by staff should be used with caution. As for contributor content, said content is user-generated and as such is unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In addition, a search for citations of thehustlersdigest.com on en.wiki shows that - in 7/8 instances - the source cited was written by a contributor and not by staff. It should also be noted that while staff articles distinguish paid content from unpaid content, this standard may not apply to contributor content as most contributors seem to be digital marketers. Surmising all of the above, the source in question should probably be considered as generally unreliable with only staff articles being considered as WP:RS, and then only with proper vetting. SamHolt6 ( talk) 01:25, 2 September 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.
As I read the guidelines about the Wikipedia reliable sources, I found that infodrips.com may be useful for reliable source, almost all the informative contents are already verified by editors as they also referenced (sources from reputed medical journals,academic journals, academic books etc.) that all in their contents. Still want to discuss it more that maybe I'm wrong, Editors are requested to have a look on it. — Aaqib Ahmad Talk 07:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Not a reliable source. WP:QUESTIONABLE: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:28, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Is Colombo Page a reliable source for events that occur in Sri Lanka? We have more than 400 citations to colombopage.com . VR talk 05:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Are thearkenstone.blogspot.com and medium.com/war-is-boring reliable sources for military articles? The article is Shahed 171 Simorgh, but I see that they are used elsewhere too. Pahlevun ( talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Is this report a reliable source. This is used in the context of [ [3]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski, the author, was the prosecutor of the local Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry during the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War ( http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi). The report broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. The source is [ [4]] page 116. Maidyouneed ( talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know where to look, but in the Vera Farmiga article it states that Freddie Highmore is the godfather to one of her children. The source used [5], the article doesn't state that he is, but he mentioned it in the podcast. The question is, can podcasts be used as a source? I've looked and can't find where it says if podcasts are reliable or not. If they are not, it's easy to find other articles to replace it as a source. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Is Android Headlines (AndroidHeadlines.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?
My opinion is they should be considered a self-published group blog (i.e. not reliable). -- Yae4 ( talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Android Headlines is marginally reliable at best and self-published at worst. The website simply deleted the article about the CopperheadOS situation instead of formally retracting it, which is not a positive indicator of its reliability. From my experience, editors tend to be more accepting of marginally reliable sources for niche or specialized topics, but Android in general is too popular to be considered niche. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Is TuttoAndroid ( tuttoandroid.net, Italian Language) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?
I was on the fence and used it before, but the more I look, the more it seems like a spammy advert-blog. I couldn't find evidence of editorial oversight. It is only used in 5 articles, 2 of which I've been involved in editing, CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS. Tuttoandroid was brought up for Talk page discussion at CopperheadOS Talk, but more opinions would help. -- Yae4 ( talk) 16:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding: I'd forgotten Newslinger previously said at Talk:GrapheneOS "These citations clearly aren't reliable" and included TuttoAndroid in his list of sources to remove, saying about it: "No staff list. Also appears to be a summarized translation of this Liliputing article. [10] However, somehow it was put back into GrapheneOS later. Considering consensus on Liliputing was non-reliable, TuttoAndroid.net is also looking non-reliable. -- Yae4 ( talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.tuttoandroid.net/modding/grapheneos-android-sicurezza-privacy-open-source-669777/
. Liliputing was already considered a self-published blog in
a 2019 RfC, so TuttoAndroid is at best also generally unreliable. —
Newslinger
talk 10:20, 4 September 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.
What is the reliability of Global Times ( globaltimes.cn )? It is used in more than a thousand Wikipedia articles.
