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 390 | ← | Archive 394 | Archive 395 | Archive 396 | Archive 397 | Archive 398 | → | Archive 400 |
User:David Gerard keeps removing a Daily Mail source I added to One Pair of Eyes (TV series). It isn't the only source for that episode either, and it follows the guidelines.
That's all David seems to do... Removing references from sources like Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Star, News of the World, Metro, GB News etc which have all been listed as Generally Unreliable or Deprecated by this liberal community, without reading them.
Even though I see mistakes from left wing sources like The Guardian and The Independent every single time I read a story from them.
The reliable source guidelines [ [1]] here says:
"The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context."
And then the linked About-Self Hashion section in those Daily Mail guidelines here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which says:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
Danstarr69 ( talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. What that means is that an article by Shirley Conran can be used as a source for information about herself. Not about the show she worked on. Andre 🚐 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
What needs sourced, that "Danger at Work" was episode 35, or that it was presented by Shirley Conran? Gimmetrow 03:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
To the people commenting in this section, what is being said about the actual validity of the source for this specific statement? Are the actual claim here that the Daily Mail wrote a fake article and published it under the name of some lady, with completely fictitious quotes talking about a TV show she made? This seems both implausible and easy to confirm/disprove: can't we just ask her if that's what she said? jp× g 04:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Extensive timewasting from blocked sockpuppet account
|
---|
This needs closing, the place to discuss user conduct is not here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:15, 18 January 2023 (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.
The sources cited for tagging Marjorie Taylor Green a "far-right conspiracy theorist," are HIGHLY biased. It is improper for Wikipedia to state AS FACT, something that comes from such biased sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Ariadne5844 ( talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Sadly this is treated as a reliable source in many articles. [2] Maybe some of the authors are experts, I didn't find any. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
what is the reliability of this website [3] when i googled it says, "Chinese Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia website involving all Chinese knowledge fields, providing you with the latest and most complete Chinese encyclopedia entry knowledge." I'm not aware whether its user generated site or not. Can it be considered reliable for citing as a source for a Chinese artist? Arorapriyansh333 ( talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this website a reliable source for anything, in particular a BLP? [4] No author and its Facebook site makes me think it's more or less a personal website. [5]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Could use a wider perspective here - this site "thisis50.com" seems to be popping up quite frequently alongside known SEO/PR sites that pretend to be news. It's usually pretty easy to spot these kinds of SEO sinks, but this one appears to be different: it seems to be group blog created by 50 Cent and others, branding itself a "Top Entertainment & Hip-hop Blog." It's not clear how any of the names being dropped are still involved on the site.
While there may be legitimate content in there somewhere, there is a tremendous amount of material that is PR/SEO puffery, and is not clearly labeled as paid content, nor is there any hint of an editorial process. Worse, there are dozens of ads for paid placement on other PR sites (examples: [8], [9]). There are also SEO "experts" on fiverr and other gig sites promoting the same "guaranteed placement".
Since there's no attempt to distinguish the paid placement from any legitimate content, if any, I'd like to start removing the 230+ references to this source, but would like to make sure I'm not missing anything, given the context. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor claims the Mint (newspaper) and Open (Indian magazine) to be "not reliable newspaper sources" as per "wikepedia relaible source list." Hence, they cannot be used to source what he feels to be "extremely rude, negative, and controversial" fact. Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians, hope you are doing well. Need your comments on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam. I want to cite one peer reviewed journal article, but before citing need comments on its reliability. Many thanks. 27.123.253.165 ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
What is sufficient to support the claim that a subject is advocate or activist for diversity? this and this seem to support the claim. However, User:Melcous asserts this claim is not verifiably supported per this edit. Do I just need to reword the claim or is something wrong with this source?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Need some help with this. COI editor and subject User talk:Gryanwiik performed a "cleanup" which I reverted; it seemed like whitewashing to me. They disagree; see the article talk page and their talk page. They really want the article gone. C.Fred, last year, declined a PROD but sent it to AfD, which was inconclusive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. I think the person might well be notable but in part that depends on the coverage in the Norwegian press. What this article needs is a good review/assessment/edit by an editor who can better figure out what to do with the sources than me, and your help is appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to ask about the reliability of this website. According to a user editing the Dragon Ball Super: Broly article, Showtime Analytics is "literally the most accurate source you could possibly get and where all these reporting sites like Deadline and Box Office Mojo get their numbers from in the first place." Despite this, I just found four articles (including the previous mentioned) directly citing this website; in all of them, the website was cited by the same user. I can't find evidence of their claim nor previous discussion about the site, so I want some input about it.
