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 355 | ← | Archive 359 | Archive 360 | Archive 361 | Archive 362 | Archive 363 | → | Archive 365 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RFC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish_Chronicle found "a weak consensus that it's generally reliable" for material related to "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians". A look at raw vote, and yes I know WP:NOTVOTE but it is useful to examine the situation, counts find of the 30 participants, 18 of them voted option 1 , though one of those only for its pre-2010 content, 9 voted option 3 for at least this topic, and 2 more voted option 4. Of the 18 votes for option 1, three of them came from non-EC accounts, which may not participate in the topic area, and one came from a sock of User:NoCal100 (Kenosha Forever, though that was discovered prior to the close), two came from socks of User:Icewhiz (Hippeus and 11Fox11), and one came from a sock of User:יניב הורון (SoaringLL). If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23, with 11/23 saying generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used, and one user saying "additional considerations apply". I feel that the close of the RFC is tainted by the participation of banned editors, and as such ask that the post in WP:RSP finding that the Jewish Chronicle to be "generally reliable" be rescinded and a new RFC be run if any user feels it necessary. But the current consensus simply does not reflect the discussion with the participation of banned users removed. Pinging User:ProcrastinatingReader who closed that RFC (and even if I quibble with the close at the time, I dont think it was an unreasonable reading of the discussion as it stood then, but knowing now that banned users make up over 20% of the support makes me think the close should be rescinded). nableezy - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any new evidence for/against reliability of the source since March 2021 that we should look at? If so, maybe re-run the RfC. If not, maybe strike the sock votes and then ask the closer to re-close it. Levivich 22:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
three of them came from non-EC accounts; even under the "broadly defined" I consider it too "broadly defined" to prevent non-EC related accounts from commenting on the reliability of sources because those sources also cover matters related to the protected area, as it means that articles that are entirely unrelated to the protected area start to be impacted by the restrictions. As such, their comments should be allowed regarding the reliability of "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam", and dismissed only for comments regarding the reliability of "content involving Palestine/Palestinians". BilledMammal ( talk) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified.Four out of thirty is not a large number. Levivich 14:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The user who closed the RFC above says that removing the participation of users disqualified from participating, and I don't know if he is even including the non-ec users either, would likely result in the a finding of no consensus on the matter at issue here. User:ProcrastinatingReader, can you update the close and WP:RSP? nableezy - 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23") But ARBPIA says "
Editors who don't meet the qualifications may however use the talkpage to "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Thus even if this reliability discussion falls under ARBPIA, these users are perfectly entitled to contribute here. (Of the two non-confirmed users, one has 344 edits since 2014 so not exactly a newbie.) I count 26 !votes from users in good standing, of whom between 11 confirmed clearly argue for GR (14 including newer users and those who !voted for GR but didn't express a view on post-2010 period), 10 argue for GU, 2 for attribute, so the removal of socks makes no substantial difference. (b) If we junk the RfC, wouldn't that mean a return to status quo ante, i.e. general reliability? (c) The "new evidence" against is an opinion piece (it's filed under "Argument" in BylineTimes - RSN discussions here and here come to no consensus on reliability) which refers to "33 breaches" of IPSO's code, which sounds serious, but the breaches relate to a much smaller number of articles. According to the Telegraph earlier in 2021:
The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done. In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation.[2] (See here for extended discussion]) Most of these breaches were prior to the RfC under discussion and were referred to in the discussion. I do not oppose a new RfC but the argument of new evidence does not seem that strong. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam.with the usual 4 options. How is that covered by ARBPIA? Are JC, "left-wing organizations", Muslims, and Islam, covered by ARBPIA? I don't think so! ARBIA is not about Jews and Muslims. Levivich 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying?Pretty sure nobody said that except you. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
With Nyx86 now blocked as an Icewhiz sock ( option 1), that changes the numbers even further here, with an absolute majority now in favor of generally unreliable or wholly unreliable for the topic under discussion here. And there may be one more Icewhiz sock in that list to be blocked. But with just Nyx86 removed, that changes the math even further. Can we discard that RFC now? nableezy - 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it.(my understanding is that five later-discovered socks are one such example). As such, I've updated the close and (slightly more reluctantly, but in the interest of moving this forward) the associated RSP entry. Despite the socking, I think the discussion is still valid for determining the consensus on other topics/bias/attribution, but if anyone feels the rest is also too tainted then I'd suggest a WP:AN discussion would be more likely to lead to a conclusion. Hope that helps. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader and Nableezy - was this user even permitted to comment (!vote) in ARBPIA topic area? --> [4]. Total of 36 edits --> [5] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Um, guys, this section actually is not about the source's reliability at all, it was about an RFC that had been compromised due to nearly half of the supporters being socks of banned editors. If you want to start a new discussion about the sources reliability then have at it, but it aint this one. nableezy - 21:17, 11 December 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.
Not properly formed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Glenn Greenwald is an independent journalist. Even when he worked at The Intercept he published his articles without edits. He is one of the most important and influential journalists of our time. His revelations of the documents Edward Snowden provided sent a shockwave through the entire Western World about the illegal government activities of surveillance and established him as one of the most important journalists. He was working for The Guardian then (2012) but now he is independent. There was a discussion about him at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald and the conclusion was that his quoted opinions are unreliable not only because Self Published Sources are unreliable but because he is considered to have no credibility and integrity as a journalist. Since I arrived too late and my disagreement was not answered, I asked about independent journalists in general and provided this specific example at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Independent journalists. It must be noted that his position is not friendly towards president Joe Biden. So his views will not be published by the Biden-friendly media (the liberal media), and those news outlets happen to be considered Reliable Sources here. He had to leave The Intercept because they were not happy with his article about accusations against president Biden's son. The rest of the media, who is Biden-unfriendly and generally Trump-friendly, is considered to be not Reliable Sources at Wikipedia. For example Fox News and New York Post. This is not a question of reliability of Self Published Sources, it is also not about the bias of the media. This is a question of: Is Glenn Greenwald considered to have no credibility? No integrity? No honesty? Can not be trusted? Is he working for Russia? Is he pushing ideas debunked by RS? He has forsaken good journalistic practices? This is the question. Did he change and from the good journalist he was, he now became the opposite? - Barecode ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Barecode, you need to read the rules for an RfC. Your introduction must be completely neutral, so you've already screwed this one up. It will need to be hatted. After you have familiarized yourself with the rules, you can try again, but also follow the advice you're getting above. See: Creating an RfC. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
"I am not trying to debate Greenwald as a reliable source, I am trying to debate his credibility"← please go away and do it on some other part of the web; it's an abuse of Wikipedia and this noticeboard. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd personally separate Greenwald into two distinct eras, with the line being probably at the 2016 presidential election. Greenwald's career trajectory seems to have followed that of Gemma O'Doherty's – a once-respected journalist who let an understandable grudge (i.e., the arrest of his husband under terrorism legislation) push him down into crankery. The Intercept took a massive hit in its credibility for its role in the Clinton emails affair, and doubly so when they effectively outed Reality Winner as a whistleblower through rank carelessness. These days, he's a regular guest on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour and is more concerned with Owning The Libs™ than actual journalism, which is disappointing for everyone involved. Sceptre ( talk) 10:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"Greenwald is basically a fringe self-published writer"even though the discussion was about including Greenwald's commentary that was cited in Columbia Journalism Review. That discussion led into an RFC, which didn't result in clear consensus, but the closing reminded that
" WP:BLP applies to talk pages as much as it does anywhere else on Wikipedia, and personal attacks on Greenwald (or any other living person) are equally as inappropriate as any personal attacks on Wikipedia editors."How to resolve the original question? I don't know if there are any RFC questions that could lead to a good outcome, and I would suggest Barecode drop this issue – unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea for a question. In some cases it's obvious that a certain writer in a reliable publication can quickly become unreliable (see Claas Relotius). That's not the case with Greenwald, whose opinions continue to be cited in mainstream publications, including academic research. On a case-by-case basis editors may have legitimate arguments about whether Greenwald's opinions should or shouldn't be included, but arguments that are not policy-based should be dismissed. If editors continue to disrupt discussions, conduct issues should be resolved by stern warnings, topic-bans, and such. Politrukki ( talk) 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The conclusion of this debate Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald was that he has no credibility whatsoever, you can check above to see a very similar conclusion: "totally fails our requirements for reliability".Assuming there is a local consensus to that effect on that page, it is no way binding and Greenwald's opinions might be included if they are relevant. Therefore the statement
Such a conclusion means his opinion can't be included in any articleis incorrect.
I did not suggest carving out a one-person exception to policies. I suggested a RfC about Greenwald's unreliability.At the risk of sounding flippant... potayto, potahto. An RfC asking to deem someone's self-published writings "reliable" in the face of the plain statements of WP:SPS is asking for a one-person carveout of policy. Comparisons to RfC's about publications fall flat because, well, they're publications and he's just a person. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Can Facebook video be cited as a source for a particular statement? I mean is a facebook video regarded as verifiable? ― Itcouldbepossible Talk 13:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
My local TV stations are carrying a lot of ads and infomercials for "Cefaly". You can find them on Amazon as well. Similar devices are sold under the names Nerivio, GammaCore, SpringTMS, etc. See www.cefaly.com
Searching Wikipedia I found Neurostimulation#Transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation, which has two citations to Cephalalgia: An International Journal of Headache. [7] [8]
I also found these through a web search: [9] [10]
Is Cephalalgia a reliable source for medical claims? Are the claims in the Neurostimulation article supported by reliable sources?
I am skeptical when I hear about a magic cure for migraines that [A] looks like a Star Trek prop, and [B] I hear about in an infomercial, not a doctor's office. 04:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC) 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:B892:A3AE:BEB5:E8A9 ( talk)
In a GA-class article I'm currently translating from French, I've stumbled upon a rather interesting biography, which is very detailed, about the Premier of Quebec. The problem is, the article is anonymous and the person who is responsible for editing it is some priest in Shawinigan belonging to the League for Catholic Counter-Reformation, which makes me a little sceptical of whether it is a reliable source. I expect it to be biased in favour of Maurice Duplessis (he was a conservative and strongly supportive of the Catholic Church after all), but my thoughts are more about reliability as a source, and, if unusable for the text, whether it's OK to include it in external links.
I would also like you to decipher the "RCC" and "RC" at the bottom of the biogram. Thanks, Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
A buddy of mine is all exited about this:
Which led me to this:
My immediate reaction was that I would have heard about such a "Fountain of youth pill" from a well-known reliable source, not some random webpage's clickbait.
To help me give my friend a good answer, I would like to hear opinions about the general reliability of studyfinds.org, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai, and the journal Nature Metabolism. Can any of them be trusted for as sources for medical breakthroughs? I already know about not relying on a single study, but is the study even legit? The ethics declaration [12] is especially interesting.
Our article on Grape seed extract says "Grape seed extract is sold in dietary supplement form and claimed to have numerous health benefits, none of which is supported by sufficient medical evidence" and cites this [13], but this page
makes it sound like a miracle cure.
14:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC) 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:112B:2AF6:FEE5:339D ( talk)
My first feeling is that the site is reliable, but I am not sure. I didn't like the many advertisements all over the page. This tells me that is prone to sensationalism and click-baits. Why wont your buddy cite the article at nature metabolism instead? Cinadon 36 14:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
I'm of the belief that Fandom.com Wiki pages should be allowed to be cited in References in certain cases.