( t · c) buidhe 18:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Quotes about the Global Times from reliable sources
|
---|
"China's Angriest Newspaper Doesn’t Speak for China", Foreign Policy
"China's Global Times plays a peculiar role", The Economist ( RSP entry)
"Inside the Global Times, China’s hawkish, belligerent state tabloid", Quartz
"The man taking on Hong Kong from deep inside China's propaganda machine", CNN ( RSP entry)
|
The votes above are amazing. Every single source listed by anyone notes that the Global Times is an important voice of hawkish elements within the Chinese establishment. If you take the sources seriously, its perspective is necessary to understand Chinese politics, but is obviously biased. Here on Wikipedia, editors cite these sources but then counter that we should deprecate the Global Times. What is the point of the categories Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, or Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting, when we so often think in the binary terms reliable vs deprecation? - Darouet ( talk) 16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
User talk:Horse Eye Jack & User:Anachronist: Why hasn't this been snow closed yet? The above votes show consensus to deprecate. Flaughtin ( talk) 08:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I've found many instances of plagiarism in the book A Reflective Guide to Gender Identity Counselling (published in 2019 by Jessica Kingsley Publishers). For example, the "Trigender" glossary entry is almost identical to an old version of the lead in our "Trigender" article, including the nonsensical final sentence. The next glossary entry, "Tucking", is copied in part from a 2016 Buzzfeed article. The "Demigender" definition is copied from nonbinary.wiki, where it is sourced to a Tumblr post. I emailed Jessica Kingsley Publishers about this months ago; they never responded and they're still selling the book. (Courtesy ping to @ Mathglot:, whose work on an unrelated JKP issue reminded me of this.) Cheers, gnu 57 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I have an issue in relation to the following quote
- On 12 August 2018, a Chinese state-run tabloid, Global Times, defended the crackdown in Xinjiang [1] after a U.N. anti-discrimination committee raised concerns over China's treatment of Uyghurs. According to the Global Times, China prevented Xinjiang from becoming 'China's Syria' or 'China's Libya', and local authorities' policies saved countless lives and avoided a 'great tragedy'. [2] [3] The paper published another editorial the day after, titled "Xinjiang policies justified". [4]
References
- ^ "Protecting peace, stability is top of human rights agenda for Xinjiang". Global Times. 12 August 2018.
- ^ "China newspaper defends Xinjiang Muslim crackdown". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 13 August 2018. Archived from the original on 14 August 2018.
- ^ "China has prevented 'great tragedy' in Xinjiang, state-run paper says". Reuters. Beijing. 13 August 2018. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
- ^ Liu, Xin (13 August 2018). "Xinjiang policies justified". Global Times. Retrieved 27 August 2018.
Global Times was recently deprecated and I accordingly removed the entire paragraph, but was reverted on the grounds that the initial article received coverage in reliable sources. (Reuters and Washington Post) So I am here asking for clarification: can the the entire paragraph still be removed even though the deprecated source received coverage in reliable sources? If the answer is that the paragraph should stay, then wouldn't it be giving the initial article UNDUE importance to keep it in as it received coverage in only two reliable sources? Flaughtin ( talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
" The security law has also sent a chill through Hong Kong’s once freewheeling news media. RTHK, the public broadcaster, removed a political podcast from its website after the authorities warned that an interview with Nathan Law, a democracy activist now living abroad, could be in breach of the new law."
“The extension in Hong Kong of the Chinese regime’s practice of visa weaponisation, intended to intimidate foreign journalists, is extremely concerning and in total contradiction with the principle of press freedom enshrined in the Basic Law”, insists Cédric Alviani, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) East Asia bureau head, who sees in this phenomenon “another sign of the recent acceleration of press freedom's decline after the passing, two months ago, of a National Security Law imposed by Beijing”.
( t · c) buidhe 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I am seeking opinions about what I believe to be use of a tabloid to source an edit in Megxit about Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. See the discussion at Talk:Megxit#Edit sourced to a tabloid. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:
Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
References
This website contains many pages which, on first glance, appear to contain plausible information such as the page on the
Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Their
about page would seem to suggest reliability. However, there are also pages like
Prisoners of War of the Japanese 1939-1945. Scrolling all the way down to the bottom there is a statement Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from
, followed by a long list of Wikipedia articles. Obviously that would disqualify that page as a reliable reference due to
WP:CIRCULAR, but does that impact the reliability of the rest of the site?