On another note, there is another issue in the way the user is citing the website, which I already reported on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dragon Ball Super: Broly. I would appreciate any comment on it. Xexerss ( talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so when reading through it all and not counting "votes", the result sits somewhere near to Option 2. Even some of those who supported Option #1 noted that not everything on the site should be considered neutrally reliable. And even those supporting Option 3 saw value in some of what the site provided.
There were several policy shortcuts tossed around concerning the site. But mostly the divergence of the commenters appeared to be concerned about how much of an opinion site, the site should be considered to be, and whether that disqualified it, as compared to other such sites which are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia.
And to quote WP:RS#Overview: "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."
One concern that I did not see refuted in the discussion was concerning WP:RS#Sponsored content. I checked the site itself, and it states: "9to5 sites use industry-standard Adsense ads, and offer sponsored posts to companies interested in reaching our readership through long-form articles rather than banners. Sponsored posts are always clearly marked as such, represent the views of their sponsors, and improve the site experience for readers by allowing us to remove some traditional banner ads." - I'll leave it to others to determine if they follow that policy. But if they do, then that presumably follows the policy at WP:RS#Sponsored content: "Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable."
So anyway, to sum up - following policy, and the discussion, the result is: Option #2. - jc37 07:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Which of the following best describes 9to5Google's (
9to5google.com) technology articles?
-- Yae4 ( talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
9to5Google believes that Google is one of the most important companies shaping the future.". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcementsis false. As far as I know, rumors that they got from someone else are always labeled as "Rumor" in the article's title. The editors above who are basing their judgment solely on their About us page are clearly unfamiliar with the site's content and track record.
Pinged WP:WikiProject Computing with a neutral notice DFlhb 22:44, 20 Jan 2023 (UTC)
Over at James A. Lindsay, there is a dispute occurring that seems (to me, at least) heavily predicated on what we make of this source. There are also opinion/news issues, but I think this is the place to start. The mechanical parts of reliability (staff and whatnot) seem largely met to me, but it does describe itself as "surreal" and the like. Moreover, while I have tried to investigate whether it has an appropriate reputation for an RS, the unfortunately common name is frustrating most of my attempts. I would love to get others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
In this talk page thread, there is a discussion about the reliability of a paper published in the Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science ( website). There are various reasons why the paper itself is not reliable in context (see the thread on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam above), but here I have a question about a metric used by the journal itself to present itself as reliable.
On the journal's website, it cites a Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) of 8.28. But this SJIF factor (see http://sjifactor.com/masterlist.php) itself seems rather dodgy. Whenever I type in the name or ISSN of a journal which I know to be highly reputable (e.g., Middle Eastern Studies, Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies), I get 'There is no record with this parameter'.
I'm wondering whether this 'impact factor' includes any reputable journals at all, and if so, in what proportion? More broadly, is SJIF a reliable metric? Interestingly, Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science on its website also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF), which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. Would SJIF perchance be similar? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, looking for some further perspective on the matter of UK bus fleet lists.
I might be slightly biased from past contributions to that site, but bustimes.org, a UK-wide tracker of buses using timetables and tracking data from the Bus Open Data Service, began allowing registered users to make edits to 'fleet' sections of operators that have buses tracked on the service.
Unfortunately, I believe that now makes the site fall under WP:UGC, and I'm of the mind the the site should be considered highly unreliable when referring to bus fleets; timetables shouldn't be, however, I don't see any problem due to them being taken from BODS and uneditable by users.
I contend depreciating fleet list sourcing because users are free to change about tracked buses such as about bus type, bus livery and branding (there was a major internal conflict over this making routes harder to see in March last year), and crucially, whether a bus is withdrawn or not, at their own will - there have been edit wars about this in the past, see: [29], [30] and [31]. The site itself also says, very boldly, at the top of fleet list pages:
This is an unofficial and probably incomplete list of [operator] vehicles (or their ticket machines), created purely as a by-product of the live bus tracking system.
