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 325 | ← | Archive 327 | Archive 328 | Archive 329 | Archive 330 | Archive 331 | → | Archive 335 |
This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing. |
Is Taiwan News a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Does reliability still stand especially over political articles such as cross-strait relations?
According to Taiwan News, it is owned by I-Mei Foods, and openly leans Pan-Green politically.
Website: [1]
taiwannews is currently cited on over 1,000 articles, and if I'm seeing correctly were all added in the last year or two.
Not sure if relevant: Taiwan News still largely refers to "COVID-19" as "Wuhan coronavirus", examples: 1 and 2. Not sure if these are unintentional and are being meant casually/off-hand or is being used deliberately as a political statement. 85.10.51.92 ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Three English dailies also operated in Taiwan— China Post, Taipei Times and Taiwan News—though Taiwan News went to an online version only in 2010 and China Post did the same in 2017. China Post is pro- KMT; Taipei Times and Taiwan News are pro- DPP. Of the three, Taipei Times is the largest in terms of news coverage and commentary.
Copper, John Franklin (13 November 2019). Taiwan: Nation-State or Province?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-80831-9. Retrieved 6 February 2021 – via Google Books.
Since Taiwan News is a generically-worded name, detailed coverage is difficult to locate. I defer to use by other reliable sources: The China Post, The Diplomat, The New York Times ( RSP entry), BBC ( RSP entry), The Indian Express ( RSP entry), The Washington Post ( RSP entry), Al Jazeera ( RSP entry), and Fortune have all cited content on Taiwan News without comment. For Taiwanese politics, consider balancing Taiwan News with other sources such as The China Post to ensure that both major parties are represented. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Danielbr11 is in the middle of an ANI case, so I would like to have a general discussion about the reliability of one of the sources mentioned above without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. Please move any comment specific to that case to the section above.
I do not consider the works of Rudolph Rummel to be either fringe or mainstream. They appear to be in that area between calls "controversial". There is some dispute over his numbers from other academics, and thus I think anything sourced to Rummel should be properly attributed, and when appropriate disagreement by prominent critics should be included. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me explain a little bit about Rummel. Rudolph Rummel is by no means a fringe author. He is a very reputable scholar, and his "democratic peace" concept is very famous. However, we must clearly understand what exactly his contribution to science consists in. His main contribution is introduction of factor analysis into social sciences. In particular, he collected all available data on mass killings and calculated correlations between various traits of each regime and the scale of killings. He obtained significant negative correlation between democracy and mass violence and strong positive correlation between a degree of totalitarianism and mass killing. That is why he is considered reputable.
However, can he be a good source for figures? No. First. His approach was analyzed by Dulic, who persuasively demonstrated that Rummel's approach (to take all published data on the number of victims and to calculate the boundaries of most probable estimates) inevitably leads to inflated figures. Dulic discusses Rummel's data on Yugoslavia only, but his conclusions are equally applicable to Rummel's approach in general. Interestingly, no other statistician joined the dispute (neither at Dulic's side nor Rummel's side), which is an indication of low interest of true professionals to Rummel's statistics. Second. Rummel used all published data non-critically, and he never re-considered his estimates to a lower side in light of new evidences. Thus, I checked his "Death by government", and his estimates of USSR deaths are based on outdated Cold-war era crude estimates. Despite the fact that a huge amount of archival data became available on the USSR after its dissolution, and now the USSR mortality figures are much better known, Rummel continued to publish dramatically inflated figures, which are more than an order of magnitude higher than actual numbers (and which contradict to most moderns demographic (Erlikman) and archival (Zemskov) data). Accordingly, it is not a surprise that most modern country experts essentially ignore Rummel's "estimates". The exception is Cambodia, for which the data dispersion has always been pretty low, and, accordingly, Rummel's estimates are reasonably precise.
Third, as Barbara Harff noted, Rummel's goal was not to provide the exact statistics, for even the amended data set would lead to essentially the same conclusion about "democratic peace". Therefore, Harff doesn't believes high precision of the data is neither required nor expected from Rummel. Therefore, although Rummel is a good expert in his field, the figures he provides cannot be trusted, especially for the countries or the events where a large number of contradicting figures were published, for Rummel just takes them all and obtains the average without analyzing reliability of each figure.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Are Rummel's numbers really so far from other estimates?
From our article on Democide#Killings by Communist states
Several commentators on Rummel's estimates have noted that estimates for the holocaust (which we have far better numbers for) might be 20% or maybe even 40% off either way, while at the same time completely rejecting the claims of holocaust deniers that the estimates are a hundred times or more too large. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Tentative conclusion Version 1:
I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:
Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:
All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.
Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.
Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Tentative conclusion Version 2:
I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:
Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:
All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.
Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.
Note: there was an objection to the label I previously picked for "few or no famines in democracies" but nobody suggested an alternative. The phrasing "In Rummel's words..." is clunky compared to "What Rummel called...". Please speak up if you have better wording. This part of Rummel's theories is at [ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.3.19.05.HTM ] with the title "Democracy? Prosperous, and Never a Famine".
Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion presents a strong case that Rummel uses historical estimates to support his agenda, without adequate regard for their accuracy. NightHeron ( talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm very tired and this is my last discussion. Firstly, user:CommanderWaterford, a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{ UnreliableSources}} when there is used The Irrawaddy as source and no information questioned at all. [7], [8] and [9] and many more today. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Do justice to me? Hay guy, what is your problem? Why do you always bite me? Would you be happy if I left from Wikipedia ? I know you hate me because of my user page. This is my retirement.
Seems like the Irrawady is considered credible by a large number of high-quality news outlets internationally: The New York Times [11] [12] ("independant") [13], The Associated Press [14] [15], Reuters [16], Nikkei Asia [17], Le Monde [18] [19] ("the voice of the exiled dissenters during the dictatorship"), Le Figaro [20], Courrier International [21], which also translated one of its articles in French [22]: Courrier International has a stellar reputation in the selection of foreign sources, DPA [23] [24], Neue Zürcher Zeitung [25]-- JBchrch ( talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
neutral, unbiased, or objective.-- JBchrch ( talk) 09:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Jonathan A Jones seems to be edit warring in University to add sources from 1911 and 1898 [26]. Especially the 1911 Britannica source should be removed, as it was superseded by newer version of Britannica entry which doesn't repeat the same claim [27]. Can someone weigh in on the usage of extremely dated sources? Should they be directly removed and replaced with citation needed tags? Bogazicili ( talk) 17:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The university was born in the Middle Ages. Even if medieval universities were very different from modern ones, they contributed decisively to our conception of what a university should be (lsray 1933, Radshall et al. 1936).
The Medieval Legacy
Universities appeared in Roman Catholic Europe in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. Schools had developed in many cities for the training of priests. They were dependent on bishops' authority and control. Because of the division between civil and religious powers which was then normal, they escaped the direct control of the King. When conflicts with bishops occurred, the students and teachers of some schools transformed themselves into self-organised and self-governing communities. In Paris, this community took in 1215 the name of Universitas magistrorum et scholarium parisiensium–hence the name of university, which meant community. It developed under the protection of the pope, a distant authority, who only controlled the kind of theology which was taught.
Claval, Paul (1998). "Politics and the University". The Urban University and its Identity: Roots, Locations, Roles. GeoJournal Library. Vol. 45. Springer Netherlands. pp. 30–31. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-5184-9_3. Retrieved 13 February 2021 – via Google Books.
Why isn't there already a discussion in the article's Talk page? It's difficult to believe that a controversy requires the input of the broader community if it hasn't even been addressed on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:CommanderWaterford appears to have a history of tagging articles without meaningfully engaging in discussion around the reliability of specific sources and Wikipedia's policies. The most recent case of tagging was on the Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing article, where they simply left an edit summary comment stating: "Radio Free Asia+The Irradaway+Progressive Voice are not reliable sources." I wanted to seek community guidance on whether Radio Free Asia, which is similar to the Voice of America from a funding perspective, can be used as a reliable source. I will also note that in Myanmar's historically restrictive press environment, RFA has been one of the few uncensored Burmese language news sources. This has been especially true during the ongoing media blackout in Myanmar, related to the recent coup.