A blanket ban on them all for References seems extreme. For many niche or cult television shows they frequently have some of the best info around.
A good example being Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, which is one of the best sources of information for that series.
Further, we already allow External links to Fandom.com sites, like the aforementioned Memory Alpha at the bottom of all the Trek pages. That's a pretty clear implication that they are useful to some extent.
The use case I've recently had is that a wiki page for a kid's show, Paw Patrol, had a more detailed synopsis & crucially a complete cast list with the actor listed whose article I was trying to include the Reference for.
Neither our Wikipedia page nor IMDB have complete cast lists with the actor listed.
I wanted to include the simple Reference to the Paw Patrol Wiki to confirm that the actor was in the mentioned episode.
There appears to be no other sources to back it up.
I guess one could go to edit the existing Paw Patrol page to include all the available info but that seems unnecessarily circuitous & beyond my scope of interest.
I should point out I actually did due diligence & went to the trouble of checking the episode in question & the actor is indeed listed. So I know the information is correct.
The page edits in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Melanie_Leishman&action=history
I've tried including the References & had it deleted. I then re-worded to specifically point out it was an detailed cast list & synopsis link, Deleted again I reverted that deletion & asked to discuss with the Editor only for them to unilaterally revert a third time, something I was under the impression we were not supposed to do.
This repeated deletion is my first interaction with another Editor here & it's not been a fun one.
I could understand if I was wanting to cite a Fandom.com site to prove an outrageous assertion like George Washington was a cannibal but I just want to use one as a Reference for proof of an actor's role.
I believe context should play a role, as seemingly indicated on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Page.
I'm not looking to make waves here, all I wanted to do was try & help by expanding some articles & not get caught up in bureaucracy. I was actually having fun until this broke out & over something so trivial. :(
Any help & thoughts appreciated.
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck ( talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"For many years, Background Magazine used to be an international magazine (printed on paper)". I haven't been able to find these any print issues of this magazine so is this website reliable?
Sikonmina (
talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit gobsmacked that this is even a question, but apparently it is? Am I wrong? We're having a discussion at Talk:Nirvana (band)#The recent genre dispute about including or removing "hard rock" from the genre field in the infobox. It was in the article, and the citation used contained a link to an archived version from 2017 and the current page as it appears now. The "hard rock" genre namedrop has disappeared as Allmusic.com has revised its entry on the band in the ensuing 4 years, but some editors still want to fall back on archived version as a valid citation. There's a question whether Allmusic is even usable here, per WP:ALLMUSIC, but even if it was, can an old version of an article trump the current one? Zaathras ( talk) 03:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the demographic data published by the Joshua Project reliable? Alaexis ¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It's been discussed many times in the past
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#Duane Alexander Miller, Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74#Joshua_Project,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Joshua Project. As far as I can gauge it, the consensus has been that it's unreliable. It's still being used so I'd like to add it to the WP:RSP list.
Alaexis
¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Articles seem to be fact checked and include references to many reputable papers/journals. Can they be considered review articles? Do they meet the WP:MEDRS standard? Thanks -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
All Medical News Today content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to other reputable media sites, educational institutions, and, whenever possible, peer-reviewed studies.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r04o5GPErPw&t=15s
This video is quite important to the section on 'Citizenship deprivation'. It was originally published by the BBC but is now found on Cage's YouTube channel. Rfc please, if it is therefore suitable for use in the above mentioned section. Amirah talk 16:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It was discussed before here, but I think it should be added to the source list so people can know if it is reliable or not. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 17:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Previously discussed, no consensus was made. Hence trying to revive it. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Reliability of Somoy News. -- Tame ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
This source is authored by some amateur historian. Jstor.org and google.scholar provide no reviews on his book. The book was cited 5 times by the sources that have just one citation. The online version was cited 19 times by low level publications. The author's methodology is simple: he combines whatever he could find on the topic (a number of deaths) and calculates a median value of published figures. This approach is a more primitive version of Rummel's approach. Rummel, who, in contrast to White, is an expert in statistical methods, used a more sophisticated approach, thus he included only independent sources (i.e. the publications that presented figures obtained independently from each other: if different publications cite the same figure, Rummel took only one of them). In contrast, White, being an amateur, does not apply this filter to the data. That can be easily seen, because he cites Rummel.
To understand how ridiculous is the idea to cite Rummel for this purpose, one must keep in mind that Rummel did the same job as White, but in a more professional way: his data are already the median value of previously published figures. The fact that White does not understand and uses Rummel as an independent data point implies his insufficient professionalism.
Furthermore, White performs no critical analysis of sources, he just collects whatever he could find on each concrete topic. In summary, the quality of White's data cannot be higher (and, usually, it is even lower) that the quality of the data collected by Wikipedians themselves.
In connection to that, I am asking if we really need to use the source authored by this amateur, who is doing essentially what every Wikipedian can do: collect the data and calculate a median value? I propose not to use White. Instead, I propose to use the sources he cites and use them along with other high quality secondary sources. I think we should respect themselves and not use the data assembled by amateurs.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I just split out an article from another page and the page creation process triggered edit filter 869 for deprecated sources, but the log report doesn’t tell me which sources are deprecated. Could someone help me figure this out? Viriditas ( talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
In the meantime, you can use WP:UPSD, which will highlight deprecated sources amongst others. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like your thoughts and opinion on the source that I am about to discuss. I came across this source on couple of articles related to Durrani Empire Emperors. Here is the link to the entire book/source.
[14]. At first glance, I didn't pay much attention but when I started reading it for verification, I found the book to be written with great prejudice against non-Muslims (calling them Kafirs and infidels), bias, exaggerated, and has misrepresentation of facts. So it led me to read the introduction of book where details about the author and the history behind the book is given and this is where I realized why this source is highly unreliable as the book was politically motivated. This book was written on the order of Emir (King/Emperor) of Afghanistan,
Habibullah Khan, by "Afghan Court Chronicle", Faiz Mohammed Kateb Hazara, who was originally a copyist and was hired by Emir
Habibullah Khan as a scribe and copyist. Here are some details directly from the introduction that proves its unreliability.
1. The book was Amir’s idea for commissioning a history of Afghanistan and his choosing Fayz Muhammad to produce it. (xxxii). We will probably never know why the Prince (before becoming Emir) settled on this Hazarah Shiʿi (talking about Fayz), who was then in his late thirties or early forties, as the best candidate to write the history of Afghanistan. It seems on the surface an unusual choice. (xxxiii)
2. Reason behind commissioning a history book: Hasan Kakar has written that it was in part disgust at the “licentious life” of the amir that gave rise to a brief and abortive constitutional movement in Kabul. But Habib Allah Khan was also a very canny politician and it was sound political instinct that led him to commission a history of the country, in part to create a story of the past that gave meaning to his father’s brutal attempts at forging a nation, and in part to validate his own tenuous position as absolute monarch. All we really know for certain about Habib Allah’s plan are his own words, as recorded by Fayz Muhammad, at the beginning of the Sirāj al-tawārīkh. (xxxiv)
3. The amir expected to have full control over the finished product and to review the work in progress. We know with reasonable certainty how this control was exerted in the case of the third volume of the Sirāj. The Tuḥfat, however, and the first two volumes of Sirāj were reviewed, edited or censored, and sent back for revisions somewhat differently. (xxxvii)
4. In the case of Tuḥfat al-Ḥabīb and the first two volumes of Sirāj al-tawārīkh, it appears that Fayz Muhammad submitted the volumes entire and in a final draft and these were what were read and edited by the amir and others and by copy editors whose specialties were the Arabic and Persian usages. (xxxvii)
5. Unpleasant truths were systematically eliminated. (xcvi) An attempt would be made to control not just his output but the very sources to which Fayz Muhammad had access.(xxxviii)
Given the scope of the work and Fayz Muhammad’s proximity to people at court, he probably also received many more solicited and unsolicited anecdotes and much advice as he worked. (xci)
6. Biased Sources: These may also have been the same men Amir Habib Allah assigned to keep an eye on the work and its progress. Fayz Muhammad names three of them “and others.” The three named were Sardar Muhammad Yusuf Khan, the nineteenth son of Amir Dust Muhammad Khan; Qazi Saʿd al Din Khan, son of Qazi ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan; and Sardar Nur ʿAli Khan, the son of Sardar Shayr ʿAli Khan Qandahari. All three were Barakzaʾi Durranis. The first and third were of the Muhammadzaʾi branch of the Barakzaʾi and the first and second had already been involved as supervisors of the Tuḥfat al-Ḥabīb.
7. The reader should be aware that Fayz Muhammad always had some one looking over his shoulder as he worked. These included the people that have been identified above as well as others not identified, no doubt including the official(s) in charge of the archives and any number of kibitz ers and courtiers who might have thought they had something to add or some change to suggest as Fayz Muhammad’s work progressed. (xcvi)
8. The amir himself would have been obliged to read more carefully for errors of commission or interpretation. (xcvii)
9. Example of censorships by the Amir when reviewing the draft:
The first of these substantial deletions is worth repeating here because of the consequences it had on text that followed. While he (ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan) was on the march a letter from Griffin reached him saying, “Come to Kabul as quickly as you can and adorn the throne of authority.” In reply to this letter, he wrote, “I have high hopes of the English government and I sincerely offer my friendship. Yet the people of Afghanistan consider it one of the habits and tendencies of the great (English) government that the words of a person whom they don’t know negotiating about their wel fare (those words) often bear no fruit. The people who are with me wanted to know before allowing a response to his [Griffin’s] emissary six things: first, where will the borders of Afghanistan be? Second, will Qandahar be part of Afghanistan or separated from it? Third, will an Englishman reside in Afghani stan? Fourth, will the English government expect me to take up arms against her enemies? Fifth, what benefits will the English government promise me and the people of Afghanistan? Sixth, in return for such benefits, what services does the English government expect that the answer to these questions will impose on my fellow tribesmen and co-religionists as obligations so that I can obtain their trust to the extent that will make it possible to fulfill these things. Then I will seek the approval of these terms which are possible to fulfill and although the English government is not so in need (now), one day when the necessary occasions arise I will serve that government along with my people. The end. By the time Amir Habib Allah Khan was reading the text, it may have sounded far too solicitous of English interests. He did not want his father to appear to have been willing to bargain away border claims, hint at a willingness to give up Qandahar, or worst of all, to show himself ready to fight with the English against its enemies (i.e. Russia). But having deleted this he then had to delete all the references that follow concerning Griffin’s replies to the six points raised by the letter. These are major deletions totaling some seven pages of manuscript and more than 1,600 words. (xcix)
10. Here is another example of censorship:
We find a detail in volume two deleted for no explicable reason. (Again, the deletion is in italics.) “Meantime, Yar Muhammad, a merchant who resided at Tashqurghan, came to Sardar ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan with many splendid gifts, an act which caused the sardar to wonder, ‘Why, of all the people of that region would this person come to me bearing gifts?” Eventually, he discovered that Shayr Dil Khan Luynab, a former governor of Balkh, had entrusted a sum of money—four thousand Russian tillas, ten thousand Bukharan tillas, sixty thousand Kabuli rupees, two thousand balīt, each one of which was worth one hundred rupees, from government coffers (the treasury of Balkh) to this merchant and the merchant himself having informed the sardar of this, the sardar sent Faramarz Khan, a ghulam-slave of his, with the man to bring all the money from Tashqurghan.” What would have possessed someone to delete this section? Was it because he checked the documents and could not find these details? Or did the episode somehow reflect badly on Amir Habib Allah Khan’s father because the passage implies that he accepted a large sum of government money for his own use? This is a general problem with explaining the deletions. It is not clear what motivated the amir or the other readers to remove what seem often to be wholly innocuous passages while allowing to stand the long detailed sections on his father’s brutal mistreatment of the Hazarahs. (xcviii)
11. Drafting the Sirāj, presenting it for review, re-writing it to satisfy the reviewers and the amir, and then dealing with the typesetter would have kept Fayz Muhammad fully occupied. He was also assiduously collecting material for the projected volume four, the volume to be devoted to Habib Allah Khan’s reign. (xlix)
So based on some of the points that I provided directly from the introduction of the book, would you consider this source reliable or unreliable?