Remember: Ticket machines IDs don’t always correspond with the actual vehicles they’re attached to. Equipment is often swapped between vehicles.
Vehicles don’t always track all the time. If a journey isn’t listed, it doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t operate.
I've removed a few fleet citations using Bustimes already, replacing those with fleet figures from either the operator or local/bus industry news sites, but I was wondering if there was wider consensus on this from other experienced editors. Not entirely sure if this really should be an RFC because I personally think the reliability issue is pretty clear-cut, but again, I'm open to different opinions. Hullian111 ( talk) 08:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Noticed this site being added to several articles. It doesn't appear to have the necessary features to be a reliable source, and may be a sales portal for Amazon, but I thought I'd seek some additional opinions. Thanks - wolf 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
We've deprecated the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Just as well, really - I was chatting to a couple of ex-GT journalists who confessed that they used to make up nonsense specifically so they could get it into Wikipedia! They concurred that deprecating the GT was absolutely the right move. Both are now working for solid RSes, I'm glad to say ;-) - David Gerard ( talk) 00:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I continue to believe the BtVA should be considered an unreliable source. I started an RfC a couple of months ago on this topic but it failed to attract any attention. I said this then: How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy. I still agree with everything I said. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, is this work by Meduza reliable enough for mentioning, with attribution, the first explanations for the 2023 Brovary helicopter crash? Mhhossein talk 06:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There's also also another source on this matter. -- Mhhossein talk 06:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on revamping the article Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization), which hasn't had any substantial updates since 2009 despite still being an extremely active organization to the present. The problem is, as a grassroots activist group, it isn't well covered by news, and as a student activist group, student news coverage is often way too difficult to find if there is any. That said, it's very well covered by FightBack News, since most of the articles about SDS are written and submitted by the members of SDS themselves, making it a primary source. The site itself is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but its paper is open to circulating news from groups unaffiliated with the Organization, including SDS.
I would frankly argue it is reliable, despite politically motivated claims to the contrary. As someone who's attended some of the protests being written about, it's one of the best sources for information from the perspectives of the organizers. Again, these are often effectively primary sources. It would be a shame if I can't use this as a source as it would basically leave the article as is, which is to say extremely inaccuarate and outdated without much ability to add information about the work SDS has carried out in the last 14 years. Thoughts? - Skyler 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Legacy.com an RS for the date of death of Truddi Chase? Nightscream ( talk) 03:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
What about using the "via" parameter in the citation template like I did here? Cite WaPo as the original source, but Legacy in the "via" parameter as the source that reprinted it, where we, the editors, found it? Would that be an acceptable compromise, at least until the original article, or a substitute, may be found? Is Legacy not reliable enough to even do this, as the other editors above opined? (Just asking.) Nightscream ( talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI last month I asked a similar question in a specific case at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive344#Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP and the general answer was paid obits are OK to use for date and maybe place of death. I'm not sure how far that consensus goes, but I hope we can put some guidance at WP:OBITUARIES. Levivich ( talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Are the following authors and works reliable sources with respect to Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)?
{{
cite book}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 6 November 2022 suggested (
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
very old now- I don't think it should be a huge problem, considering that WP:OLDSOURCES is mostly for cases when the subject is science, politics or fashion related, but when it comes to history, the guideline states that
historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
20th-century ones are too old and shouldn't be used because newer sources are available, per WP:AGEMATTERS. The 21st-century scholarship published by established academic publishers (Springer, Routledge, university presses) are the best sources to use ( WP:TIER1). Specifically:
Levivich ( talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Are Den Fami Nico Gamer and Automaton Media considered reliable sources? It appears that both websites have been used in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia (some of which are GA) for mostly Japanese video game/anime subjects, and they appear to be reputable within gaming communities in and out of Japan. I'd like to hear what others think, especially if you understand Japanese. — HackerKnownAs ( talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Chain D.L.K. is an English-language Italian webzine that focuses on ambient, industrial, electronic and experimental music (mostly underground genres that don't get written about in mainstream publications). As far as I could find, this webzine was never discussed on here, so I'd like opinions whether or not it can be added to the list of reliable sources.