FDW777 (
talk) 12:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
We currently have 1,375 citations to webmd.com , Is WebMD MEDRS compliant? I've heard mostly negative things about the website over the years, mostly about their close relationship to pharmaceutical companies. Vox NYTimes Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
A question has come to the fore on the Talk-Page of Qarawat Bani Hassan, shown here, about the reliability of a 11-volume Hebrew published work entitled, "Israel Guide, A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country," published by the Keter Publishing House in Israel, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence, between the years 1978–1980. For more details, see volume 8 of this edition: Shorer, Yaakov; Grossman, David, eds. (1980). Israel Guide - The Northern Valleys, Mount Carmel and Samaria (in Hebrew). Vol. 8. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence. OCLC 745203905.. The chief-editor of the encyclopedia is a man by the name of Arieh Yitzhaki. Each volume speaks about a different section of the country and has its invidual editor. The title of this work has caused some confusion, as one editor thought that it may strictly be a tourist guide when, in fact, it is much more than that. The back-cover of each volume carries a short description of the entire work, which reads as follows (translated from the Hebrew):
Since this work is written in Hebrew and, most likely, not found in English-speaking libraries, perhaps Wikipedians in Israel (e.g. User:Deror avi, User:Yoninah, User:Debresser, User:Netanel h, User:Gilabrand, User:Tzahy, User:IsraeliteoftheShephelah, User:Tomerarazy, User:Bolter21, User:Ynhockey, User:Shrike, User:Amoruso) can voice their opinion about the worthiness, or un-worthiness, of this 11-volume publication. See also Madrikh Yisrael - (Israel Guide); Israel Guide (on Google Books). By the way: The editor of the 2nd volume is a scholar by the name of Raphael (Rafael / Rafi) Frankel who has written extensively about sites in the Galilee. Among his other publications, one may notice this, "The Map of Achziv", as well as the following publications: 1) Frankel, Rafael; Getzov, Nimrod; Aviam, Mordechai; Degani, Avi (2001). "Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee (Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee)". Israel Antiquities Authority. 14.; 2) Frankel, Raphael; Finkelstein, I. (1983). "'The Northwest Corner of Eretz-Israel' in the Baraita 'Boundaries of Eretz-Israel'". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv. 27 (27): 39–46. JSTOR 23398920.; 3) Frankel, Raphael (1979). "'Bibra' — A Forbidden Village in the Territory of Tyre". Israel Exploration Journal. 29 (3/4): 194–196.; 4) Rafael, Frankel, "Kabri, Nahal Ga‘aton Aqueduct: Final Report" ( JSTOR 26601478), among others.
Davidbena ( talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Is there a reason other than it being Israeli for some to discredit it? It's written by scholars, right? So shouldn't it be a RS, regardless of the clunky title and funding? Sir Joseph (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I have a procedural objection. I feel like leaping straight to a four-option depreciation RFC is a bit premature, both per WP:RFCBEFORE and because it sort of obscures the real question that brought you here. The dispute is very specifically over whether it can be used for this claim, which at first glance seems at least slightly WP:EXCEPTIONAL or highly technical (requiring a suitably technical source) in the sense that it touches on a controversial archeological claim; the question of whether this source is valid for that specific claim is worth considering, and I don't think a general RFC about the source as a whole can meaningfully answer it. These sorts of RFCs are for sources that are constant recurring issues or ones with glaring problems; they're not what you're supposed to do when you have one extremely specific question over "can source X be used to cite statement Y." Also, RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded, which this 100% is not - you overtly dismiss the arguments you're trying to get an RFC outcome against in your summary. I'm particularly bothered that you devoted a ton of text to how notable the source is, but didn't even vaguely reference the specific claim people are debating. In any case, I'm also not convinced by your "tots not a travel guide" summary. The translated bit you quote strikes me as somewhat blithe; ultimately it emphasizes its value to travelers above all else. Obviously a guide to Israel is going to state that it is historically-accurate, since that history is a big part of why people travel to Israel, and it could be perhaps used for uncontroversial claims (the way we might use any other general encyclopedia), but for something as potentially-controversial as this we ought to be citing more academic or professional sources, not just guides that boast vaguely about using the best available research. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 03:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)This is more a question as to this source. I personally in the past have avoided not only in WP but in my normal work, as because while the "data" is visible, the sourcing for it is behind paywall, and when I have been lucky to find corroborating data I generally find discrepancies, or generally the clear original source of the data, so the site is just skimming others' work and tossing a paywall on top. Technically doesn't violation any immediate policies and I'm not asking for a full blown deprecation or the like, just what others' opinion is on this site. (If we want to poll for RS/P, we can). -- Masem ( t) 13:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello, This journal sounds and looks ok to me but there are suggestions otherwise; p73 on summary of legislation, in Offending religious feelings:
Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, "Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years".[6] During this evolution of the legal wording, the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs.[6]
The Legal Culture. The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture ; other views sought - thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 09:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
ie, without the summary, but sourced to the same, perhaps even just until some much more leftwing source for the same is found? Or is this source and this high-up government legal scholar so "fringe" that even this is absolutely beyond the pale? Maculosae tegmine lyncis ( talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, "Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years".[6]
due to the fact that this organization apparently doesn't publicly rejoice in the slaughter, without their consent, of innocent beingshas doomed your efforts. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Are twitter tweets a reliable source for the following statements at Alex Morse?
References
Fortliberty ( talk) 05:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
{{
ping|Chess}}
on reply) 03:36, 5 September 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.
What is the reliability of the Daily Star (United Kingdom)?
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
We currently have around 1,500 citations to the Daily Star per dailystar.co.uk , most of which appear to be on BLP articles. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
It has become a pathetic article, a travesty of a newspaper, having lost any sense of purpose. Yet it obviously fills some need, because it sells 355,000 copies a day, and its print decline is no worse than that of its rivals.
Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)It survives on a diet of sex, still featuring a topless model on Page 3 each day, and on celebrity trivia. The Star is a newspaper without either news or views. If it can be said to have any political outlook at all, then it is rightwing. There is no passion, no commitment, no soul.
Are these four historians ( [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]) reliable for the allegation that US DEA agent Kiki Camarena was likely tortured and killed with complicity of the CIA in 1985? Their work is disputed [27] at Kiki Camarena. The historians argue that Camarena may have discovered that the Contra affair, funding anticommunist guerrillas in Nicaragua, was financed by Mexican drug money with CIA support. Some investigative journalists have concluded the same thing [28], and in February the US Justice Department reopened a case on the matter [29] [30].
Note that I earlier brought this issue to this noticeboard here [31], garnering these responses [32] [33]. There are additional newspaper articles on the topic: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41].
I've launched an RfC, where I hope you'll comment on whether these historians can be used as reliable sources for the attributed claim that the CIA participated in Camarena's torture. - Darouet ( talk) 23:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Edited per request of Buidhe. - Darouet ( talk) 12:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Academic
Newspaper articles
Reopened Justice Department Investigation
A user recently added a paragraph cited to culturalanalysis.net at Existential risk of artificial general intelligence ( diff). The statement attempts to describe research implying that AGIs are inherently amoral. Is it a reliable source? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
A while ago, QuackWatch was declared to be self-published, thus effectively excluding one of the most prominent critics of quackery from biographies of quacks and charlatans. I noticed today that QuackWatch is now listed as a project of the Center for Inquiry. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article Quackwatch, which is sourced to their website in 2007 says they have no salaried employees and the current website does not list any. The website says that stories are checked by at least one expert, but news stories are not checked. And I assume these experts are scientists who evaluate the accuracy of scientific claims. But that's only part of the story. Also important are the identities and backgrounds of the quacks, the size of their operation, how much money they took in, what legal issues they faced, who aided them, whether the publications they advertised with were at fault.
I also am wary of using investigative journalism as a source unless it gets picked up by other publications because of weight. If Dr. X is a notable respected physician with an article sourced to mainstream media, I don't want to see an accusation from Quackwatch that mainstream media has ignored. If mainstream media pick up on the accusation, they will allow Dr. X to reply and determine whether the accusation is true and how serious it is.
Also, I don't see anything in the recent newsletter that could be used as a source for articles. It's all links to primary sources: FDA warning letters, ads by quacks, peer-reviewed articles, letters by experts. [49] While these primary sources may be reliable sources, there is no need to cite the newsletter itself.
Incidentally, declaring a publication self-published does not exclude its use. It means that each article must be assessed for reliability. Generally it can be used if written by an expert in his or her field.
Can you provide an example of where you would use the site as a source?
TFD ( talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Another question has come to the fore on Talk:China–United States trade war and which discussion can be accessed here. The question put forward by a contributing editor is whether or not we are permitted to cite a reference taken from the media outlets CGTN America or CGTN, both Chinese media outlets, without infringing upon Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources whenever they show an American scholar, such as the likes of Stephen S. Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, who speaks out and gives his professional opinion about the economic situation facing America and who clearly does not speak on behalf of the Communist party of China or the Peoples Republic of China, but takes a different approach to the subject of the US-China trade war and US trade deficit with China. By the way, he opines that the US trade deficit with China is the direct result of America's lack of domestic savings, rather than a by-product of unfair trading practices. Of course, IP theft is a different matter altogether. Can we still use Stephen Roach's assessment even though it comes to us under the auspices of this Chinese state-run media outlet? There is currently a majority of editors who wish to make use of Stephen Roach's quotes and citations. Davidbena ( talk) 22:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Why I think that the source is not reliable for the claim:
Outside of the obvious problem of equating search engine results with popularity, there is a common misconception that the only "computers" the average person owns are desktop PCs, laptops, and smart phones, and that the only "computer languages" are the ones that run on those platforms.
Actually, those are a tiny percentage of the total number of computers. Most people have computers inside their microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, digital watch, toaster, thermostat, air conditioner, radio, many toys, TV, TV remote, etc. A new car typically has at least 20 or 30 computers in it. Mine has one in each wheel that controls the antilock brakes, another inside each valve stem that wireless reports tire pressure, one in each taillight housing that controls the brake lights and turn signals, and so on.
Even your desktop PC has built into it other, smaller computers. There is one inside your keyboard, another inside your mouse, one inside your disk drive, another inside your power supply, one in your router, several in your monitor, and so on.