MehmoodS (
talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
People magazine copied the Daily Mirror on a story that was cited on Cate Blanchett#Personal life. Many other websites copied the Daily Mirror also. I found Wikipedia:Reliable sources that contradict that story. Demote People magazine. ... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 05:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I found this recently added by User:PSYCHREL: "However, reconstructions of ancestral character states using time-calibrated supertrees based on published phylogenetic trees and linguistic classification indicated that the earliest trait of religion, present in the most recent common ancestor of modern hunter-gatherers, was animism. [1] Following the development of belief in an afterlife, shamanism and ancestor worship developed. [1]"
Besides the fact that you seem to need to be an expert to understand it (see Ancestral reconstruction for an explanation and a mention of its flaws and of course Phylogenetic tree) the only paper I can see discussing it is this [15] which doesn't mention the claim. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Any thoughts about the reliability of this source? (The published name is ... really unhelpful for my half-hearted efforts to determine if they're a serious outfit.) It's currently the only independent source being used on the BLP Ross Bolleter. -- JBL ( talk) 00:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Planning to refer article ' Rape Jokes In Popular Culture: The Violation Of Consent Is Not Funny In Any Context~ Jyni Verma ' in Sexual consent related articles.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
As a society, we tend to validate rape jokes and continue to give space for them) and the fact that its author is not a professional journalist. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, it's not reliable for factual claims; it is only reliable for the attributed opinions of its author, provided that they are WP:DUE. JBchrch talk 05:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the
Enciclopedia d'arte italiana a relibale source for biographical articles? The article we have on it says that Entries are edited by a scientific technical committee
. It's website
https://www.enciclopediadarte.eu/eng/info.asp says that In this contest artists are allowed to introduce their biography, photos of works with their quotations, reviews and events during the past years.Each artists could decide on his own the literature to publish.
Vexations (
talk) 12:06, 16 December 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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of theaerodrome.com?
The website theaerodrome.com is currently referenced in over 500 1500 articles chiefly related to World War I aviation (
[21] search), including articles assessed as GA-class (e.g.
Friedrich Ritter von Röth). It has been previously discussed on WP:RSN twice, first
here and later (very briefly)
here. A recent
attempt to establish local consensus at
WT:MILHIST was closed with instructions to discuss the topic here.
-
Ljleppan (
talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC); upd. reference count 07:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
NB: I'm new to both RfCs and WP:RSN, so please let me know if I have made any procedural mistakes, if this is not the proper format/forum, or you have a suggestion on how to better phrase the options above. - Ljleppan ( talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
the forum, of course, is off-limitsextend to the articles linked from the "Articles" box of e.g. this page? Note the addresses of the individual articles are .../forum/.... - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Source: IWMBuzz.com – partial disclosure of funding here.
Past discussions:
A few examples for Articles/Content:
IWMBuzz.com is used in about 300 articles, sometimes for simple non-controversial verification (filmographies, ratings, awards given by the source itself) but other times for subjective PR-puffing statements for which they have a conflict of interest. I feel that a cautionary yellowlisting at perennial sources with links to the above discussions is warranted, to raise awareness of potential issues. Thanks. – Reidgreg ( talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 22:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Source: [ [25]] Article: Getatchew Mekurya biography musical artist passed away in 2016 Content: also see talkpage Talk:Getatchew_Mekurya#Contradicting_sources_about_what_he_played_first
The Wire comes with new information about Getatchew Mekurya in 2017, source is based on Terp label which he worked with, it looks reliable source. It claims Nobody in Ethiopia has really seen these pictures or knows about the whole history – just lack of media
it contradicts on some points from earlier sources such as the NYT article [
[26]] about his early life when he decided to take up the sax, what instruments he played. The Wire comes with new info that i have not seen in other sources such as being an actor in the 50's as a standout.
It's probably not contentious, if i just combine the new findings from Wire with earlier sources, it's just that some of the new findings is only mentioned by The Wire. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 07:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Update i would also add i couldn't find Amharic articles that mentions the new findings of The Wire (about alleged acting background, playing the flute, hearing the sax on the radio and then deciding it was the instrument of choice etc). Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Wire is a very high quality source on music itself, but for details like this that are contradicted elsewhere I might wonder a bit. I would assume the writer repeated what the source told them, but didn't investigate too much further. I'd state it with attribution if using it - David Gerard ( talk) 13:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Wire is a highly reliable music publication. The claims in their article is not from their research, it comes from a label and a band that worked very close with the subject and I would assume it's more accurate than the NYT obituary given that it's from a source closer to the subject. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The wire is one of the highest quality music publications there is in general, but if two reliable sources contradict then best to use clear attribution and show what sources the reliable sources themselves use. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Several RSs, including AP, CNN, the BBC and PBS have documented evidence of a Chinese government cover-up of the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan. This evidence includes accidentally released and leaked documents from the Chinese government (threatening "harsh punishment" for any scientist sharing data), and secret recordings of WHO officials (like Mike Ryan). How much more evidence do we need in order to call this a cover-up in Wikivoice, like the American cover-up of Japanese war crimes, and to have a page on it as a notable set of allegations, like Allegations of CIA drug trafficking? This is a sister post of a complaint I filed in ANI about the Inappropriate closing of an MR discussion that sought to cover up the cover-up allegation on Wikipedia. Gimiv ( talk) 15:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"You can never guarantee 100% transparency. It's not just about any intentional cover-up, you are also constrained with by technology and other issues with a novel virus."Articles saying that the Chinese government was initially secretive and slow to cooperate are not at all the same as articles saying there was some sort of cover-up - the latter implies something specific was being intentionally concealed and is therefore an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requiring sources that actually say that. I'm not seeing that here at a glance (but, again, it's a better question for eg. WP:NPOVN or WP:FRINGEN or other noticeboards that look at and evaluate what the sources actually say and how closely we're adhering to that in more depth.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Others have covered the fact that these sources do not say there was a cover-up, but I want to raise another issue. There has been a proliferation of these sorts of WP:POVFORK articles, which look like they're written in order to give certain political views Wikipedia's imprimatur. They often cite real sources, but they weave them together in order to try to make an argument that's not clear from the sources. Anyone could write an article entitled, US COVID-19 cover-up, citing Trump's statement to Woodward that he (Trump) intentionally downplayed the seriousness of the virus ( [27]). But should Wikipedia have such an article? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am working on an article about composer and pianist Katherine Ruth Heyman (1877–1944) and I'm currently gathering relevant sources to use. There are not a lot of sources that go into this great detail about her, but there is an episode of a podcast by Matt Marble, author of a biography on Arthur Russell which was published by a legitimate looking publisher and a PhD in music composition from Prinston University.
I probably wouldn't have any concerns citing an article by him, but I feel like citing a podcast is different, even though it's mostly just a narrated article. Obviously, I would include appropriate timestamps when citing it. My question is basically, is this a valid SPS for a professional in the field?
Marble, Matt (July 4, 2018). Her Dreaming Fingers (Katherine Ruth Heyman). Secret Sound (Podcast). 2. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Executive summary: the listing for Discogs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is way off base and needs a serious update, regarding material backed by photos.
So, Discogs is listed at "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" as "Generally unreliable" ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate"), and the blurb is "The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate."
This is entirely accurate and correct as far as it goes.
The discographies and track listings, when backed up by photos (which is usual), are extremely reliable. The photos are 100% legit and what could be more reliable than a photo. Of course the labels could be wrong, but so could title pages of books etc. -- vanishingly rare. And track listing etc. are the primary, or anyway a major, use of the source.
For instance, here is the track listing for The Who Sell Out. I don't know who writes those, but they could be made up or just sloppy I suppose. However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing (essentially 100% of the time) and also gives, usually, songwriting and producing credits and the catalog number etc. (There isn't a separate URL for the photos.) I haven't yet seen any record which doesn' have photos like this.
The back cover is sometimes shown too, which back covers are 100% reliable for their contents ("According to the liner notes, it was recorded at sea") and >99% for their statements ("It was recorded at sea") which is plenty reliable.
So, the rating and blurb is not true. 'We need to update the listing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources I would say.
Exactly how I'm not sure. Since half of Discogs is essentially useless and half is really reliable, I'd split it into two lines. Not likely as we're hidebound here, so let's assume one line. We'd want to rewrite the blub ("...except for material, such as discographies, track listings, and credits, when backed by photographs") or whatever. Then the icon... probably should be changed to, I don't know, "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", it' "areas of expertise" being record labels and jackets. There isn't an icon for "Half the material is essentially useless, and half is very reliable", so that's closest I guess.
Yes? Herostratus ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listingOk, so the source here is the labels on the disc and other information present on the album cover (the " liner notes"), and Discogs happens to host a picture of this source. Even though liner notes are a WP:PRIMARY source, I guess they are the most reliable source for information about an album. IMO a rough proposed amendment could be "Although the information on Discogs is user-generated content, Discogs often hosts pictures of an album's liner notes, which can be used as a source". JBchrch talk 20:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
|url=
(Discogs includes a "Permalink" for the actual image
[28]) and identified with |via=Discogs
for those needing proof. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In my experience, Discogs is very good for primary information: the stuff which can be lifted from a label or sleeve. For want of anything better, I imagine it's OK for details of parallel releases; though as I've never seen the need to use those, I've never checked. My concern is about Discogs hyperlinks, e.g. for songwriters and personnel (which, as a DABfixer, is what I usually find myself looking at). They generally seem good; but there's no guarantee that, say, the John Smith credited on a recording is actually the John Smith (57) or whoever at the other end of a hyperlink, and I prefer to have confirmatory evidence if I can get it. I treat biographical information as pure UGC, and never touch it (though it can be useful as confirmatory evidence). Narky Blert ( talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
No, just cite the album jacket directly. Don't cite user generated photos/uploads. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Discogs is very useful, and where I always begin when I start album articles, but I agree with the previous discussion, consensus, etc. I generally cut and paste the song titles, for example, and then confirm via the images, and so often--or often enough--things are misspelled, out of order (even when accounting for specific releases/countries), missing symbols, etc. Or the song lengths don't match up to the images, so there's the discrepancy of the images being "correct", and the linked page being "wrong". Minor stuff, but I don't think it's any kind of burden to continue to cite the AV way, if necessary, or for Discogs to be under the external links, but am open to the discussion. To add a somewhat related wrinkle, I've come across a few times where the Discogs images are quite poor, or not there, and yet the eBay ones are great, ha... Caro7200 ( talk) 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems like there is consensus that pictures hosted on Discogs may be used as primary sources, using the appropriate templates. I've boldly edited WP:DISCOGS the RSP entry for Discogs to reflect this:
[29]. Feedback is welcome. (I have not added a link to this discussion since, as I understand it, this will have to be done once this discussion is archived.)