There are ongoing discussions re: Voice of America and The Irrawaddy (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Voice of America (VOA)) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Irrawaddy) also related to said user's edits. Thanks. - Hintha( t) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this an RS [ [33]] for the claim the nazis were not facists? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
These two sources as used in the article Proud Boys. From what I gather, I see Splinter News is the successor to Gawker and they appear to have some connection. Gawker which is listed as unreliable in WP:RSP. The wiki article on Splinter News suggests its a liberal bias opinion and news site. Is it any different in reliability and neutrality from Gawker as far as Wiki source usage is concerned? Graywalls ( talk) 07:13, 16 February 2021 (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. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model.
Telewizja Polska (called TVP for short), is the flagship state broadcaster. But since 2015 it can now be likened to RT or KCT, in particular TVP Info, but also the long established news programs Panorama, Teleexpress and Wiadomości have basically become nothing more than outright propaganda outlets.
Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:
I would point out that Sport for now seems to be unaffected, therefore I would exclude TVP Sport from the list. Same may go for things like Polish soap opera channel TVP Seriale, and children's cartoon channel TVP ABC. However, TVP Historia and TVP Edukacja is still very much selective in its content in line with the others, people have started to be fired from TVP Kultura for not being pro-government as well. TVP1, TVP2 and TVP3 seem to be just as affected as the infamous TVP Info. TVP Info also has a large online presence.
I am not going to list all the sources, because actually a lot of the pages have criticisms sections and plenty of sources within them, so I do not see much point in copying and pasting those. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The
United Right's control over this organ after legislative changes has been compared, unfavourably, with communist era TV. At least back in the communist days everyone knew the news was lies. The sports coverage, weather, or anything else that doesn't touch politics or socials issues is still OK.
This November 2020 item is relevant.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (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. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Polskie Radio (PR for short) is the flagship state-run radio network in Poland.
It runs the following:
Now after the governement intereference and censorship scandal of Trójka, where the journalists and presenters who worked there for several decades were forced out of their jobs, creating competing Radio 357 and Radio Nowy Świat stations in protest, and Polskie Radio 24 working hand in hand with the controversial TVP Info, I would question the reliability of the network.
Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:
Now it could well be that classical music, sport, drivers info are all unaffected and there is no reason not to see the network as reliable on those matters; the main concern is political news. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The
United Right's control over this organ
following the legislation and 2016 purge is problematic. They are even questionable for music,
as they manipulated the music charts poll after a protest song topped them.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (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. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. The ramping up of the rhetoric has been emphasised in late 2020, with the takeover of Polska Press (a collection of many inter-linked regional newspapers and websites) by state-run Orlen.
The following news agencies are affected:
The following daily regional newspapers are affected:
The following TV magazines are affected:
The following advertising newspapers are affected:
The following free newspapers are affected:
The following internet portals are affected:
I would point out that this would only refer to those from 2021 onwards. The sports, TV, small ads and motoring are likely to be much unaffected, the issue is that it becomes incresingly similar to TVP Info in the way they report political news. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. This company has been "re-Polishized" by the government: "Adam Bodnar, the national ombudsman for citizens' rights, told Wirtualna Polska that this was "a historic moment and, unfortunately, it shows that the authorities decided to take steps similar to those we could previously observe in Hungary under Viktor Orban." He said the transaction demonstrated what direction the ruling party was going in. "After full control of state media," he said, "now it's time for the private media."
[37] --
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Some editors are claiming so at Talk:Welsh fiscal deficit. They also try to cite sources that don't mention Wales or deficits. ( t · c) buidhe 10:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?
There is a dispute over whether the article should quote an estimated range of Communist mass killings published in an article by "DISSIDENT" on the website. [39]
The Foundation is a partisan organization headed by Edwin Feulner, the founder and former president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The previous chairman was Lee Edwards, the founder of the American branch of the World Anti-Communist League.
Their Mission Statement says, "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance. New generations need to confront the reality of Marxism in practice. Socialism is not a kind, humane philosophy. Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history."
I realize that some editors might say that whether or not it is a reliable source, it is reliable for its own views. But if it is not reliable then its estimates, which are substantially higher than reliable sources, would lack weight for inclusion.
TFD ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: there was a previous discussion on this noticeboard about the Global Museum on Communism, which was run by the same people but is now offline. TFD ( talk) 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
TFD, it says at the top of this page to please include in posts here links to past discussion of the source on this board. You said in your post here that there was one, but you did not mention it above. AmateurEditor ( talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"During the decade when the fundraising was languishing, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation produced a number of 'papers and studies.' A notable one was published in 2002, nine months after 9/11, titled 'International Terrorism: The Communist Connection Revisited: Archives show Islamist terrorism linkages to Soviet Cold War intelligence.' The author, J. Michael Waller, reported that Reagan’s CIA director, William J. Casey, had found that 'there is virtually no terrorist operation or guerrilla movement anywhere in the world today . . . with which communists of one sort or another have not been involved.' It’s hard to imagine a more hare-brained understanding of Osama Bin Laden, whose anticommunist credentials were, to say the least, impeccable. And yet the foundation still carries that paper on its website."
Note: this book is non-academic, but probably still useful for this description. Jlevi ( talk) 00:53, 16 February 2021 (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. |
Are
Gazeta Wyborcza (
this) and
OKO.press (
this) reliable sources for the statements of
Wojciech Muszyński in regards to modern left-wing politicians in Poland?
User:Volunteer Marek is
stating they are not sufficiently reliable.
In my opinion, the left of centre Gazeta Wyborcza is comparable to the
The Washington Post, and has maintained its independence from the Polish government. While Oko.press is younger, its investigative journalism has been met with critical acclaim and they have won the 2020
Freedom of Expression Awards from
Index on Censorship. Both of these cover national news, and rank among the most reliable journalism sources in Poland.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
:: According to the editorial board of
The Washington Post (which
"represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution") from 23.10.2020:
Gazeta Wyborcza is "
Poland’s most popular and respected newspaper".--
Bob not snob (
talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Definitely reliable: firstly
Gazeta Wyborcza is not left-wing, certainly not when compared to e.g.
The Guardian. It's the biggest Polish newspaper and has been since 1990. Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal. The reason they (along with
onet.pl) are attacked by the far-right is because they refuse to be bought by and influenced by the ruling
United Right and continue to highlight their cronyism and corruption.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Coverage of Muszyński's own statements in national media is not an attack.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
The Motley Fool is cited over and over in finance articles, and I am wondering it it's actually a reliable source. From what I can gather, it's not really a WP:NEWSORG, but a firm that provides various services and, among other, publishes its own research. Their " about us" page is pretty vague. The NYT has described it as a "financial services" firm [63] and the WSJ as an "advisory firm" [64]. So based on that I guess it would qualify as WP:SELFPUB?-- JBchrch ( talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Since 2019, the British i (newspaper) has been owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Most other publications owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust are now depreciated as poor quality sources ( Daily Mail, MailOnline, Metro (British newspaper)). Although the i was reputable historically, I am concerned based on the fact that it's owned by a group with poor quality sources. Do people think the i is still a reliable source or not? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok to source the following sentence with Frontiers Journal in Public Health:
This source expands on a brief Nature Journal source also used for the sentence. Two editors ( PaleoNeonate and Alexbrn) have stated Frontiers is no good. Frontiers Journal in Public Health has an impact factor of 2.483 [67] and Frontiers the publisher is the 5th most cited science publisher in the world [68]. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I encourage the people who create the scientific content on Wikipedia to look at the statistic links that I've provided. Many of the people who voice their opinion on this reliable source noticeboard have not created any scientific content here on Wikipedia. And there are also those, unfortunately, who are unable to read scientific literature. It actually does take time to learn how to understand the literature of different fields of specialization.