Most of these small computers are programmed in assembly language, with a smaller number (but still bigger than any desktop PC language) programmed in embedded C or ARM Thumb. Assembly language is still by far the most popular language by number of computers that run it.
Consider this analogy: the internet is full of webpages that talk about making your own clothes by sewing, knitting, crocheting, etc. There are far fewer webpages that talk about large, industrial machines that make most clothes. Does that mean that handmade clothes are more popular than store-bought clothes? Likewise with webpages about home woodworking vs. webpages about large furniture factories and webpages about printing one page on a laser printer vs. webpages about printing a million pages on an offset press. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of talk lately about which programming language is best. The following should clear up any confusion.[ Citation Need ed
The best programming language is, of course, the BEST programming language. BEST is a programming language that I developed to answer the frequently asked question "Which programming language is best?" once and for all.
BEST is an RFC2795[6.66...]-and-RFC2324[Q]-compliant Befunge-93[2] pseudocompiler written in x87 Malborge[3][7] with library calls to routines written in Microsoft[4] Visual BogusFORTH++[5] (!Xóõ edition)[9] that invoke various functions written in[6] Silbo Gomero{π} Reverse Polish Whitespace[1] (for clarity). It requires the GLaDOS operating system or RUM emulator.
I hope this helps...
References:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:40, 10 September 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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of wikitia.com?
the encyclopedia where only verified editors who have proven records can edit an article on a particular topic or field, this appears to be a load of rubbish. For example see the history of Draft:Mohammed Abu El-Naga. The corresponding article at wikitia says it was copied from that draft, on 15 June according to the history. But then if you go back to the history of the draft you see this edit on 7 July adding the wikitia article as a reference, which is as circular as it gets. This is a pattern that's repeated at Draft:Diana Simán ( offending edit), Draft:Gowri Nadella ( offending edit). So while wikitia may claim to be Citizendium type model, all they do is copy and paste drafts from here. Listing so it can be formally deprecated for edit filter warnings. FDW777 ( talk) 10:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There are no uses in article space because I removed them. There are however uses in draft space, and they will continue to be added there and in article space unless something is done. Which won't be by me any more. FDW777 ( talk) 15:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Wartime in Baseball, which can be found here [51], is often used as a source for what happened to baseball players who had to serve during World War II. An example is Morrie Martin where it is the source for Martin being badly wounded at the Battle of the Bulge.
Wartime appears to be a personal website with just one writer involved. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
This is regarding the publisher Sarup & Sons which is cited at around 800 WP articles. The particular book in question is:
I have compared this book's first 70 pages with Jadunath Sarkar's following book: A History of Jaipur, c. 1503-1938 (1984). And every page of Sarkar's book (which is available to me in Google Books preview) is copy-pasted by this book. Here are the details:
I) Page nos. 1–37 copy-pasted from page nos. 75–111 of the Sarkar's book
ii) Page nos. 42–70 copy-pasted from page nos. 118–144 of Sarkar's book
The only difference is that the chapter titles are different. And there is no attribution to Sarkar anywhere. I haven't checked the remaining pages yet, but they also seem copy-pasted. The Sarkar's book is copyrighted till 2047 – see User talk:Diannaa:Query about the copyright status of a book. So this is a case of clear copyright violation, and we should not even provide its link in an external-links section or in a citation, per WP:COPYVIOEL. Anyway, is such blatant copyright violator (Sarup & Sons) considered reliable for anything on this project? - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Book no. 2
Book no. 3
Book no. 4
Pinging Buidhe & Hemiauchenia so that they can have a look at the book no. 3 & 4. BTW, I was a bit busy in real life for the last few days, but I am sure I will find more such examples in the coming days. - NitinMlk ( talk) 16:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Book no. 5
Book no. 6
The only difference is that few of the chapter titles are shortened a bit. Note that, leaving behind notes and index, the Kliebard's book has just 137 pages. So basically Sarup & Sons is providing his whole book for preview at Google Books. - NitinMlk ( talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I am working on the Wikipedia article for the music project, Enigma. Should The Enigma Archives be used as a reliable source?
Pick an option below and explain your reasoning.
- Lazman321 ( talk) 19:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
First created in 1993, the document is updated regularly (last updated April 2002) and has been checked by Michael Cretu and seen to be correct.[53]. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Michael didn't read the FAQ but looked over it and said he thinks most of it is OK.I don't think one member of the band "looking it over" makes it a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
I have been topic banned from articles related to India and Pakistan (see my talk page) and want to avoid any further sanctions. I want to edit the article on Kafir, so please let me know if this is a reliable source? What about this, this, this or this?— Dr2Rao ( talk) 12:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)