JBchrch
talk 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
|via=
to Discogs) by bot or AWB.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)we really can't assume thatis that this line of reasoning would lead us to prohibit links to Commons, because Commons hosts a lot of copyrighted content for sure. JBchrch talk 16:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the "no references" point. If you're citing the record-jacket, you should cite the record jacket. If you're citing the disc label, you should site the disc label. You should provide enough details in you references that other are able to work out what you're citing. For example, since the details may vary in between different releases, you should specify which release you're referring to. But there's never any need to a link to the source, sources do not have to be online, or even easy to access and the absence of a convience link doesn't make the source invalid.
Although Jayron32 has already pointed this out, there seems to be remaining confusion about what editors are actually citing here. If discogs is simply hosting photos or scans of disc labels or record-jackets, they're not being used as a source. They are simply a convience link for the actual soruce which is the disc label or record jacket. Of course editors need to have actually seen the source in some way to be able to cite it, and generally they should be able to help others e.g. with a copy if needed to aide verification.
Google Books was already given as an example but this confusion arises in a lot of cases. For example with YouTube unless it's content specifically released on YouTube then most of the time YouTube is irrelevant. If the content appears to have been YouTube without the copyright holders permission e.g. a documentary, then the YouTube link is out. But if the documentary is reliable then it's fine to cite it without the YouTube link.
A few months ago someone was asking about a newspaper scan or photo on some user generated site which seemed to lead to similar confusion. As IIRC I pointed out at the time, if the newspaper was a reliable source than if there was sufficient information on the newspaper, date etc the article could be cited. The fact that the user generated site was not a reliable source was mostly irrelevant. The only relevance was if this scan was the only copy anyone on Wikipedia had ever seen, given we had no real idea of the providence of this scan, then possibly it should stay out until someone can independently verify the scan was accurate. Either way possibly the convience link of the scan would need to stay out, but that didn't make the source invalid.
This is perhaps the only issue where discogs seems to matter when it comes to reliability issues. Do we trust the process discogs uses enough such that if the only place an editor has seen the alleged record jacket is via an image on discogs, this is acceptable? I have no idea, but whatever we decide, although this touches on the reliability of discogs to some extent, discogs still isn't the source we are citing, it's still the record jacket or whatever.
Note that while we do not allow link to sites violation copyright, we generally do not forbid editors from citing a source just because they likely violated copyright to obtain it. E.g. we won't be linking to content from Sci-Hub and I don't think we should even be encouraging editors to use it in any way but if someone has I don't think this makes their citations invalid since despite the murky nature of Sci-Hub, it seems unlikely that they're modifying content. We don't generally ask editors how they obtained access to a source anyway, there's actually a fair amount of trust built into the system and ultimately editors do need to use their judgment on whether they can be sure the copy they obtained could have been modified in some way or even is simply fake.
What's the copyright position on linking to photographs? EddieHugh ( talk) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
So here is my suggestion. In the main rule we currently have
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.
For the main rule here's my suggestion (bolded text is to show changes, not to be put in the actual text):
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable except for photographs. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. A 2021 discussion permitted the use of photographs[Note 1]
.
Then, way at the bottom of the page, in smaller font, pointed to by the "[Note 1]", we can stretch out as much we want. So something maybe like:
By current consensus, photographs hosted by Discogs are considered reliable representations of the work in question. Generally, audio recordings do not need citations, as the citation is to the work itself (e.g <ref>''The Who Strike Out'' (1968 Decca edition), liner notes</ref>). However, as a convenience for the reader, a reference pointing to a photograph of a record/CD/tape label (only) hosted on Discogs may be included (although never required). Photographs on Discogs of anything other than labels should not be linked to directly, as there's no consensus that Discogs is necessarily hosting them legitimately. {{ Cite AV media}} is the usual and recommended template for references any photographs, including photographs hosted on Discogs. (N.B. Discogs provides a "permalink" button for referencing individual photographs directly.)
I think that ncluding a photo would help, for instance as show here. Not sure if footnotes can include image files.
I tend prolix, so maybe my suggestions are too long, and improvements welcome, but we do want to be clear about what we're talking about. You know how some people can ruleslawer. Any changes, fine, count me in, let's keep moving. Herostratus ( talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Edited and cut it down some. 04:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. However, images of album labels and liner notes hosted on Discogs are reliable sources of the information contained in them.[Note 1] There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.
OK, but I mean, a lot Wikipedia editors won't accept references to a work for music, as they do for books and films. They just won't, is all; I don't know why, but you can't make them. But there's proof in Discogs (and frequently nowhere else). But RSP says "Never use Discogs for anything, ever". So that's out. I mean I had a nice article on a band, band probably meets NBAND and all, nominated partly on grounds of containing several refs to Discogs. I explained the situation, but the response was basically "The rule is the we are not allowed to use Discogs, period, and you are not going to change my mind". And the article was indeed destroyed. So Discogs is out, it's toxic. No refs in running text is not going pass muster. So the only way around this is to not write articles about musicians, which I, having written several, will now do. I'm not up for working two days on an article just to lose it. How this is a win I can't see, but whatever. Herostratus ( talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
There is not a simple discuss on reliability of HeroicHollywood.com [31]. What do you think about this website? Reiro ( talk) 11:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is about [32]. Hotpine claims that the source would be unreliable for the claim made. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSPSS lists The Daily Dot as "generally reliable for internet culture", and I would broadly agree. However, I still think that additional discretion is warranted when using the source.
As per the Wikipedia article for internet culture, the term is rather vague without well-defined boundaries which would make the statement "generally reliable for internet culture" to be somewhat problematic. The Daily Dot does sort their stories by category including by " Internet Culture", but the tag is also found in many articles that may not specifically be about internet culture (example 1 2) or where it merely touches upon it briefly and isn't the main focus. Secondly, while I agree that their straight news reporting on internet trends is usually good, a lot of their articles are highly opinionated without disclosure. Many of their features engage in heavy analysis and commentary (ex. attributing motives*, dubbing others " Karens" and things " cringeworthy" without quotes, etc.) without properly labelling such articles. They do have articles that are labelled as such, but many of them lack such delineation. They have also been mentioned in a previous discussion as well as the Wikipedia article to have a political slant in reporting. (*For clarity, I don't disagree with the accusations of being transphobic, but the article is also heavy on analysis/commentary as well as content that would pose BLP issues while not explicitly labelled as Opinion or Analysis)
While I don't think this means that it should not be considered "generally reliable", I still think that extra care should be taken when citing articles from The Daily Dot. They are great when breaking news about topics that are trending strictly in cyberspace, but I would generally take care to always default to attribution unless multiple sources are available - especially since they can be highly opinionated during reporting coupled with the fact they are often one of the only sources deemed reliable to cover certain niche internet topics. Dankmemes2 ( talk) 22:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
mixing of subjective claims/assessment/editor opinion with fact(something I completely disagree with and don't think any of the presented examples really support, hence why I pointed to similar language from obvious WP:RSes), but even if you can object to one or two of the twelve citations to it I linked, I included multiple academic sources using it for what we would consider BLP-sensitive remarks in the specific area where you implied their reputation would be insufficient to support that usage. To respond to that you need to actually point to actual mainstream coverage of the Daily Dot that reflects your concerns, especially since I've demonstrated that its stature is sufficient that that coverage should clearly exist if your expressed concerns are grounded in fact. WP:RS is ultimately about whether a source has a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about whether you like their tone or agree with the language they use. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This news story explained 2019 film Joker, showing why Arkham Asylum is renamed Arkham state hospital, homage elements of The dark knight. The source of these is Warner Bros. Korea, the distribution company of that film. They handed out some explainations of Joker, news story above reported it. I think it is because it's difficult to contact English news stories from Collider (website) in S.Korea, briefly introduced some information in Korean language. (But renaming Arkham Asylum only looked there). Is it reliable? --17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This particular source is used in the Princes in the Tower article.