I'll provide this table, since I know many people do not actually click on links.
2019 Journal Impact Factors | ||||
Journal | 2019 Journal Impact Factor | |||
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience | 4.362 | |||
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience | 2.512 | |||
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology | 3.644 | |||
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine | 3.915 | |||
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology | 5.201 | |||
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology | 4.123 | |||
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience | 3.921 | |||
Frontiers in Chemistry | 3.693 | |||
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience | 2.535 | |||
Frontiers in Earth Science | 2.689 | |||
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | 2.416 | |||
Frontiers in Endocrinology | 3.644 | |||
Frontiers in Energy Research | 2.746 | |||
Frontiers in Environmental Science | 2.749 | |||
Frontiers in Genetics | 3.258 | |||
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | 2.673 | |||
Frontiers in Immunology | 5.085 | |||
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience | 2.152 | |||
Frontiers in Marine Science | 3.661 | |||
Frontiers in Materials | 2.705 | |||
Frontiers in Medicine | 3.9 | |||
Frontiers in Microbiology | 4.235 | |||
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences | 4.188 | |||
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience | 4.057 | |||
Frontiers in Neural Circuits | 3.156 | |||
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy | 3.292 | |||
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics | 2.649 | |||
Frontiers in Neurology | 2.889 | |||
Frontiers in Neurorobotics | 2.574 | |||
Frontiers in Neuroscience | 3.707 | |||
Frontiers in Nutrition | 3.365 | |||
Frontiers in Oncology | 4.848 | |||
Frontiers in Pediatrics | 2.634 | |||
Frontiers in Pharmacology | 4.225 | |||
Frontiers in Physics | 2.638 | |||
Frontiers in Physiology | 3.367 | |||
Frontiers in Plant Science | 4.402 | |||
Frontiers in Psychiatry | 2.849 | |||
Frontiers in Psychology | 2.067 | |||
Frontiers in Public Health | 2.483 | |||
Frontiers in Surgery | 1.826 | |||
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience | 3.293 | |||
Frontiers in Veterinary Science | 2.245 |
Click on the following links to learn about the statistics of the publisher which is the 5th most cited scientific publisher in the world.
Frontier's publisher: Impact overview
Frontier's publisher: Journal Impact Factors
Frontier's publisher: Journal CiteScores
Frontier's publisher: Journal Citations
I look forward to having a rigorous discussion here on the reliable noticeboard as to what makes a science journal reliable or not. I also strongly encourage everyone who creates the scientific content on Wikipedia to contribute. This is an important topic that does not have room for gut feelings, politics, or passions. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Will accept almost anything (80-90% of submissions), and has sacked editors for being too selective.Perhaps WT:CITEWATCH is the place to discuss the matter if you want a Frontiers journal regarded as a respectable source and removed from CITEWATCH - David Gerard ( talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of reliability, there is the much bigger WP:DUE concerns. That three miners caught pneumonia is trivia at best. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Note this section is to unpackage the question above and does not relate to the sentence that is being sourced above with the journal article. What metrics does Wikipedia wish to use to judge the reliability of scientific journals. I propose we utilize whether a journal is indexed in PUBMED and what its impact factor is.
The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited"
These are the statistics for Frontier's Journal of Public Health in terms of real time impact factor:
The statistics indicate that the journal is in the middle of the pack in the topic area of "Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health". The statistics indicate that it is an indexed reliable source that has been cited by other reliable indexed scientific journals. I will also note that the journal always clearly notes in the left margin who the peer reviewers are and who edited the article. The source is a reliable source. If you dispute that this journal is a reliable source, please provide statistics to back up your argument. (Also, to foreshadow and see if this board is serious about reliability and science publishing: what is plan s?) -- Guest2625 ( talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There have been no numbers or statistics provided to back up the argument that this source is not reliable. There appears to be this belief if you call a whole publishing company something that will make it true. It will not. You have to prove your case with numbers and statistics. Gut-feelings do not cut it. Only people who are not aware of the scientific method do such things.
Here is more proof that Frontiers Media is a trusted partner with institutions and nations in the scientific field.
Frontiers pioneered fully transparent, national Open Access publishing agreements for research organizations and their researchers at a national level. National agreements simplify the process for authors wishing to publish in Frontiers journals, and help contribute to the growing number of research articles that are openly available to all.
Extended content
|
---|
National Members
Austria Norway Qatar... Sweden... United Kingdom... Frontiers Institutional Members AUSTRALIA Queensland University of Technology... AUSTRIA Austrian Science Fund (FWF)... Graz University of Technology (TU Graz)... Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria)... Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences... TU Wien (Technische Universität Wien)... University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria... University of Klagenfurt University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna... University of Vienna... CANADA Brock University Simon Fraser University University of Ottawa... FINLAND University of Helsinki... GERMANY Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI)... Bielefeld University... Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin... C.v.O University Oldenburg... Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum... Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE)... Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen... Forschungszentrum Jülich... Freie Universität Berlin... Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (FSU)... GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel... German Aerospace Center (DLR)... GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences... Goethe University Frankfurt... Göttingen University... Hannover Medical School Heidelberg University... Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)... Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf... Helmholtz-Zentrum für Infektionsforschung... Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum für Material- und Küstenforschung... Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin... Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz... Justus Liebig University Giessen Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)... Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München... Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg Max Planck Society... Max-Delbrück-Centrum für Molekulare Medizin (MDC)... University of Rostock Rostock University Medical Center Ruhr-University Bochum... Technical University of Munich (TUM)... Technische Universität Berlin... Technische Universität Darmstadt... TU Chemnitz... University of Bremen... University of Duisburg-Essen Universität Kassel... University of Konstanz... Universität Leipzig... University of Mannheim... Universität Osnabrück... University Potsdam... University of Regensburg... University of Stuttgart... University of Ulm... University of Würzburg University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) Helmholtz Zentrum München HUNGARY Semmelweis University... University of Szeged... ITALY Italian Biomedical Research Institutions (Bibliosan) NETHERLANDS Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences... Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)... TU Delft... NORWAY BI Norwegian Business School Fafo Research Foundation Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences Institute For Social Research Institute of Marine Research Institute Of Transport Economics... NILU Norwegian Institute for Air Research... Nord University Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norwegian Institute for Water Research... Norwegian Research Centre... Norwegian School of Sport Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology Ostfold University College SINTEF Soerlandet Hospital Sykehuset Østfold... University of Agder... University Of Bergen... University Of South-Eastern Norway University Of Stavanger... UiT The Arctic University of Norway... Western Norway University Of Applied Sciences Nofima the food research institute Norwegian Veterinary Institute Norwegian Institute Of Public Health Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research Norwegian Institute for International Affairs QATAR Qatar National Library... RUSSIA Kazan Federal University... SAUDI ARABIA King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)... SPAIN Spanish National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CSIC)... SWEDEN Chalmers University of Technology... Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College... Halmstad University Karlstad University... KTH Royal Institute of Technology Lund University... Malmö University Mälardalen University... Mid Sweden University Örebro University... Stockholm University... Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences... Umeå University... University of Gävle... University of Borås University of Gothenburg... Uppsala University... University West SWITZERLAND European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)... ETH Zurich... University of Zurich... Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW)... UK Brunel University... Cardiff University... Cranfield University Francis Crick Institute... King's College London... Lancaster University Manchester Metropolitan University... University of Oxford Queen Mary University of London... Newcastle University... Queen's University Belfast... Sheffield Hallam University University College London (UCL)... University of Aberdeen University of Birmingham... University of Bristol... University of Cambridge... University of Edinburgh... University of Exeter University of Hull University of LiverpoolUniversity of Manchester University of Nottingham... University of Salford... University of St Andrews... University of Sheffield... University of Southampton... University of Stirling... USA Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation... California Institute of Technology (Caltech)... Duke University George Mason University... Iowa State University of Science and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)... University of Arizona University of California, Davis (UC Davis) University of Indiana Yale University |
All these nations and institutions have agreed to work with this publisher. They obviously do not see them as a disreputable publisher, or otherwise they would not work with them. Now please provide statistics or numbers to back up the empty gut feelings. We are talking about science not newspapers.