The website is currently linked to citations in nearly 100 Wikipedia articles.
The webzine's header claims that it was started in 1994, but the Wayback Machine only has snapshots from 2000 on, which is still pretty old. Most webzines don't last this long. From one of the webzine's archived pages, it would appear that Chain D.L.K. started out as a physical magazine in the mid-1990s, before becoming fully digital (which might explain why there are no older digital traces).
The magazine/webzine was started by Marc Urselli and Maurizio Pustianaz, and has had hundreds of writers over the years. I'm not an expert with this website, but I have read several of their reviews and interviews over the last 15 years, usually stumbling on them by accident when looking for information on artists from the genres listed above.
Opinions, please? Bricks&Wood talk 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I've done some work on a BLP about someone whose career is in film and TV, and have been searching for additional references. One of the searches I did was on their purported birth year, in case I could shake loose some acceptable source in order to add it and other biographical info; like many in showbiz, this person has a date of birth out there on the internet, but overwhelmingly on non-RS sites such as IMDb. It has however been added to Wikidata (with no reference), and thus is in other-language Wikipedia articles. I found the British Film Institute page on them also has the birthdate (and birthplace). I find one previous discussion here of BFI as a source, which focussed on its reliability for genres and for films in general, but not its reliability for biographical data on living people. I would consider the BFI an adequate source for a person's filmography, and have used it for that in the past. Is the BFI website a reliable source for a living person's date and/or place of birth? (The page in question is here.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I recently removed a link to http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk being used to support the claim that Juicy (The Notorious B.I.G. song) is one of the top Hip Hop songs of all time. The claim still stands, as it's well-sourced to other reliable sources; but Rock List Music is being used throughout Wikipedia, mostly to source "best of" claims. Is it reliable or OK to do that? Therapyisgood ( talk) 22:03, 28 January 2023 (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.
This source is spreading claims about individual without proper any proper source or mention of the source. I searched YouTube and Google to find this claim but what I found is the exact opposite.
BBC Headline: Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer
Who is the self-proclaimed misogynist influencer Andrew Tate? https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1608864105988767744
Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64125045
They claim that Andrew Tate is a "self-proclaimed misogynist" however as per the following video he rejects these claim. Hence, he is not a "self-proclaimed misogynist"
YouTube Video: Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan | The Full Interview @ 5:31 46.153.43.213 ( talk) 11:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if the website, Archaeology-World.com can be used as a reliable source. The article where it has been questioned is at Out-of-place artifact. The source seems to be professional, and not some blog or fansite, but I get why any source used in the article is going to be questioned. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Per their own disclaimer page "All the information on this website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. archaeology-world does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (archaeology-world), is strictly at your own risk. archaeology-world will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website." [38] He iro 19:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Blacklist - I'm on mobile so I won't (and shouldn't) link them, but many articles with the " Archaeology World Staff" byline are copied verbatim from other sources without attribution. – dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the heads-up. It doesn't get any more of a consensus than that. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
After attempting to help in cutting down the size of the marketing section of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, I noticed that one of the sources used for it is The Guardian. Now, normally this wouldn't be an issue, however it appears to be a newsletter from The Guardian. I don't think this is one of the blogs mentioned at The Guardian's sections as it doesn't have a blogpost tag, however it does seem to be written purely from the opinion of the writer of The Guardian. The source I'm referring to is this one in which the writer seems to be strongly against video game movies (which I think they're overreacting but that's my opinion and not relevant here). So should these be considered on the same level as The Guardian's blogs or not? I'm not looking to start an RFC for this quite yet, although I'm willing to if this gain enough attention that one might be warranted. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:TRANSFERMARKT, the Wikipedia community currently rejects Transfermarkt and it should not be used in articles nor does it confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I will copy and paste a comment from Hans Footballscout2023, which was added to the archived discussion and invite anyone to comment. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I have become sort of fascinated by this issue--during a (civil) dispute on Talk:Libs of TikTok, I pointed to a letter signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Children's Hospital Association talking about a "campaign of disinformation." Now, the letter does not explicitly name Libs of TikTok, but let's set that aside as a battle for another day. If we assume, arguendo, that the letter refers to Libs of TikTok, would this be a reliable source that the account had engaged in disinformation? I am honestly of two minds, and would love input. Nothing is riding on this particular determination, but curiosity compels me to ask. Thanks all. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Are Future Tense columns published in Slate governed by
WP:RSOPINION? I'm reading the
description of the columns and Slate labels the pieces as daily commentary published on Slate
, and it seems to be a cooperation between the magazine, the
New America think tank, and
Arizona State. Commentary pieces tend to be treated as opinion and think-tanks tend to be
WP:MREL, though I'm not sure the extent to which ASU is involved in exercising editorial oversight. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 05:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As do-good activities go, it seems to me that occasional Wikipedia editing is not nearly as difficult as, say, composting food waste in an apartmentand
At the time, I thought his assessment of social media was rather harsh, but I’ve begun to think that he was largely right. If the choices are between volunteering a few minutes’ time to make Wikipedia better or else passively consuming more social media, the active option is superior), and typically those things are indicators that those columns are opinion pieces.