The Clements Markham article is quite extensive and at FA level. Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am keeping track of all kind of orbital launch vehicles in my userspace - User:Barecode/Launch vehicles and I just found a new rocket named Darwin-1 developed by Rocket Pi. Global Times says "Rocket Pi's founder, the firm also plans to launch its first liquid-fuel carrier rocket codenamed Darwin-1 in 2023" so I wanted to link that article but I'm not allowed. I noticed other articles about technology like one mentioning "Chinese smartphone makers saw a rapid expansion in the second quarter of this year, as Xiaomi ranked No.2 for the first time in the global smartphone market". Why are links to such articles not allowed on Wikipedia, not even in the user space? Is GT publishing false or fabricated information about mobile phones, computers, satellites or space launchers? -- Barecode ( talk) 09:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
publish false or fabricated information. User space use is certainly allowed though, but I suppose it doesn't make much sense because you won't really use it in mainspace anyways. What do you mean
but I'm not allowed? Mvbaron ( talk) 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Fox News for example is banned for political and scientifical information onlyis not true. The consensus is that there should be additional consideration applied when sourcing from Fox News on those topics, particularly for contentious facts. This is different than, say, Rolling Stone, where politics coverage in the magazine is considered to be generally unreliable ever since around 2011. Global Times is worse. It is considered to be so unreliable and prone to misuse by editors that it is deprecated as a source for facts. GT is generally more unhinged in its writings than Xinhua or People's Daily and its editorial line is more jingoistic than the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which leads to the source being misused to try to convey what the central party actually thinks on an issue—it's really a CCP-run tabloid that faces all the pitfalls of tabloid journalism plus the pitfalls of being run by the Communist Party of China. Something like Caixin or SCMP are significantly better for Chinese technology than GT. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 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 355 | ← | Archive 359 | Archive 360 | Archive 361 | Archive 362 | Archive 363 | → | Archive 365 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RFC at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#Jewish_Chronicle found "a weak consensus that it's generally reliable" for material related to "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam and Palestine/Palestinians". A look at raw vote, and yes I know WP:NOTVOTE but it is useful to examine the situation, counts find of the 30 participants, 18 of them voted option 1 , though one of those only for its pre-2010 content, 9 voted option 3 for at least this topic, and 2 more voted option 4. Of the 18 votes for option 1, three of them came from non-EC accounts, which may not participate in the topic area, and one came from a sock of User:NoCal100 (Kenosha Forever, though that was discovered prior to the close), two came from socks of User:Icewhiz (Hippeus and 11Fox11), and one came from a sock of User:יניב הורון (SoaringLL). If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23, with 11/23 saying generally unreliable or outright publishes false material and should never be used, and one user saying "additional considerations apply". I feel that the close of the RFC is tainted by the participation of banned editors, and as such ask that the post in WP:RSP finding that the Jewish Chronicle to be "generally reliable" be rescinded and a new RFC be run if any user feels it necessary. But the current consensus simply does not reflect the discussion with the participation of banned users removed. Pinging User:ProcrastinatingReader who closed that RFC (and even if I quibble with the close at the time, I dont think it was an unreasonable reading of the discussion as it stood then, but knowing now that banned users make up over 20% of the support makes me think the close should be rescinded). nableezy - 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Do we have any new evidence for/against reliability of the source since March 2021 that we should look at? If so, maybe re-run the RfC. If not, maybe strike the sock votes and then ask the closer to re-close it. Levivich 22:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
three of them came from non-EC accounts; even under the "broadly defined" I consider it too "broadly defined" to prevent non-EC related accounts from commenting on the reliability of sources because those sources also cover matters related to the protected area, as it means that articles that are entirely unrelated to the protected area start to be impacted by the restrictions. As such, their comments should be allowed regarding the reliability of "content involving the British left, Muslims, Islam", and dismissed only for comments regarding the reliability of "content involving Palestine/Palestinians". BilledMammal ( talk) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The last RfC involved large numbers of users who should have been disqualified.Four out of thirty is not a large number. Levivich 14:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The user who closed the RFC above says that removing the participation of users disqualified from participating, and I don't know if he is even including the non-ec users either, would likely result in the a finding of no consensus on the matter at issue here. User:ProcrastinatingReader, can you update the close and WP:RSP? nableezy - 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
If you remove the participation of the users disallowed from commenting by either ARBPIA or by being banned editors, and the user who expressed no opinion on material post-2010, the 18/30 in favor of being generally reliable becomes 11/23") But ARBPIA says "
Editors who don't meet the qualifications may however use the talkpage to "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." Thus even if this reliability discussion falls under ARBPIA, these users are perfectly entitled to contribute here. (Of the two non-confirmed users, one has 344 edits since 2014 so not exactly a newbie.) I count 26 !votes from users in good standing, of whom between 11 confirmed clearly argue for GR (14 including newer users and those who !voted for GR but didn't express a view on post-2010 period), 10 argue for GU, 2 for attribute, so the removal of socks makes no substantial difference. (b) If we junk the RfC, wouldn't that mean a return to status quo ante, i.e. general reliability? (c) The "new evidence" against is an opinion piece (it's filed under "Argument" in BylineTimes - RSN discussions here and here come to no consensus on reliability) which refers to "33 breaches" of IPSO's code, which sounds serious, but the breaches relate to a much smaller number of articles. According to the Telegraph earlier in 2021:
The letter claimed there had been 28 breaches of the Editors’ Code in three years, and that there would be “more victims” if nothing was done. In fact, IPSO says there were eight complaints upheld in the past three years, with two not upheld and two resolved through mediation.[2] (See here for extended discussion]) Most of these breaches were prior to the RfC under discussion and were referred to in the discussion. I do not oppose a new RfC but the argument of new evidence does not seem that strong. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 12:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Which of the following options should apply to the Jewish Chronicle with regards to Left-wing organisations and individuals and Muslims and Islam.with the usual 4 options. How is that covered by ARBPIA? Are JC, "left-wing organizations", Muslims, and Islam, covered by ARBPIA? I don't think so! ARBIA is not about Jews and Muslims. Levivich 16:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
So the British left is covered by ARBPIA is what you're saying?Pretty sure nobody said that except you. Selfstudier ( talk) 17:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
With Nyx86 now blocked as an Icewhiz sock ( option 1), that changes the numbers even further here, with an absolute majority now in favor of generally unreliable or wholly unreliable for the topic under discussion here. And there may be one more Icewhiz sock in that list to be blocked. But with just Nyx86 removed, that changes the math even further. Can we discard that RFC now? nableezy - 03:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it.(my understanding is that five later-discovered socks are one such example). As such, I've updated the close and (slightly more reluctantly, but in the interest of moving this forward) the associated RSP entry. Despite the socking, I think the discussion is still valid for determining the consensus on other topics/bias/attribution, but if anyone feels the rest is also too tainted then I'd suggest a WP:AN discussion would be more likely to lead to a conclusion. Hope that helps. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 15:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
@ ProcrastinatingReader and Nableezy - was this user even permitted to comment (!vote) in ARBPIA topic area? --> [4]. Total of 36 edits --> [5] - GizzyCatBella 🍁 19:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Um, guys, this section actually is not about the source's reliability at all, it was about an RFC that had been compromised due to nearly half of the supporters being socks of banned editors. If you want to start a new discussion about the sources reliability then have at it, but it aint this one. nableezy - 21:17, 11 December 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.
Not properly formed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Glenn Greenwald is an independent journalist. Even when he worked at The Intercept he published his articles without edits. He is one of the most important and influential journalists of our time. His revelations of the documents Edward Snowden provided sent a shockwave through the entire Western World about the illegal government activities of surveillance and established him as one of the most important journalists. He was working for The Guardian then (2012) but now he is independent. There was a discussion about him at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald and the conclusion was that his quoted opinions are unreliable not only because Self Published Sources are unreliable but because he is considered to have no credibility and integrity as a journalist. Since I arrived too late and my disagreement was not answered, I asked about independent journalists in general and provided this specific example at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Independent journalists. It must be noted that his position is not friendly towards president Joe Biden. So his views will not be published by the Biden-friendly media (the liberal media), and those news outlets happen to be considered Reliable Sources here. He had to leave The Intercept because they were not happy with his article about accusations against president Biden's son. The rest of the media, who is Biden-unfriendly and generally Trump-friendly, is considered to be not Reliable Sources at Wikipedia. For example Fox News and New York Post. This is not a question of reliability of Self Published Sources, it is also not about the bias of the media. This is a question of: Is Glenn Greenwald considered to have no credibility? No integrity? No honesty? Can not be trusted? Is he working for Russia? Is he pushing ideas debunked by RS? He has forsaken good journalistic practices? This is the question. Did he change and from the good journalist he was, he now became the opposite? - Barecode ( talk) 17:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Barecode, you need to read the rules for an RfC. Your introduction must be completely neutral, so you've already screwed this one up. It will need to be hatted. After you have familiarized yourself with the rules, you can try again, but also follow the advice you're getting above. See: Creating an RfC. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC) |
"I am not trying to debate Greenwald as a reliable source, I am trying to debate his credibility"← please go away and do it on some other part of the web; it's an abuse of Wikipedia and this noticeboard. Alexbrn ( talk) 08:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd personally separate Greenwald into two distinct eras, with the line being probably at the 2016 presidential election. Greenwald's career trajectory seems to have followed that of Gemma O'Doherty's – a once-respected journalist who let an understandable grudge (i.e., the arrest of his husband under terrorism legislation) push him down into crankery. The Intercept took a massive hit in its credibility for its role in the Clinton emails affair, and doubly so when they effectively outed Reality Winner as a whistleblower through rank carelessness. These days, he's a regular guest on Tucker Carlson's White Power Hour and is more concerned with Owning The Libs™ than actual journalism, which is disappointing for everyone involved. Sceptre ( talk) 10:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"Greenwald is basically a fringe self-published writer"even though the discussion was about including Greenwald's commentary that was cited in Columbia Journalism Review. That discussion led into an RFC, which didn't result in clear consensus, but the closing reminded that
" WP:BLP applies to talk pages as much as it does anywhere else on Wikipedia, and personal attacks on Greenwald (or any other living person) are equally as inappropriate as any personal attacks on Wikipedia editors."How to resolve the original question? I don't know if there are any RFC questions that could lead to a good outcome, and I would suggest Barecode drop this issue – unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea for a question. In some cases it's obvious that a certain writer in a reliable publication can quickly become unreliable (see Claas Relotius). That's not the case with Greenwald, whose opinions continue to be cited in mainstream publications, including academic research. On a case-by-case basis editors may have legitimate arguments about whether Greenwald's opinions should or shouldn't be included, but arguments that are not policy-based should be dismissed. If editors continue to disrupt discussions, conduct issues should be resolved by stern warnings, topic-bans, and such. Politrukki ( talk) 18:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
References
The conclusion of this debate Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Glenn Greenwald was that he has no credibility whatsoever, you can check above to see a very similar conclusion: "totally fails our requirements for reliability".Assuming there is a local consensus to that effect on that page, it is no way binding and Greenwald's opinions might be included if they are relevant. Therefore the statement
Such a conclusion means his opinion can't be included in any articleis incorrect.
I did not suggest carving out a one-person exception to policies. I suggested a RfC about Greenwald's unreliability.At the risk of sounding flippant... potayto, potahto. An RfC asking to deem someone's self-published writings "reliable" in the face of the plain statements of WP:SPS is asking for a one-person carveout of policy. Comparisons to RfC's about publications fall flat because, well, they're publications and he's just a person. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Can Facebook video be cited as a source for a particular statement? I mean is a facebook video regarded as verifiable? ― Itcouldbepossible Talk 13:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
My local TV stations are carrying a lot of ads and infomercials for "Cefaly". You can find them on Amazon as well. Similar devices are sold under the names Nerivio, GammaCore, SpringTMS, etc. See www.cefaly.com
Searching Wikipedia I found Neurostimulation#Transcutaneous supraorbital nerve stimulation, which has two citations to Cephalalgia: An International Journal of Headache. [7] [8]
I also found these through a web search: [9] [10]
Is Cephalalgia a reliable source for medical claims? Are the claims in the Neurostimulation article supported by reliable sources?
I am skeptical when I hear about a magic cure for migraines that [A] looks like a Star Trek prop, and [B] I hear about in an infomercial, not a doctor's office. 04:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC) 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:B892:A3AE:BEB5:E8A9 ( talk)
In a GA-class article I'm currently translating from French, I've stumbled upon a rather interesting biography, which is very detailed, about the Premier of Quebec. The problem is, the article is anonymous and the person who is responsible for editing it is some priest in Shawinigan belonging to the League for Catholic Counter-Reformation, which makes me a little sceptical of whether it is a reliable source. I expect it to be biased in favour of Maurice Duplessis (he was a conservative and strongly supportive of the Catholic Church after all), but my thoughts are more about reliability as a source, and, if unusable for the text, whether it's OK to include it in external links.
I would also like you to decipher the "RCC" and "RC" at the bottom of the biogram. Thanks, Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 22:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
A buddy of mine is all exited about this:
Which led me to this:
My immediate reaction was that I would have heard about such a "Fountain of youth pill" from a well-known reliable source, not some random webpage's clickbait.
To help me give my friend a good answer, I would like to hear opinions about the general reliability of studyfinds.org, the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai, and the journal Nature Metabolism. Can any of them be trusted for as sources for medical breakthroughs? I already know about not relying on a single study, but is the study even legit? The ethics declaration [12] is especially interesting.
Our article on Grape seed extract says "Grape seed extract is sold in dietary supplement form and claimed to have numerous health benefits, none of which is supported by sufficient medical evidence" and cites this [13], but this page
makes it sound like a miracle cure.
14:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC) 2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:112B:2AF6:FEE5:339D ( talk)
My first feeling is that the site is reliable, but I am not sure. I didn't like the many advertisements all over the page. This tells me that is prone to sensationalism and click-baits. Why wont your buddy cite the article at nature metabolism instead? Cinadon 36 14:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello!
I'm of the belief that Fandom.com Wiki pages should be allowed to be cited in References in certain cases.