How many reviewers does a New York Times article have?
How many journalist's articles (who works at the paper) are accepted by the the New York Times for publication?
How much time is spent on writing a New York Times article?
How many authors on average write a New York Times article?
Think about this. How many total research-hours are spent by all the authors on that one little science article. Look at the original sentence above. Something is seriously wrong with this board if a local newspaper can source it, but not a normal old indexed science journal with a fairly decent impact factor. A publisher that has agreements to work with endless numbers of universities and nations. So what is plan s? -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I've removed bloggy references, as well as a big chunk of in-prose contents at Colab based off of vintage scans of postcards which at one time served as an advertisement listing for the said postcards the site. Upon search, I see the source used in close to 30 articles. The website is ran by an art curator/historian. Should this website be used in the way it was used? Graywalls ( talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A new editor
Thequeenofaragon expanded the article about
Aimery of Cyprus with information about the first marriage of Aimery's eldest daughter, Burgundia/Bourgogne with
Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse (
[69]). The edit was verified with a reference to a book written by
Alison Weir (Weir, Alison (2020).
Queens of the crusades : Eleanor of Aquitaine and her successors. London.
ISBN
978-1-910702-09-3.
OCLC
1197774310.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)). I am not sure that the book meets the criteria of reliable sources, because she is not a historian and I doubt that her book was peer reviewed. I emphasize the information about the marriage may be correct, but I think it should be verified by a reliable source. Thank you for your comments.
Borsoka (
talk) 03:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Reliable: Weir is not an academic. She is a popular historian who specialises in the area of English medieval/early modern nobility, largely using secondary sources. She does this with sufficient accuracy to be accepted by Wikipedia as WP:RS as supporting dates, births, deaths and, important for this question marrages. It wouldn't make sense to use her analysis but she is certainly good enough for those details. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 07:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I noticed they've also added the same source to Raymond_VI,_Count_of_Toulouse. Although it hasn't gotten to the point of concern, if a pattern of the same author getting added into numerous article develops, WP:REFSPAM is something to be on the look out for. See Talk:Rarotonga for example. Graywalls ( talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
David Gerard (actually Tgeorgescu) has created an entry on the Perennial Sources list for
MDPI, an open access publishing company, as "generally unreliable" (see
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MDPI, stating that "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI are generally unreliable, since MDPI has a very shallow peer-review process". I disagree with this assessment and think that journals published by MDPI should be evaluated on a case by case basis. MDPI was placed on the infamous
Beall's list of predatory access publishers in 2014, but was subsequently removed from the list in 2015 following an appeal.
This post on Scholarly Kitchen from August 2020 gives a positive assessment of MDPI's operations, describing it as "simply a company that has focused on growth and speed while optimizing business practices around the author-pays APC (article processing charge) business model" rather than a predatory publisher. MDPI is now the world's 5th largest publishing company and largest open access publisher, and it has improved significantly in citation rankings and reputation since the mid 2010's when most of the cited discussions on the reliability of MDPI took place.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This thread was archived but @ Alexbrn: is edit warring with me when I try to correct the entry, including when I try to add the archiving tag. I don't see how the previous discussions and this one justify the claim that MDPI is generally unreliable for everything it publishes. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Are any of the following four defseca.com articles reliable sources for the corresponding statements:
Defseca.com hasn't been discussed here before, but bdmilitary.com now redirects to defseca's forum. Bdmilitary.com was discussed here once before. There were few participants, and discussion sidetracked into a debate about whether the source was correct, which is different from whether it is reliable.
My sense is that defseca.com is a self-published enthusiast portal and has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking (for example, neither it nor bdmilitary.com is widely cited by books or news organizations). I see no evidence of subject matter expertise, journalistic credentials, or editorial oversight.
Pinging participants in previous bdmilitary.com discussion and frequent contributors to Bangladeshi military equipment topics, where defseca.com keeps cropping up: @ Thomas.W, Maxx786, Justlettersandnumbers, AzfarShams, FOX 52, Nafis Fuad Ayon, and SRS 00: -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1. [76] in AeroVironment Wasp III for "Bangladesh Army: RQ-12B on order"?
2. [77] in Accuracy International AX50 for the statement that the sniper rifle, "started to be used by Bangladesh Army"?
3. [78] in STREIT Group Spartan for the statement that among operators of the armoured personnel carrier is "Border Guards Bangladesh - Ukrainian built KrAZ Spartan variant"?
4. [79] in List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy for the statement that their submarine is armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines"?
Now, I want to share some of my opinions. If any new editor cites Defseca.com as a reference, do not remove the entire information just remove the citation and replace with {{ Citation needed}} template and told him/her to find a better source. Always remember to, assume good faith and not to bite them. Give him/her the idea of what type of sources Wikipedia accepts and what doesn't. It is understandable why most editors use such types of sources for information especially in military equipment topics. Remove the information if the editor fails to add a reliable citation. If that editor seems to be troublesome, you know the rules. Keep in mind that, new editors sometimes don't understand why what they see are not accepted as true just because he/she saw that. For example, SLC-2 Radar a Counter-battery radar used by Bangladesh Army, which was displayed during the 2017 victory day parade but no reliable source cannot be found to back that claim. It happens in the list of military equipment articles in most third-world countries. Thank You. -- AzfarShams ( talk) 07:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Source:
SciTechDaily
Article:
Chicxulub impactor
Content: [80]. Text was:
In 2021 a research team at Harvard University showed that a significant fraction of a comet originating in the solar system's Oort cloud was pushed off course by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and sent on a new orbit that brought it much closer to the Sun. As it approached, it began to break apart because of the Sun's tidal force and fractured into smaller pieces which then began to regularly cross Earths orbit and now impact the Earth every 250,000 to 730,000 years. This frequency is consistent with other impact events in the past, and the carbonaceous chondrite composition of the impactor is more consistent with that of a comet from the Oort cloud rather than a rogue asteroid from the much-closer asteroid belt.
While the website's own "About" page states that prior to 2011, "...the New York Times and others referred to us as essentially a Drudge Report for science and technology...", they claim to have made some major changes in their methods since then which, a decade later, make them look like a reliable source to me. I wanted to use them as a secondary source on an article published by a Harvard research team headed by a Professor of Science there, Avi Loeb, that was itself published in the journal Scientific Reports. Not reliable? Please comment. Thank you. A loose necktie ( talk) 05:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 325 | ← | Archive 327 | Archive 328 | Archive 329 | Archive 330 | Archive 331 | → | Archive 335 |
This request for comment has elapsed, and can be closed. Please remove this template while closing. |
Is Taiwan News a reliable source, a marginally reliable source, an unreliable source, or should it be deprecated? Does reliability still stand especially over political articles such as cross-strait relations?
According to Taiwan News, it is owned by I-Mei Foods, and openly leans Pan-Green politically.
Website: [1]
taiwannews is currently cited on over 1,000 articles, and if I'm seeing correctly were all added in the last year or two.
Not sure if relevant: Taiwan News still largely refers to "COVID-19" as "Wuhan coronavirus", examples: 1 and 2. Not sure if these are unintentional and are being meant casually/off-hand or is being used deliberately as a political statement. 85.10.51.92 ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Three English dailies also operated in Taiwan— China Post, Taipei Times and Taiwan News—though Taiwan News went to an online version only in 2010 and China Post did the same in 2017. China Post is pro- KMT; Taipei Times and Taiwan News are pro- DPP. Of the three, Taipei Times is the largest in terms of news coverage and commentary.
Copper, John Franklin (13 November 2019). Taiwan: Nation-State or Province?. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-429-80831-9. Retrieved 6 February 2021 – via Google Books.