[t]he challenge for social movements to expand entrenched beliefs related to open and free knowledge in a politicized society involves social justice challenges in practice, though we use in-text attribution for the column in Racial bias on Wikipedia, as well as for a separate Future Tense work in Ideological bias on Wikipedia. I'm just not getting a firm understanding of how the community approaches the source w.r.t. its coverage of the Wikimedia communities, and whether or not this is the sort of thing that carries reliability for contentious claims in Wikivoice. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering whether novayagazeta / novayagazeta.eu would be considered a generally reliable source and whether it merits inclusion in " Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources " and above all I would like to ask all you wonderful people how one should approach such questions in general. I am a total noob at evaluating sources, so please bear with me, and if possible, explain it simply, perhaps with novayagazeta as a case study . I did read, "Wikipedia:Reliable sources ", but did not feel it helped me. Star Lord - 星爵 ( talk) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Novaya Gazeta, a stalwart of Russia's media scene since its foundation in 1993 with money from the Nobel Peace Prize of late Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had carved out a niche as Russia's leading investigative outlet, even as press freedoms were gradually rolled back.[1] signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
References
There is a significant error in Esmail Qasemyar's article. In his work, he refers to an article by Bacon. He writes "Bacon (1951) describes that the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning. Bacon also believes that it is possible that the Jaghtai Mongols the forefathers of Hazaras – before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word". However, there are no such statements in the original article. There is only the following: "If the ancestors of the Hazaras came directly from Mongolia to Afghanistan, why did their language, an archaic Persian, contain so many more Turkic words than Mongol?". There are no words about their original Persian-speaking. Also it speaks only about Turkic words, and not about the Turkic language. I ask you to prohibit quoting this passage, taking into account the rules described in WP:VERIFY. KoizumiBS ( talk) 20:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If the ancestors of the Hazaras came directly from Mongolia to Afghanistan, why did their language, an archaic Persian, contain so many more Turkic words than Mongol?, so Qasemyar does appear to have overstated Bacon's position. The rest of Bacon's article details the possible origins of the Hazaras, but makes no further mention of language. However I'm no expert in the area so more input from other editors would be good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 00:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Is Queensland Places and the spin-off project Victorian Places by Monash University and the University of Queensland reliable? They seem kind of outdated, but for rural locations in these Australian states, they're some of the only online sources that offer good information. — VORTEX 3427 ( Talk!) 12:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This [40] Allsides blog post uses Wikipediocracy [41] as a source in an article by someone named simply "sashi" as well as another article there [42] by someone named Exotic Beat. The Breitbart article is described as being about "American academics" whose reports are already mentioned in the blog and is by T.A.Adler ie the banned "The Devil's Advocate" Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Devil's Advocate/Archive Doug Weller talk 12:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
People typically point to five studies that have found evidence of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias, and then introduces the list of the studies with
We lay out a summary of the claims of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias below. It proceeds to accurately represent each of what the five pieces says about Wikipedia, moves onto Sanger's claims (which it represents accurately), moves onto Stossel's criticism, then moves to whitewashing of Communism, etc., but the vast majority of the piece is a summary about what people have written about Wikipedia, with very little claims of fact in its own editorial voice. When AllSides does speak with its own voice, it's either saying things that are verifiably true (even though there may good editorial reasons for doing so, we do indeed label The Daily Caller as unreliable and list failed fact-checks while not mentioning that the NYT incorrectly reported that a January 6 rioter bludgeoned a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher), or it's a candid admission that