A blanket ban on them all for References seems extreme. For many niche or cult television shows they frequently have some of the best info around.
A good example being Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki, which is one of the best sources of information for that series.
Further, we already allow External links to Fandom.com sites, like the aforementioned Memory Alpha at the bottom of all the Trek pages. That's a pretty clear implication that they are useful to some extent.
The use case I've recently had is that a wiki page for a kid's show, Paw Patrol, had a more detailed synopsis & crucially a complete cast list with the actor listed whose article I was trying to include the Reference for.
Neither our Wikipedia page nor IMDB have complete cast lists with the actor listed.
I wanted to include the simple Reference to the Paw Patrol Wiki to confirm that the actor was in the mentioned episode.
There appears to be no other sources to back it up.
I guess one could go to edit the existing Paw Patrol page to include all the available info but that seems unnecessarily circuitous & beyond my scope of interest.
I should point out I actually did due diligence & went to the trouble of checking the episode in question & the actor is indeed listed. So I know the information is correct.
The page edits in question:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Melanie_Leishman&action=history
I've tried including the References & had it deleted. I then re-worded to specifically point out it was an detailed cast list & synopsis link, Deleted again I reverted that deletion & asked to discuss with the Editor only for them to unilaterally revert a third time, something I was under the impression we were not supposed to do.
This repeated deletion is my first interaction with another Editor here & it's not been a fun one.
I could understand if I was wanting to cite a Fandom.com site to prove an outrageous assertion like George Washington was a cannibal but I just want to use one as a Reference for proof of an actor's role.
I believe context should play a role, as seemingly indicated on the Reliable sources/Perennial sources Page.
I'm not looking to make waves here, all I wanted to do was try & help by expanding some articles & not get caught up in bureaucracy. I was actually having fun until this broke out & over something so trivial. :(
Any help & thoughts appreciated.
LooksGreatInATurtleNeck ( talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
"For many years, Background Magazine used to be an international magazine (printed on paper)". I haven't been able to find these any print issues of this magazine so is this website reliable?
Sikonmina (
talk) 05:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 02:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit gobsmacked that this is even a question, but apparently it is? Am I wrong? We're having a discussion at Talk:Nirvana (band)#The recent genre dispute about including or removing "hard rock" from the genre field in the infobox. It was in the article, and the citation used contained a link to an archived version from 2017 and the current page as it appears now. The "hard rock" genre namedrop has disappeared as Allmusic.com has revised its entry on the band in the ensuing 4 years, but some editors still want to fall back on archived version as a valid citation. There's a question whether Allmusic is even usable here, per WP:ALLMUSIC, but even if it was, can an old version of an article trump the current one? Zaathras ( talk) 03:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the demographic data published by the Joshua Project reliable? Alaexis ¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
It's been discussed many times in the past
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 350#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#Duane Alexander Miller, Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 163#Joshuaproject.net,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 80#Reliability of the Joshua Project as source,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 74#Joshua_Project,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Is Joshua Project reliable?,
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Joshua Project. As far as I can gauge it, the consensus has been that it's unreliable. It's still being used so I'd like to add it to the WP:RSP list.
Alaexis
¿question? 13:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Articles seem to be fact checked and include references to many reputable papers/journals. Can they be considered review articles? Do they meet the WP:MEDRS standard? Thanks -- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 12:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
All Medical News Today content is medically reviewed or fact checked to ensure that it is as accurate as possible. We have strict sourcing guidelines and only link to other reputable media sites, educational institutions, and, whenever possible, peer-reviewed studies.-- {{u| Gtoffoletto}} talk 10:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r04o5GPErPw&t=15s
This video is quite important to the section on 'Citizenship deprivation'. It was originally published by the BBC but is now found on Cage's YouTube channel. Rfc please, if it is therefore suitable for use in the above mentioned section. Amirah talk 16:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
It was discussed before here, but I think it should be added to the source list so people can know if it is reliable or not. Sahaib3005 ( talk) 17:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Previously discussed, no consensus was made. Hence trying to revive it. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#Reliability of Somoy News. -- Tame ( talk) 06:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
This source is authored by some amateur historian. Jstor.org and google.scholar provide no reviews on his book. The book was cited 5 times by the sources that have just one citation. The online version was cited 19 times by low level publications. The author's methodology is simple: he combines whatever he could find on the topic (a number of deaths) and calculates a median value of published figures. This approach is a more primitive version of Rummel's approach. Rummel, who, in contrast to White, is an expert in statistical methods, used a more sophisticated approach, thus he included only independent sources (i.e. the publications that presented figures obtained independently from each other: if different publications cite the same figure, Rummel took only one of them). In contrast, White, being an amateur, does not apply this filter to the data. That can be easily seen, because he cites Rummel.
To understand how ridiculous is the idea to cite Rummel for this purpose, one must keep in mind that Rummel did the same job as White, but in a more professional way: his data are already the median value of previously published figures. The fact that White does not understand and uses Rummel as an independent data point implies his insufficient professionalism.
Furthermore, White performs no critical analysis of sources, he just collects whatever he could find on each concrete topic. In summary, the quality of White's data cannot be higher (and, usually, it is even lower) that the quality of the data collected by Wikipedians themselves.
In connection to that, I am asking if we really need to use the source authored by this amateur, who is doing essentially what every Wikipedian can do: collect the data and calculate a median value? I propose not to use White. Instead, I propose to use the sources he cites and use them along with other high quality secondary sources. I think we should respect themselves and not use the data assembled by amateurs.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I just split out an article from another page and the page creation process triggered edit filter 869 for deprecated sources, but the log report doesn’t tell me which sources are deprecated. Could someone help me figure this out? Viriditas ( talk) 00:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
In the meantime, you can use WP:UPSD, which will highlight deprecated sources amongst others. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like your thoughts and opinion on the source that I am about to discuss. I came across this source on couple of articles related to Durrani Empire Emperors. Here is the link to the entire book/source.
[14]. At first glance, I didn't pay much attention but when I started reading it for verification, I found the book to be written with great prejudice against non-Muslims (calling them Kafirs and infidels), bias, exaggerated, and has misrepresentation of facts. So it led me to read the introduction of book where details about the author and the history behind the book is given and this is where I realized why this source is highly unreliable as the book was politically motivated. This book was written on the order of Emir (King/Emperor) of Afghanistan,
Habibullah Khan, by "Afghan Court Chronicle", Faiz Mohammed Kateb Hazara, who was originally a copyist and was hired by Emir
Habibullah Khan as a scribe and copyist. Here are some details directly from the introduction that proves its unreliability.
1. The book was Amir’s idea for commissioning a history of Afghanistan and his choosing Fayz Muhammad to produce it. (xxxii). We will probably never know why the Prince (before becoming Emir) settled on this Hazarah Shiʿi (talking about Fayz), who was then in his late thirties or early forties, as the best candidate to write the history of Afghanistan. It seems on the surface an unusual choice. (xxxiii)
2. Reason behind commissioning a history book: Hasan Kakar has written that it was in part disgust at the “licentious life” of the amir that gave rise to a brief and abortive constitutional movement in Kabul. But Habib Allah Khan was also a very canny politician and it was sound political instinct that led him to commission a history of the country, in part to create a story of the past that gave meaning to his father’s brutal attempts at forging a nation, and in part to validate his own tenuous position as absolute monarch. All we really know for certain about Habib Allah’s plan are his own words, as recorded by Fayz Muhammad, at the beginning of the Sirāj al-tawārīkh. (xxxiv)
3. The amir expected to have full control over the finished product and to review the work in progress. We know with reasonable certainty how this control was exerted in the case of the third volume of the Sirāj. The Tuḥfat, however, and the first two volumes of Sirāj were reviewed, edited or censored, and sent back for revisions somewhat differently. (xxxvii)
4. In the case of Tuḥfat al-Ḥabīb and the first two volumes of Sirāj al-tawārīkh, it appears that Fayz Muhammad submitted the volumes entire and in a final draft and these were what were read and edited by the amir and others and by copy editors whose specialties were the Arabic and Persian usages. (xxxvii)
5. Unpleasant truths were systematically eliminated. (xcvi) An attempt would be made to control not just his output but the very sources to which Fayz Muhammad had access.(xxxviii)
Given the scope of the work and Fayz Muhammad’s proximity to people at court, he probably also received many more solicited and unsolicited anecdotes and much advice as he worked. (xci)
6. Biased Sources: These may also have been the same men Amir Habib Allah assigned to keep an eye on the work and its progress. Fayz Muhammad names three of them “and others.” The three named were Sardar Muhammad Yusuf Khan, the nineteenth son of Amir Dust Muhammad Khan; Qazi Saʿd al Din Khan, son of Qazi ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan; and Sardar Nur ʿAli Khan, the son of Sardar Shayr ʿAli Khan Qandahari. All three were Barakzaʾi Durranis. The first and third were of the Muhammadzaʾi branch of the Barakzaʾi and the first and second had already been involved as supervisors of the Tuḥfat al-Ḥabīb.
7. The reader should be aware that Fayz Muhammad always had some one looking over his shoulder as he worked. These included the people that have been identified above as well as others not identified, no doubt including the official(s) in charge of the archives and any number of kibitz ers and courtiers who might have thought they had something to add or some change to suggest as Fayz Muhammad’s work progressed. (xcvi)
8. The amir himself would have been obliged to read more carefully for errors of commission or interpretation. (xcvii)
9. Example of censorships by the Amir when reviewing the draft:
The first of these substantial deletions is worth repeating here because of the consequences it had on text that followed. While he (ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan) was on the march a letter from Griffin reached him saying, “Come to Kabul as quickly as you can and adorn the throne of authority.” In reply to this letter, he wrote, “I have high hopes of the English government and I sincerely offer my friendship. Yet the people of Afghanistan consider it one of the habits and tendencies of the great (English) government that the words of a person whom they don’t know negotiating about their wel fare (those words) often bear no fruit. The people who are with me wanted to know before allowing a response to his [Griffin’s] emissary six things: first, where will the borders of Afghanistan be? Second, will Qandahar be part of Afghanistan or separated from it? Third, will an Englishman reside in Afghani stan? Fourth, will the English government expect me to take up arms against her enemies? Fifth, what benefits will the English government promise me and the people of Afghanistan? Sixth, in return for such benefits, what services does the English government expect that the answer to these questions will impose on my fellow tribesmen and co-religionists as obligations so that I can obtain their trust to the extent that will make it possible to fulfill these things. Then I will seek the approval of these terms which are possible to fulfill and although the English government is not so in need (now), one day when the necessary occasions arise I will serve that government along with my people. The end. By the time Amir Habib Allah Khan was reading the text, it may have sounded far too solicitous of English interests. He did not want his father to appear to have been willing to bargain away border claims, hint at a willingness to give up Qandahar, or worst of all, to show himself ready to fight with the English against its enemies (i.e. Russia). But having deleted this he then had to delete all the references that follow concerning Griffin’s replies to the six points raised by the letter. These are major deletions totaling some seven pages of manuscript and more than 1,600 words. (xcix)
10. Here is another example of censorship:
We find a detail in volume two deleted for no explicable reason. (Again, the deletion is in italics.) “Meantime, Yar Muhammad, a merchant who resided at Tashqurghan, came to Sardar ʿAbd al-Rahman Khan with many splendid gifts, an act which caused the sardar to wonder, ‘Why, of all the people of that region would this person come to me bearing gifts?” Eventually, he discovered that Shayr Dil Khan Luynab, a former governor of Balkh, had entrusted a sum of money—four thousand Russian tillas, ten thousand Bukharan tillas, sixty thousand Kabuli rupees, two thousand balīt, each one of which was worth one hundred rupees, from government coffers (the treasury of Balkh) to this merchant and the merchant himself having informed the sardar of this, the sardar sent Faramarz Khan, a ghulam-slave of his, with the man to bring all the money from Tashqurghan.” What would have possessed someone to delete this section? Was it because he checked the documents and could not find these details? Or did the episode somehow reflect badly on Amir Habib Allah Khan’s father because the passage implies that he accepted a large sum of government money for his own use? This is a general problem with explaining the deletions. It is not clear what motivated the amir or the other readers to remove what seem often to be wholly innocuous passages while allowing to stand the long detailed sections on his father’s brutal mistreatment of the Hazarahs. (xcviii)
11. Drafting the Sirāj, presenting it for review, re-writing it to satisfy the reviewers and the amir, and then dealing with the typesetter would have kept Fayz Muhammad fully occupied. He was also assiduously collecting material for the projected volume four, the volume to be devoted to Habib Allah Khan’s reign. (xlix)
So based on some of the points that I provided directly from the introduction of the book, would you consider this source reliable or unreliable?