Since Taiwan News is a generically-worded name, detailed coverage is difficult to locate. I defer to use by other reliable sources: The China Post, The Diplomat, The New York Times ( RSP entry), BBC ( RSP entry), The Indian Express ( RSP entry), The Washington Post ( RSP entry), Al Jazeera ( RSP entry), and Fortune have all cited content on Taiwan News without comment. For Taiwanese politics, consider balancing Taiwan News with other sources such as The China Post to ensure that both major parties are represented. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Danielbr11 is in the middle of an ANI case, so I would like to have a general discussion about the reliability of one of the sources mentioned above without any material related to Danielbr11's edits. Please move any comment specific to that case to the section above.
I do not consider the works of Rudolph Rummel to be either fringe or mainstream. They appear to be in that area between calls "controversial". There is some dispute over his numbers from other academics, and thus I think anything sourced to Rummel should be properly attributed, and when appropriate disagreement by prominent critics should be included. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Let me explain a little bit about Rummel. Rudolph Rummel is by no means a fringe author. He is a very reputable scholar, and his "democratic peace" concept is very famous. However, we must clearly understand what exactly his contribution to science consists in. His main contribution is introduction of factor analysis into social sciences. In particular, he collected all available data on mass killings and calculated correlations between various traits of each regime and the scale of killings. He obtained significant negative correlation between democracy and mass violence and strong positive correlation between a degree of totalitarianism and mass killing. That is why he is considered reputable.
However, can he be a good source for figures? No. First. His approach was analyzed by Dulic, who persuasively demonstrated that Rummel's approach (to take all published data on the number of victims and to calculate the boundaries of most probable estimates) inevitably leads to inflated figures. Dulic discusses Rummel's data on Yugoslavia only, but his conclusions are equally applicable to Rummel's approach in general. Interestingly, no other statistician joined the dispute (neither at Dulic's side nor Rummel's side), which is an indication of low interest of true professionals to Rummel's statistics. Second. Rummel used all published data non-critically, and he never re-considered his estimates to a lower side in light of new evidences. Thus, I checked his "Death by government", and his estimates of USSR deaths are based on outdated Cold-war era crude estimates. Despite the fact that a huge amount of archival data became available on the USSR after its dissolution, and now the USSR mortality figures are much better known, Rummel continued to publish dramatically inflated figures, which are more than an order of magnitude higher than actual numbers (and which contradict to most moderns demographic (Erlikman) and archival (Zemskov) data). Accordingly, it is not a surprise that most modern country experts essentially ignore Rummel's "estimates". The exception is Cambodia, for which the data dispersion has always been pretty low, and, accordingly, Rummel's estimates are reasonably precise.
Third, as Barbara Harff noted, Rummel's goal was not to provide the exact statistics, for even the amended data set would lead to essentially the same conclusion about "democratic peace". Therefore, Harff doesn't believes high precision of the data is neither required nor expected from Rummel. Therefore, although Rummel is a good expert in his field, the figures he provides cannot be trusted, especially for the countries or the events where a large number of contradicting figures were published, for Rummel just takes them all and obtains the average without analyzing reliability of each figure.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Are Rummel's numbers really so far from other estimates?
From our article on Democide#Killings by Communist states
Several commentators on Rummel's estimates have noted that estimates for the holocaust (which we have far better numbers for) might be 20% or maybe even 40% off either way, while at the same time completely rejecting the claims of holocaust deniers that the estimates are a hundred times or more too large. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Tentative conclusion Version 1:
I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:
Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:
All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.
Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.
Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Tentative conclusion Version 2:
I propose that we summarize the above discussion as follows:
Rudolph Rummel is reliable with attribution in the following areas:
All of these theories are controversial, but not fringe.
Rudolph Rummel was a political scientist with an interest in history, not a historian. Rummel made little or no attempt to keep his numbers updated as new information became available and stated that his numbers would support his theories even if they were ten times smaller or ten times larger. Thus Rummel should not be used as a source for specific numeric death estimates outside of discussions of his theories.
Note: there was an objection to the label I previously picked for "few or no famines in democracies" but nobody suggested an alternative. The phrasing "In Rummel's words..." is clunky compared to "What Rummel called...". Please speak up if you have better wording. This part of Rummel's theories is at [ https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COMM.3.19.05.HTM ] with the title "Democracy? Prosperous, and Never a Famine".
Agree? Disagree? Any suggested changes? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The above discussion presents a strong case that Rummel uses historical estimates to support his agenda, without adequate regard for their accuracy. NightHeron ( talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, I'm very tired and this is my last discussion. Firstly, user:CommanderWaterford, a vindictive user, have added negative tags on every articles that I created. It appears to be negative tag-bombing to me, for the article to be tagged with {{ UnreliableSources}} when there is used The Irrawaddy as source and no information questioned at all. [7], [8] and [9] and many more today. He is always looking for problems on my articles. Do justice to me? Hay guy, what is your problem? Why do you always bite me? Would you be happy if I left from Wikipedia ? I know you hate me because of my user page. This is my retirement.
Seems like the Irrawady is considered credible by a large number of high-quality news outlets internationally: The New York Times [11] [12] ("independant") [13], The Associated Press [14] [15], Reuters [16], Nikkei Asia [17], Le Monde [18] [19] ("the voice of the exiled dissenters during the dictatorship"), Le Figaro [20], Courrier International [21], which also translated one of its articles in French [22]: Courrier International has a stellar reputation in the selection of foreign sources, DPA [23] [24], Neue Zürcher Zeitung [25]-- JBchrch ( talk) 14:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
neutral, unbiased, or objective.-- JBchrch ( talk) 09:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Jonathan A Jones seems to be edit warring in University to add sources from 1911 and 1898 [26]. Especially the 1911 Britannica source should be removed, as it was superseded by newer version of Britannica entry which doesn't repeat the same claim [27]. Can someone weigh in on the usage of extremely dated sources? Should they be directly removed and replaced with citation needed tags? Bogazicili ( talk) 17:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The university was born in the Middle Ages. Even if medieval universities were very different from modern ones, they contributed decisively to our conception of what a university should be (lsray 1933, Radshall et al. 1936).
The Medieval Legacy
Universities appeared in Roman Catholic Europe in the late twelfth and early thirteenth century. Schools had developed in many cities for the training of priests. They were dependent on bishops' authority and control. Because of the division between civil and religious powers which was then normal, they escaped the direct control of the King. When conflicts with bishops occurred, the students and teachers of some schools transformed themselves into self-organised and self-governing communities. In Paris, this community took in 1215 the name of Universitas magistrorum et scholarium parisiensium–hence the name of university, which meant community. It developed under the protection of the pope, a distant authority, who only controlled the kind of theology which was taught.
Claval, Paul (1998). "Politics and the University". The Urban University and its Identity: Roots, Locations, Roles. GeoJournal Library. Vol. 45. Springer Netherlands. pp. 30–31. doi: 10.1007/978-94-011-5184-9_3. Retrieved 13 February 2021 – via Google Books.
Why isn't there already a discussion in the article's Talk page? It's difficult to believe that a controversy requires the input of the broader community if it hasn't even been addressed on the article's Talk page. ElKevbo ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:CommanderWaterford appears to have a history of tagging articles without meaningfully engaging in discussion around the reliability of specific sources and Wikipedia's policies. The most recent case of tagging was on the Mya Thwe Thwe Khaing article, where they simply left an edit summary comment stating: "Radio Free Asia+The Irradaway+Progressive Voice are not reliable sources." I wanted to seek community guidance on whether Radio Free Asia, which is similar to the Voice of America from a funding perspective, can be used as a reliable source. I will also note that in Myanmar's historically restrictive press environment, RFA has been one of the few uncensored Burmese language news sources. This has been especially true during the ongoing media blackout in Myanmar, related to the recent coup.
There are ongoing discussions re: Voice of America and The Irrawaddy (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Voice of America (VOA)) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Irrawaddy) also related to said user's edits. Thanks. - Hintha( t) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Is this an RS [ [33]] for the claim the nazis were not facists? Slatersteven ( talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
These two sources as used in the article Proud Boys. From what I gather, I see Splinter News is the successor to Gawker and they appear to have some connection. Gawker which is listed as unreliable in WP:RSP. The wiki article on Splinter News suggests its a liberal bias opinion and news site. Is it any different in reliability and neutrality from Gawker as far as Wiki source usage is concerned? Graywalls ( talk) 07:13, 16 February 2021 (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. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model.
Telewizja Polska (called TVP for short), is the flagship state broadcaster. But since 2015 it can now be likened to RT or KCT, in particular TVP Info, but also the long established news programs Panorama, Teleexpress and Wiadomości have basically become nothing more than outright propaganda outlets.
Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:
I would point out that Sport for now seems to be unaffected, therefore I would exclude TVP Sport from the list. Same may go for things like Polish soap opera channel TVP Seriale, and children's cartoon channel TVP ABC. However, TVP Historia and TVP Edukacja is still very much selective in its content in line with the others, people have started to be fired from TVP Kultura for not being pro-government as well. TVP1, TVP2 and TVP3 seem to be just as affected as the infamous TVP Info. TVP Info also has a large online presence.
I am not going to list all the sources, because actually a lot of the pages have criticisms sections and plenty of sources within them, so I do not see much point in copying and pasting those. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The
United Right's control over this organ after legislative changes has been compared, unfavourably, with communist era TV. At least back in the communist days everyone knew the news was lies. The sports coverage, weather, or anything else that doesn't touch politics or socials issues is still OK.
This November 2020 item is relevant.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (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. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Polskie Radio (PR for short) is the flagship state-run radio network in Poland.
It runs the following:
Now after the governement intereference and censorship scandal of Trójka, where the journalists and presenters who worked there for several decades were forced out of their jobs, creating competing Radio 357 and Radio Nowy Świat stations in protest, and Polskie Radio 24 working hand in hand with the controversial TVP Info, I would question the reliability of the network.
Now this did not happen overnight, and it would be fair to point out a few things first:
Now it could well be that classical music, sport, drivers info are all unaffected and there is no reason not to see the network as reliable on those matters; the main concern is political news. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. The
United Right's control over this organ
following the legislation and 2016 purge is problematic. They are even questionable for music,
as they manipulated the music charts poll after a protest song topped them.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)(sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (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. |
This discussion is following on from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Polish government-owned media
Poland's current rulers have been politicising (or "polonising" in their words) many media platforms in the country, following the Hungarian model. The ramping up of the rhetoric has been emphasised in late 2020, with the takeover of Polska Press (a collection of many inter-linked regional newspapers and websites) by state-run Orlen.
The following news agencies are affected:
The following daily regional newspapers are affected:
The following TV magazines are affected:
The following advertising newspapers are affected:
The following free newspapers are affected:
The following internet portals are affected:
I would point out that this would only refer to those from 2021 onwards. The sports, TV, small ads and motoring are likely to be much unaffected, the issue is that it becomes incresingly similar to TVP Info in the way they report political news. Abcmaxx ( talk) 00:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
*Extremely biased, unreliable for politics and social issues. This company has been "re-Polishized" by the government: "Adam Bodnar, the national ombudsman for citizens' rights, told Wirtualna Polska that this was "a historic moment and, unfortunately, it shows that the authorities decided to take steps similar to those we could previously observe in Hungary under Viktor Orban." He said the transaction demonstrated what direction the ruling party was going in. "After full control of state media," he said, "now it's time for the private media."
[37] --
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
Some editors are claiming so at Talk:Welsh fiscal deficit. They also try to cite sources that don't mention Wales or deficits. ( t · c) buidhe 10:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Is the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation website a reliable source for the article Mass killings under communist regimes?
There is a dispute over whether the article should quote an estimated range of Communist mass killings published in an article by "DISSIDENT" on the website. [39]
The Foundation is a partisan organization headed by Edwin Feulner, the founder and former president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The previous chairman was Lee Edwards, the founder of the American branch of the World Anti-Communist League.
Their Mission Statement says, "Positive attitudes toward communism and socialism are at an all-time high in the United States. We have a solemn obligation to expose the lies of Marxism for the naïve who say they are willing to give collectivism another chance. New generations need to confront the reality of Marxism in practice. Socialism is not a kind, humane philosophy. Marxist socialism is the deadliest ideology in history."
I realize that some editors might say that whether or not it is a reliable source, it is reliable for its own views. But if it is not reliable then its estimates, which are substantially higher than reliable sources, would lack weight for inclusion.
TFD ( talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: there was a previous discussion on this noticeboard about the Global Museum on Communism, which was run by the same people but is now offline. TFD ( talk) 14:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
TFD, it says at the top of this page to please include in posts here links to past discussion of the source on this board. You said in your post here that there was one, but you did not mention it above. AmateurEditor ( talk) 06:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"During the decade when the fundraising was languishing, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation produced a number of 'papers and studies.' A notable one was published in 2002, nine months after 9/11, titled 'International Terrorism: The Communist Connection Revisited: Archives show Islamist terrorism linkages to Soviet Cold War intelligence.' The author, J. Michael Waller, reported that Reagan’s CIA director, William J. Casey, had found that 'there is virtually no terrorist operation or guerrilla movement anywhere in the world today . . . with which communists of one sort or another have not been involved.' It’s hard to imagine a more hare-brained understanding of Osama Bin Laden, whose anticommunist credentials were, to say the least, impeccable. And yet the foundation still carries that paper on its website."
Note: this book is non-academic, but probably still useful for this description. Jlevi ( talk) 00:53, 16 February 2021 (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. |
Are
Gazeta Wyborcza (
this) and
OKO.press (
this) reliable sources for the statements of
Wojciech Muszyński in regards to modern left-wing politicians in Poland?
User:Volunteer Marek is
stating they are not sufficiently reliable.
In my opinion, the left of centre Gazeta Wyborcza is comparable to the
The Washington Post, and has maintained its independence from the Polish government. While Oko.press is younger, its investigative journalism has been met with critical acclaim and they have won the 2020
Freedom of Expression Awards from
Index on Censorship. Both of these cover national news, and rank among the most reliable journalism sources in Poland.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 12:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
:: According to the editorial board of
The Washington Post (which
"represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution") from 23.10.2020:
Gazeta Wyborcza is "
Poland’s most popular and respected newspaper".--
Bob not snob (
talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Definitely reliable: firstly
Gazeta Wyborcza is not left-wing, certainly not when compared to e.g.
The Guardian. It's the biggest Polish newspaper and has been since 1990. Oko.press is an internationally awarded investigative portal. The reason they (along with
onet.pl) are attacked by the far-right is because they refuse to be bought by and influenced by the ruling
United Right and continue to highlight their cronyism and corruption.
Abcmaxx (
talk) 13:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
*:Coverage of Muszyński's own statements in national media is not an attack.--
Bob not snob (
talk) 14:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) (sock banned by ArbCom -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 02:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC))
The Motley Fool is cited over and over in finance articles, and I am wondering it it's actually a reliable source. From what I can gather, it's not really a WP:NEWSORG, but a firm that provides various services and, among other, publishes its own research. Their " about us" page is pretty vague. The NYT has described it as a "financial services" firm [63] and the WSJ as an "advisory firm" [64]. So based on that I guess it would qualify as WP:SELFPUB?-- JBchrch ( talk) 22:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Since 2019, the British i (newspaper) has been owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust. Most other publications owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust are now depreciated as poor quality sources ( Daily Mail, MailOnline, Metro (British newspaper)). Although the i was reputable historically, I am concerned based on the fact that it's owned by a group with poor quality sources. Do people think the i is still a reliable source or not? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it ok to source the following sentence with Frontiers Journal in Public Health:
This source expands on a brief Nature Journal source also used for the sentence. Two editors ( PaleoNeonate and Alexbrn) have stated Frontiers is no good. Frontiers Journal in Public Health has an impact factor of 2.483 [67] and Frontiers the publisher is the 5th most cited science publisher in the world [68]. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I encourage the people who create the scientific content on Wikipedia to look at the statistic links that I've provided. Many of the people who voice their opinion on this reliable source noticeboard have not created any scientific content here on Wikipedia. And there are also those, unfortunately, who are unable to read scientific literature. It actually does take time to learn how to understand the literature of different fields of specialization.