MehmoodS (
talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
People magazine copied the Daily Mirror on a story that was cited on Cate Blanchett#Personal life. Many other websites copied the Daily Mirror also. I found Wikipedia:Reliable sources that contradict that story. Demote People magazine. ... 0mtwb9gd5wx ( talk) 05:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I found this recently added by User:PSYCHREL: "However, reconstructions of ancestral character states using time-calibrated supertrees based on published phylogenetic trees and linguistic classification indicated that the earliest trait of religion, present in the most recent common ancestor of modern hunter-gatherers, was animism. [1] Following the development of belief in an afterlife, shamanism and ancestor worship developed. [1]"
Besides the fact that you seem to need to be an expert to understand it (see Ancestral reconstruction for an explanation and a mention of its flaws and of course Phylogenetic tree) the only paper I can see discussing it is this [15] which doesn't mention the claim. Doug Weller talk 17:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Any thoughts about the reliability of this source? (The published name is ... really unhelpful for my half-hearted efforts to determine if they're a serious outfit.) It's currently the only independent source being used on the BLP Ross Bolleter. -- JBL ( talk) 00:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Planning to refer article ' Rape Jokes In Popular Culture: The Violation Of Consent Is Not Funny In Any Context~ Jyni Verma ' in Sexual consent related articles.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 03:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
As a society, we tend to validate rape jokes and continue to give space for them) and the fact that its author is not a professional journalist. Per WP:RSEDITORIAL, it's not reliable for factual claims; it is only reliable for the attributed opinions of its author, provided that they are WP:DUE. JBchrch talk 05:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the
Enciclopedia d'arte italiana a relibale source for biographical articles? The article we have on it says that Entries are edited by a scientific technical committee
. It's website
https://www.enciclopediadarte.eu/eng/info.asp says that In this contest artists are allowed to introduce their biography, photos of works with their quotations, reviews and events during the past years.Each artists could decide on his own the literature to publish.
Vexations (
talk) 12:06, 16 December 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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of theaerodrome.com?
The website theaerodrome.com is currently referenced in over 500 1500 articles chiefly related to World War I aviation (
[21] search), including articles assessed as GA-class (e.g.
Friedrich Ritter von Röth). It has been previously discussed on WP:RSN twice, first
here and later (very briefly)
here. A recent
attempt to establish local consensus at
WT:MILHIST was closed with instructions to discuss the topic here.
-
Ljleppan (
talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC); upd. reference count 07:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
NB: I'm new to both RfCs and WP:RSN, so please let me know if I have made any procedural mistakes, if this is not the proper format/forum, or you have a suggestion on how to better phrase the options above. - Ljleppan ( talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
the forum, of course, is off-limitsextend to the articles linked from the "Articles" box of e.g. this page? Note the addresses of the individual articles are .../forum/.... - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Source: IWMBuzz.com – partial disclosure of funding here.
Past discussions:
A few examples for Articles/Content:
IWMBuzz.com is used in about 300 articles, sometimes for simple non-controversial verification (filmographies, ratings, awards given by the source itself) but other times for subjective PR-puffing statements for which they have a conflict of interest. I feel that a cautionary yellowlisting at perennial sources with links to the above discussions is warranted, to raise awareness of potential issues. Thanks. – Reidgreg ( talk) 19:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 22:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
― Kaleeb18 TalkCaleb 21:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Source: [ [25]] Article: Getatchew Mekurya biography musical artist passed away in 2016 Content: also see talkpage Talk:Getatchew_Mekurya#Contradicting_sources_about_what_he_played_first
The Wire comes with new information about Getatchew Mekurya in 2017, source is based on Terp label which he worked with, it looks reliable source. It claims Nobody in Ethiopia has really seen these pictures or knows about the whole history – just lack of media
it contradicts on some points from earlier sources such as the NYT article [
[26]] about his early life when he decided to take up the sax, what instruments he played. The Wire comes with new info that i have not seen in other sources such as being an actor in the 50's as a standout.
It's probably not contentious, if i just combine the new findings from Wire with earlier sources, it's just that some of the new findings is only mentioned by The Wire. Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 07:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Update i would also add i couldn't find Amharic articles that mentions the new findings of The Wire (about alleged acting background, playing the flute, hearing the sax on the radio and then deciding it was the instrument of choice etc). Dawit S Gondaria ( talk) 08:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Wire is a very high quality source on music itself, but for details like this that are contradicted elsewhere I might wonder a bit. I would assume the writer repeated what the source told them, but didn't investigate too much further. I'd state it with attribution if using it - David Gerard ( talk) 13:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The Wire is a highly reliable music publication. The claims in their article is not from their research, it comes from a label and a band that worked very close with the subject and I would assume it's more accurate than the NYT obituary given that it's from a source closer to the subject. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The wire is one of the highest quality music publications there is in general, but if two reliable sources contradict then best to use clear attribution and show what sources the reliable sources themselves use. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 18:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Several RSs, including AP, CNN, the BBC and PBS have documented evidence of a Chinese government cover-up of the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan. This evidence includes accidentally released and leaked documents from the Chinese government (threatening "harsh punishment" for any scientist sharing data), and secret recordings of WHO officials (like Mike Ryan). How much more evidence do we need in order to call this a cover-up in Wikivoice, like the American cover-up of Japanese war crimes, and to have a page on it as a notable set of allegations, like Allegations of CIA drug trafficking? This is a sister post of a complaint I filed in ANI about the Inappropriate closing of an MR discussion that sought to cover up the cover-up allegation on Wikipedia. Gimiv ( talk) 15:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"You can never guarantee 100% transparency. It's not just about any intentional cover-up, you are also constrained with by technology and other issues with a novel virus."Articles saying that the Chinese government was initially secretive and slow to cooperate are not at all the same as articles saying there was some sort of cover-up - the latter implies something specific was being intentionally concealed and is therefore an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim requiring sources that actually say that. I'm not seeing that here at a glance (but, again, it's a better question for eg. WP:NPOVN or WP:FRINGEN or other noticeboards that look at and evaluate what the sources actually say and how closely we're adhering to that in more depth.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Others have covered the fact that these sources do not say there was a cover-up, but I want to raise another issue. There has been a proliferation of these sorts of WP:POVFORK articles, which look like they're written in order to give certain political views Wikipedia's imprimatur. They often cite real sources, but they weave them together in order to try to make an argument that's not clear from the sources. Anyone could write an article entitled, US COVID-19 cover-up, citing Trump's statement to Woodward that he (Trump) intentionally downplayed the seriousness of the virus ( [27]). But should Wikipedia have such an article? - Thucydides411 ( talk) 19:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I am working on an article about composer and pianist Katherine Ruth Heyman (1877–1944) and I'm currently gathering relevant sources to use. There are not a lot of sources that go into this great detail about her, but there is an episode of a podcast by Matt Marble, author of a biography on Arthur Russell which was published by a legitimate looking publisher and a PhD in music composition from Prinston University.
I probably wouldn't have any concerns citing an article by him, but I feel like citing a podcast is different, even though it's mostly just a narrated article. Obviously, I would include appropriate timestamps when citing it. My question is basically, is this a valid SPS for a professional in the field?
Marble, Matt (July 4, 2018). Her Dreaming Fingers (Katherine Ruth Heyman). Secret Sound (Podcast). 2. RoseCherry64 ( talk) 10:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Executive summary: the listing for Discogs at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is way off base and needs a serious update, regarding material backed by photos.
So, Discogs is listed at "Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources" as "Generally unreliable" ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used... Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate"), and the blurb is "The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate."
This is entirely accurate and correct as far as it goes.
The discographies and track listings, when backed up by photos (which is usual), are extremely reliable. The photos are 100% legit and what could be more reliable than a photo. Of course the labels could be wrong, but so could title pages of books etc. -- vanishingly rare. And track listing etc. are the primary, or anyway a major, use of the source.
For instance, here is the track listing for The Who Sell Out. I don't know who writes those, but they could be made up or just sloppy I suppose. However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listing (essentially 100% of the time) and also gives, usually, songwriting and producing credits and the catalog number etc. (There isn't a separate URL for the photos.) I haven't yet seen any record which doesn' have photos like this.
The back cover is sometimes shown too, which back covers are 100% reliable for their contents ("According to the liner notes, it was recorded at sea") and >99% for their statements ("It was recorded at sea") which is plenty reliable.
So, the rating and blurb is not true. 'We need to update the listing at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources I would say.
Exactly how I'm not sure. Since half of Discogs is essentially useless and half is really reliable, I'd split it into two lines. Not likely as we're hidebound here, so let's assume one line. We'd want to rewrite the blub ("...except for material, such as discographies, track listings, and credits, when backed by photographs") or whatever. Then the icon... probably should be changed to, I don't know, "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise", it' "areas of expertise" being record labels and jackets. There isn't an icon for "Half the material is essentially useless, and half is very reliable", so that's closest I guess.