I'll provide this table, since I know many people do not actually click on links.
2019 Journal Impact Factors | ||||
Journal | 2019 Journal Impact Factor | |||
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience | 4.362 | |||
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience | 2.512 | |||
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology | 3.644 | |||
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine | 3.915 | |||
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology | 5.201 | |||
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology | 4.123 | |||
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience | 3.921 | |||
Frontiers in Chemistry | 3.693 | |||
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience | 2.535 | |||
Frontiers in Earth Science | 2.689 | |||
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | 2.416 | |||
Frontiers in Endocrinology | 3.644 | |||
Frontiers in Energy Research | 2.746 | |||
Frontiers in Environmental Science | 2.749 | |||
Frontiers in Genetics | 3.258 | |||
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience | 2.673 | |||
Frontiers in Immunology | 5.085 | |||
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience | 2.152 | |||
Frontiers in Marine Science | 3.661 | |||
Frontiers in Materials | 2.705 | |||
Frontiers in Medicine | 3.9 | |||
Frontiers in Microbiology | 4.235 | |||
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences | 4.188 | |||
Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience | 4.057 | |||
Frontiers in Neural Circuits | 3.156 | |||
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy | 3.292 | |||
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics | 2.649 | |||
Frontiers in Neurology | 2.889 | |||
Frontiers in Neurorobotics | 2.574 | |||
Frontiers in Neuroscience | 3.707 | |||
Frontiers in Nutrition | 3.365 | |||
Frontiers in Oncology | 4.848 | |||
Frontiers in Pediatrics | 2.634 | |||
Frontiers in Pharmacology | 4.225 | |||
Frontiers in Physics | 2.638 | |||
Frontiers in Physiology | 3.367 | |||
Frontiers in Plant Science | 4.402 | |||
Frontiers in Psychiatry | 2.849 | |||
Frontiers in Psychology | 2.067 | |||
Frontiers in Public Health | 2.483 | |||
Frontiers in Surgery | 1.826 | |||
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience | 3.293 | |||
Frontiers in Veterinary Science | 2.245 |
Click on the following links to learn about the statistics of the publisher which is the 5th most cited scientific publisher in the world.
Frontier's publisher: Impact overview
Frontier's publisher: Journal Impact Factors
Frontier's publisher: Journal CiteScores
Frontier's publisher: Journal Citations
I look forward to having a rigorous discussion here on the reliable noticeboard as to what makes a science journal reliable or not. I also strongly encourage everyone who creates the scientific content on Wikipedia to contribute. This is an important topic that does not have room for gut feelings, politics, or passions. -- Guest2625 ( talk) 22:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Will accept almost anything (80-90% of submissions), and has sacked editors for being too selective.Perhaps WT:CITEWATCH is the place to discuss the matter if you want a Frontiers journal regarded as a respectable source and removed from CITEWATCH - David Gerard ( talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of reliability, there is the much bigger WP:DUE concerns. That three miners caught pneumonia is trivia at best. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Note this section is to unpackage the question above and does not relate to the sentence that is being sourced above with the journal article. What metrics does Wikipedia wish to use to judge the reliability of scientific journals. I propose we utilize whether a journal is indexed in PUBMED and what its impact factor is.
The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited"
These are the statistics for Frontier's Journal of Public Health in terms of real time impact factor:
The statistics indicate that the journal is in the middle of the pack in the topic area of "Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health". The statistics indicate that it is an indexed reliable source that has been cited by other reliable indexed scientific journals. I will also note that the journal always clearly notes in the left margin who the peer reviewers are and who edited the article. The source is a reliable source. If you dispute that this journal is a reliable source, please provide statistics to back up your argument. (Also, to foreshadow and see if this board is serious about reliability and science publishing: what is plan s?) -- Guest2625 ( talk) 06:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
There have been no numbers or statistics provided to back up the argument that this source is not reliable. There appears to be this belief if you call a whole publishing company something that will make it true. It will not. You have to prove your case with numbers and statistics. Gut-feelings do not cut it. Only people who are not aware of the scientific method do such things.
Here is more proof that Frontiers Media is a trusted partner with institutions and nations in the scientific field.
Frontiers pioneered fully transparent, national Open Access publishing agreements for research organizations and their researchers at a national level. National agreements simplify the process for authors wishing to publish in Frontiers journals, and help contribute to the growing number of research articles that are openly available to all.
Extended content
|
---|
National Members
Austria Norway Qatar... Sweden... United Kingdom... Frontiers Institutional Members AUSTRALIA Queensland University of Technology... AUSTRIA Austrian Science Fund (FWF)... Graz University of Technology (TU Graz)... Institute of Science and Technology Austria (IST Austria)... Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences St. Pölten University of Applied Sciences... TU Wien (Technische Universität Wien)... University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria... University of Klagenfurt University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna... University of Vienna... CANADA Brock University Simon Fraser University University of Ottawa... FINLAND University of Helsinki... GERMANY Alfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI)... Bielefeld University... Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin... C.v.O University Oldenburg... Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum... Deutsches Zentrum für Neurodegenerative Erkrankungen e.V. (DZNE)... Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen... Forschungszentrum Jülich... Freie Universität Berlin... Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena (FSU)... GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel... German Aerospace Center (DLR)... GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences... Goethe University Frankfurt... Göttingen University... Hannover Medical School Heidelberg University... Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)... Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf... Helmholtz-Zentrum für Infektionsforschung... Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht Zentrum für Material- und Küstenforschung... Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin... Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz... Justus Liebig University Giessen Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)... Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München... Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg Max Planck Society... Max-Delbrück-Centrum für Molekulare Medizin (MDC)... University of Rostock Rostock University Medical Center Ruhr-University Bochum... Technical University of Munich (TUM)... Technische Universität Berlin... Technische Universität Darmstadt... TU Chemnitz... University of Bremen... University of Duisburg-Essen Universität Kassel... University of Konstanz... Universität Leipzig... University of Mannheim... Universität Osnabrück... University Potsdam... University of Regensburg... University of Stuttgart... University of Ulm... University of Würzburg University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE) Helmholtz Zentrum München HUNGARY Semmelweis University... University of Szeged... ITALY Italian Biomedical Research Institutions (Bibliosan) NETHERLANDS Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences... Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW)... TU Delft... NORWAY BI Norwegian Business School Fafo Research Foundation Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences Institute For Social Research Institute of Marine Research Institute Of Transport Economics... NILU Norwegian Institute for Air Research... Nord University Norwegian Institute for Nature Research Norwegian Institute for Water Research... Norwegian Research Centre... Norwegian School of Sport Sciences Norwegian University of Science and Technology Ostfold University College SINTEF Soerlandet Hospital Sykehuset Østfold... University of Agder... University Of Bergen... University Of South-Eastern Norway University Of Stavanger... UiT The Arctic University of Norway... Western Norway University Of Applied Sciences Nofima the food research institute Norwegian Veterinary Institute Norwegian Institute Of Public Health Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research Norwegian Institute for International Affairs QATAR Qatar National Library... RUSSIA Kazan Federal University... SAUDI ARABIA King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST)... SPAIN Spanish National Research Council (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, CSIC)... SWEDEN Chalmers University of Technology... Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College... Halmstad University Karlstad University... KTH Royal Institute of Technology Lund University... Malmö University Mälardalen University... Mid Sweden University Örebro University... Stockholm University... Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, GIH Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences... Umeå University... University of Gävle... University of Borås University of Gothenburg... Uppsala University... University West SWITZERLAND European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL)... ETH Zurich... University of Zurich... Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW)... UK Brunel University... Cardiff University... Cranfield University Francis Crick Institute... King's College London... Lancaster University Manchester Metropolitan University... University of Oxford Queen Mary University of London... Newcastle University... Queen's University Belfast... Sheffield Hallam University University College London (UCL)... University of Aberdeen University of Birmingham... University of Bristol... University of Cambridge... University of Edinburgh... University of Exeter University of Hull University of LiverpoolUniversity of Manchester University of Nottingham... University of Salford... University of St Andrews... University of Sheffield... University of Southampton... University of Stirling... USA Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation... California Institute of Technology (Caltech)... Duke University George Mason University... Iowa State University of Science and Technology Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)... University of Arizona University of California, Davis (UC Davis) University of Indiana Yale University |
All these nations and institutions have agreed to work with this publisher. They obviously do not see them as a disreputable publisher, or otherwise they would not work with them. Now please provide statistics or numbers to back up the empty gut feelings. We are talking about science not newspapers.
How many reviewers does a New York Times article have?
How many journalist's articles (who works at the paper) are accepted by the the New York Times for publication?
How much time is spent on writing a New York Times article?
How many authors on average write a New York Times article?
Think about this. How many total research-hours are spent by all the authors on that one little science article. Look at the original sentence above. Something is seriously wrong with this board if a local newspaper can source it, but not a normal old indexed science journal with a fairly decent impact factor. A publisher that has agreements to work with endless numbers of universities and nations. So what is plan s? -- Guest2625 ( talk) 08:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I've removed bloggy references, as well as a big chunk of in-prose contents at Colab based off of vintage scans of postcards which at one time served as an advertisement listing for the said postcards the site. Upon search, I see the source used in close to 30 articles. The website is ran by an art curator/historian. Should this website be used in the way it was used? Graywalls ( talk) 23:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A new editor
Thequeenofaragon expanded the article about
Aimery of Cyprus with information about the first marriage of Aimery's eldest daughter, Burgundia/Bourgogne with
Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse (
[69]). The edit was verified with a reference to a book written by
Alison Weir (Weir, Alison (2020).
Queens of the crusades : Eleanor of Aquitaine and her successors. London.
ISBN
978-1-910702-09-3.
OCLC
1197774310.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)). I am not sure that the book meets the criteria of reliable sources, because she is not a historian and I doubt that her book was peer reviewed. I emphasize the information about the marriage may be correct, but I think it should be verified by a reliable source. Thank you for your comments.
Borsoka (
talk) 03:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Reliable: Weir is not an academic. She is a popular historian who specialises in the area of English medieval/early modern nobility, largely using secondary sources. She does this with sufficient accuracy to be accepted by Wikipedia as WP:RS as supporting dates, births, deaths and, important for this question marrages. It wouldn't make sense to use her analysis but she is certainly good enough for those details. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 07:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment I noticed they've also added the same source to Raymond_VI,_Count_of_Toulouse. Although it hasn't gotten to the point of concern, if a pattern of the same author getting added into numerous article develops, WP:REFSPAM is something to be on the look out for. See Talk:Rarotonga for example. Graywalls ( talk) 16:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
David Gerard (actually Tgeorgescu) has created an entry on the Perennial Sources list for
MDPI, an open access publishing company, as "generally unreliable" (see
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#MDPI, stating that "There is consensus that journals published by MDPI are generally unreliable, since MDPI has a very shallow peer-review process". I disagree with this assessment and think that journals published by MDPI should be evaluated on a case by case basis. MDPI was placed on the infamous
Beall's list of predatory access publishers in 2014, but was subsequently removed from the list in 2015 following an appeal.
This post on Scholarly Kitchen from August 2020 gives a positive assessment of MDPI's operations, describing it as "simply a company that has focused on growth and speed while optimizing business practices around the author-pays APC (article processing charge) business model" rather than a predatory publisher. MDPI is now the world's 5th largest publishing company and largest open access publisher, and it has improved significantly in citation rankings and reputation since the mid 2010's when most of the cited discussions on the reliability of MDPI took place.
Hemiauchenia (
talk) 13:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This thread was archived but @ Alexbrn: is edit warring with me when I try to correct the entry, including when I try to add the archiving tag. I don't see how the previous discussions and this one justify the claim that MDPI is generally unreliable for everything it publishes. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Are any of the following four defseca.com articles reliable sources for the corresponding statements:
Defseca.com hasn't been discussed here before, but bdmilitary.com now redirects to defseca's forum. Bdmilitary.com was discussed here once before. There were few participants, and discussion sidetracked into a debate about whether the source was correct, which is different from whether it is reliable.
My sense is that defseca.com is a self-published enthusiast portal and has zero reputation for accuracy and fact checking (for example, neither it nor bdmilitary.com is widely cited by books or news organizations). I see no evidence of subject matter expertise, journalistic credentials, or editorial oversight.
Pinging participants in previous bdmilitary.com discussion and frequent contributors to Bangladeshi military equipment topics, where defseca.com keeps cropping up: @ Thomas.W, Maxx786, Justlettersandnumbers, AzfarShams, FOX 52, Nafis Fuad Ayon, and SRS 00: -- Worldbruce ( talk) 06:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
1. [76] in AeroVironment Wasp III for "Bangladesh Army: RQ-12B on order"?
2. [77] in Accuracy International AX50 for the statement that the sniper rifle, "started to be used by Bangladesh Army"?
3. [78] in STREIT Group Spartan for the statement that among operators of the armoured personnel carrier is "Border Guards Bangladesh - Ukrainian built KrAZ Spartan variant"?
4. [79] in List of equipment in the Myanmar Navy for the statement that their submarine is armed with "24 x DM-1 naval mines"?
Now, I want to share some of my opinions. If any new editor cites Defseca.com as a reference, do not remove the entire information just remove the citation and replace with {{ Citation needed}} template and told him/her to find a better source. Always remember to, assume good faith and not to bite them. Give him/her the idea of what type of sources Wikipedia accepts and what doesn't. It is understandable why most editors use such types of sources for information especially in military equipment topics. Remove the information if the editor fails to add a reliable citation. If that editor seems to be troublesome, you know the rules. Keep in mind that, new editors sometimes don't understand why what they see are not accepted as true just because he/she saw that. For example, SLC-2 Radar a Counter-battery radar used by Bangladesh Army, which was displayed during the 2017 victory day parade but no reliable source cannot be found to back that claim. It happens in the list of military equipment articles in most third-world countries. Thank You. -- AzfarShams ( talk) 07:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
References
Source:
SciTechDaily
Article:
Chicxulub impactor
Content: [80]. Text was:
In 2021 a research team at Harvard University showed that a significant fraction of a comet originating in the solar system's Oort cloud was pushed off course by the gravitational pull of Jupiter and sent on a new orbit that brought it much closer to the Sun. As it approached, it began to break apart because of the Sun's tidal force and fractured into smaller pieces which then began to regularly cross Earths orbit and now impact the Earth every 250,000 to 730,000 years. This frequency is consistent with other impact events in the past, and the carbonaceous chondrite composition of the impactor is more consistent with that of a comet from the Oort cloud rather than a rogue asteroid from the much-closer asteroid belt.
While the website's own "About" page states that prior to 2011, "...the New York Times and others referred to us as essentially a Drudge Report for science and technology...", they claim to have made some major changes in their methods since then which, a decade later, make them look like a reliable source to me. I wanted to use them as a secondary source on an article published by a Harvard research team headed by a Professor of Science there, Avi Loeb, that was itself published in the journal Scientific Reports. Not reliable? Please comment. Thank you. A loose necktie ( talk) 05:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)