Yes? Herostratus ( talk) 19:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
However, if you click on the "more images" link, you'll come to a photo of the labels on the vinyl disc, which backs up the written track listingOk, so the source here is the labels on the disc and other information present on the album cover (the " liner notes"), and Discogs happens to host a picture of this source. Even though liner notes are a WP:PRIMARY source, I guess they are the most reliable source for information about an album. IMO a rough proposed amendment could be "Although the information on Discogs is user-generated content, Discogs often hosts pictures of an album's liner notes, which can be used as a source". JBchrch talk 20:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
|url=
(Discogs includes a "Permalink" for the actual image
[28]) and identified with |via=Discogs
for those needing proof. —
Ojorojo (
talk) 15:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In my experience, Discogs is very good for primary information: the stuff which can be lifted from a label or sleeve. For want of anything better, I imagine it's OK for details of parallel releases; though as I've never seen the need to use those, I've never checked. My concern is about Discogs hyperlinks, e.g. for songwriters and personnel (which, as a DABfixer, is what I usually find myself looking at). They generally seem good; but there's no guarantee that, say, the John Smith credited on a recording is actually the John Smith (57) or whoever at the other end of a hyperlink, and I prefer to have confirmatory evidence if I can get it. I treat biographical information as pure UGC, and never touch it (though it can be useful as confirmatory evidence). Narky Blert ( talk) 06:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
No, just cite the album jacket directly. Don't cite user generated photos/uploads. Sergecross73 msg me 14:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Discogs is very useful, and where I always begin when I start album articles, but I agree with the previous discussion, consensus, etc. I generally cut and paste the song titles, for example, and then confirm via the images, and so often--or often enough--things are misspelled, out of order (even when accounting for specific releases/countries), missing symbols, etc. Or the song lengths don't match up to the images, so there's the discrepancy of the images being "correct", and the linked page being "wrong". Minor stuff, but I don't think it's any kind of burden to continue to cite the AV way, if necessary, or for Discogs to be under the external links, but am open to the discussion. To add a somewhat related wrinkle, I've come across a few times where the Discogs images are quite poor, or not there, and yet the eBay ones are great, ha... Caro7200 ( talk) 14:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems like there is consensus that pictures hosted on Discogs may be used as primary sources, using the appropriate templates. I've boldly edited WP:DISCOGS the RSP entry for Discogs to reflect this:
[29]. Feedback is welcome. (I have not added a link to this discussion since, as I understand it, this will have to be done once this discussion is archived.)
JBchrch
talk 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
|via=
to Discogs) by bot or AWB.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)we really can't assume thatis that this line of reasoning would lead us to prohibit links to Commons, because Commons hosts a lot of copyrighted content for sure. JBchrch talk 16:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the "no references" point. If you're citing the record-jacket, you should cite the record jacket. If you're citing the disc label, you should site the disc label. You should provide enough details in you references that other are able to work out what you're citing. For example, since the details may vary in between different releases, you should specify which release you're referring to. But there's never any need to a link to the source, sources do not have to be online, or even easy to access and the absence of a convience link doesn't make the source invalid.
Although Jayron32 has already pointed this out, there seems to be remaining confusion about what editors are actually citing here. If discogs is simply hosting photos or scans of disc labels or record-jackets, they're not being used as a source. They are simply a convience link for the actual soruce which is the disc label or record jacket. Of course editors need to have actually seen the source in some way to be able to cite it, and generally they should be able to help others e.g. with a copy if needed to aide verification.
Google Books was already given as an example but this confusion arises in a lot of cases. For example with YouTube unless it's content specifically released on YouTube then most of the time YouTube is irrelevant. If the content appears to have been YouTube without the copyright holders permission e.g. a documentary, then the YouTube link is out. But if the documentary is reliable then it's fine to cite it without the YouTube link.
A few months ago someone was asking about a newspaper scan or photo on some user generated site which seemed to lead to similar confusion. As IIRC I pointed out at the time, if the newspaper was a reliable source than if there was sufficient information on the newspaper, date etc the article could be cited. The fact that the user generated site was not a reliable source was mostly irrelevant. The only relevance was if this scan was the only copy anyone on Wikipedia had ever seen, given we had no real idea of the providence of this scan, then possibly it should stay out until someone can independently verify the scan was accurate. Either way possibly the convience link of the scan would need to stay out, but that didn't make the source invalid.
This is perhaps the only issue where discogs seems to matter when it comes to reliability issues. Do we trust the process discogs uses enough such that if the only place an editor has seen the alleged record jacket is via an image on discogs, this is acceptable? I have no idea, but whatever we decide, although this touches on the reliability of discogs to some extent, discogs still isn't the source we are citing, it's still the record jacket or whatever.
Note that while we do not allow link to sites violation copyright, we generally do not forbid editors from citing a source just because they likely violated copyright to obtain it. E.g. we won't be linking to content from Sci-Hub and I don't think we should even be encouraging editors to use it in any way but if someone has I don't think this makes their citations invalid since despite the murky nature of Sci-Hub, it seems unlikely that they're modifying content. We don't generally ask editors how they obtained access to a source anyway, there's actually a fair amount of trust built into the system and ultimately editors do need to use their judgment on whether they can be sure the copy they obtained could have been modified in some way or even is simply fake.
What's the copyright position on linking to photographs? EddieHugh ( talk) 20:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
So here is my suggestion. In the main rule we currently have
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.
For the main rule here's my suggestion (bolded text is to show changes, not to be put in the actual text):
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable except for photographs. There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate. A 2021 discussion permitted the use of photographs[Note 1]
.
Then, way at the bottom of the page, in smaller font, pointed to by the "[Note 1]", we can stretch out as much we want. So something maybe like:
By current consensus, photographs hosted by Discogs are considered reliable representations of the work in question. Generally, audio recordings do not need citations, as the citation is to the work itself (e.g <ref>''The Who Strike Out'' (1968 Decca edition), liner notes</ref>). However, as a convenience for the reader, a reference pointing to a photograph of a record/CD/tape label (only) hosted on Discogs may be included (although never required). Photographs on Discogs of anything other than labels should not be linked to directly, as there's no consensus that Discogs is necessarily hosting them legitimately. {{ Cite AV media}} is the usual and recommended template for references any photographs, including photographs hosted on Discogs. (N.B. Discogs provides a "permalink" button for referencing individual photographs directly.)
I think that ncluding a photo would help, for instance as show here. Not sure if footnotes can include image files.
I tend prolix, so maybe my suggestions are too long, and improvements welcome, but we do want to be clear about what we're talking about. You know how some people can ruleslawer. Any changes, fine, count me in, let's keep moving. Herostratus ( talk) 19:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Edited and cut it down some. 04:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
The content on Discogs is user-generated, and is therefore generally unreliable. However, images of album labels and liner notes hosted on Discogs are reliable sources of the information contained in them.[Note 1] There was consensus against deprecating Discogs in a 2019 RfC, as editors noted that external links to the site may be appropriate.
OK, but I mean, a lot Wikipedia editors won't accept references to a work for music, as they do for books and films. They just won't, is all; I don't know why, but you can't make them. But there's proof in Discogs (and frequently nowhere else). But RSP says "Never use Discogs for anything, ever". So that's out. I mean I had a nice article on a band, band probably meets NBAND and all, nominated partly on grounds of containing several refs to Discogs. I explained the situation, but the response was basically "The rule is the we are not allowed to use Discogs, period, and you are not going to change my mind". And the article was indeed destroyed. So Discogs is out, it's toxic. No refs in running text is not going pass muster. So the only way around this is to not write articles about musicians, which I, having written several, will now do. I'm not up for working two days on an article just to lose it. How this is a win I can't see, but whatever. Herostratus ( talk) 05:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
There is not a simple discuss on reliability of HeroicHollywood.com [31]. What do you think about this website? Reiro ( talk) 11:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, this is about [32]. Hotpine claims that the source would be unreliable for the claim made. tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:RSPSS lists The Daily Dot as "generally reliable for internet culture", and I would broadly agree. However, I still think that additional discretion is warranted when using the source.
As per the Wikipedia article for internet culture, the term is rather vague without well-defined boundaries which would make the statement "generally reliable for internet culture" to be somewhat problematic. The Daily Dot does sort their stories by category including by " Internet Culture", but the tag is also found in many articles that may not specifically be about internet culture (example 1 2) or where it merely touches upon it briefly and isn't the main focus. Secondly, while I agree that their straight news reporting on internet trends is usually good, a lot of their articles are highly opinionated without disclosure. Many of their features engage in heavy analysis and commentary (ex. attributing motives*, dubbing others " Karens" and things " cringeworthy" without quotes, etc.) without properly labelling such articles. They do have articles that are labelled as such, but many of them lack such delineation. They have also been mentioned in a previous discussion as well as the Wikipedia article to have a political slant in reporting. (*For clarity, I don't disagree with the accusations of being transphobic, but the article is also heavy on analysis/commentary as well as content that would pose BLP issues while not explicitly labelled as Opinion or Analysis)
While I don't think this means that it should not be considered "generally reliable", I still think that extra care should be taken when citing articles from The Daily Dot. They are great when breaking news about topics that are trending strictly in cyberspace, but I would generally take care to always default to attribution unless multiple sources are available - especially since they can be highly opinionated during reporting coupled with the fact they are often one of the only sources deemed reliable to cover certain niche internet topics. Dankmemes2 ( talk) 22:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
mixing of subjective claims/assessment/editor opinion with fact(something I completely disagree with and don't think any of the presented examples really support, hence why I pointed to similar language from obvious WP:RSes), but even if you can object to one or two of the twelve citations to it I linked, I included multiple academic sources using it for what we would consider BLP-sensitive remarks in the specific area where you implied their reputation would be insufficient to support that usage. To respond to that you need to actually point to actual mainstream coverage of the Daily Dot that reflects your concerns, especially since I've demonstrated that its stature is sufficient that that coverage should clearly exist if your expressed concerns are grounded in fact. WP:RS is ultimately about whether a source has a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, not about whether you like their tone or agree with the language they use. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This news story explained 2019 film Joker, showing why Arkham Asylum is renamed Arkham state hospital, homage elements of The dark knight. The source of these is Warner Bros. Korea, the distribution company of that film. They handed out some explainations of Joker, news story above reported it. I think it is because it's difficult to contact English news stories from Collider (website) in S.Korea, briefly introduced some information in Korean language. (But renaming Arkham Asylum only looked there). Is it reliable? --17:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
This particular source is used in the Princes in the Tower article.
The Clements Markham article is quite extensive and at FA level. Thoughts? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 19:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am keeping track of all kind of orbital launch vehicles in my userspace - User:Barecode/Launch vehicles and I just found a new rocket named Darwin-1 developed by Rocket Pi. Global Times says "Rocket Pi's founder, the firm also plans to launch its first liquid-fuel carrier rocket codenamed Darwin-1 in 2023" so I wanted to link that article but I'm not allowed. I noticed other articles about technology like one mentioning "Chinese smartphone makers saw a rapid expansion in the second quarter of this year, as Xiaomi ranked No.2 for the first time in the global smartphone market". Why are links to such articles not allowed on Wikipedia, not even in the user space? Is GT publishing false or fabricated information about mobile phones, computers, satellites or space launchers? -- Barecode ( talk) 09:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
publish false or fabricated information. User space use is certainly allowed though, but I suppose it doesn't make much sense because you won't really use it in mainspace anyways. What do you mean
but I'm not allowed? Mvbaron ( talk) 09:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Fox News for example is banned for political and scientifical information onlyis not true. The consensus is that there should be additional consideration applied when sourcing from Fox News on those topics, particularly for contentious facts. This is different than, say, Rolling Stone, where politics coverage in the magazine is considered to be generally unreliable ever since around 2011. Global Times is worse. It is considered to be so unreliable and prone to misuse by editors that it is deprecated as a source for facts. GT is generally more unhinged in its writings than Xinhua or People's Daily and its editorial line is more jingoistic than the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which leads to the source being misused to try to convey what the central party actually thinks on an issue—it's really a CCP-run tabloid that faces all the pitfalls of tabloid journalism plus the pitfalls of being run by the Communist Party of China. Something like Caixin or SCMP are significantly better for Chinese technology than GT. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)