Determining the bias of an entire encyclopedia is tricky for us at AllSides, as we are better equipped to determine the bias of news outlets. (Wow! A source that admits its limitations! We might be much better off if other media analysis sources were to follow suit.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Allsides.com isn't used in any articles other than the article about AllSides (unless my linksearch use is off). That indicates it probably doesn't need a long discussion about specific entries. It does highlight that the summary at RSP doesn't seem right. If there's consensus to evaluate it on a case by case basis, but there's consensus against using it in every case that's come up, the RSP guidance isn't terribly useful and should be updated. Like Springee, I'm under the impression, that allsides, mbfc, and ad fontes are all generally avoided in mainspace, even if we might use them from time to time on talk pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Isn't https://www.streetlib.com/ a self-publisher WP:SPS [43] (also see this)? Asking from Template:Did you know nominations/Religious significance of rice in India for a book:
Thanks — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
In the Diwali article, there is a section regarding air pollution that contains many biomedical claims. These claims do not have sources that meet the WP:MEDRS policy. Additionally, these sources do not actually contain the information or claims that have been put into the article. Examples of such biomedical claims and their sources are below:
1. "Getting exposed to harmful chemicals while firing crackers can hinder growth in people and increases the toxic levels in their bodies" - link to source: https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/in-focus/article/delhis-air-quality-turns-toxic-on-diwali-aqi-docks-at/829295
2. "When these compounds pollute the air, they increase the risk of cancer in people" - link to source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/diyas-symbolise-diwali-crackers-cause-pollution-delhi-environment-minister-101635359379184.html
3. "The air and noise pollution that is caused by firecrackers can affect people with disorders related to the heart, respiratory and nervous system." - Link to source: https://www.news18.com/news/india/a-look-at-how-firecrackers-pollute-the-environment-and-carry-carcinogenic-agents-1916801.html
4. "The harmful fumes while firing crackers can lead to miscarriage." - link to source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/diyas-symbolise-diwali-crackers-cause-pollution-delhi-environment-minister-101635359379184.html
All of the above are biomedical claims with unreliable sources. I originally raised in the dispute resolution noticeboard but was redirected to the reliable sources noticeboard.
I believe the air pollution section should be removed, or at least content relating to biomedical claims. A discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. I have tried to suggest a compromise with a link to some alternative wording in a sandbox page but no outcome has been reached.
It may be beneficial for another opinion / another set of eyes.
In summary, many biomedical claims have been made with sources that not only do not meet WP:MEDRS, but do not contain any of the content put into the article. After discussions on the talk page and suggesting alternative wording, a solution has still not been reached.
Thanks for your time and help!
Starlights99 (
talk) 12:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Are the following sources reliable sources to determine the constitutionality of the West Herzegovina Canton symbols? Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
After discussion at the DRN, the discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton § Flag concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below) has been moved here. The arguments for and against the sources below are presented on the aforementioned pages. In summary, there were provisions in the canton's constitution defining the symbols that were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. After that, the canton amended the constitution to remove said provisions in 2000 and passed laws that define and regulate the usage of the symbols in 2003. It might be helpful to note that this RfC was created from an archived discussion here at RSN with no discussion.
Answer Yes or No or the equivalent to each following question:
Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
So he is a reliable source on flags and can be used as a reference that this is the "official" flag of the canton. He's clearly not an expert on constitutional jurisprudence of Bosnia-Herzegovinia; so whether or not the flag is "constitutional" or not is not something I would cite him for.And I don't see any objections that the officialness should be disregarded if "according to previous judgements, this should be unconstitutional, but it has not been judged unconstitutional yet" so it's still official.
I'm not sure why this is back here at RSN. As you say, all of the reliable sources are in total agreement that these are the official flag and symbols. There are also reliable sources which report that various notable people argue that the adoption of the flag and symbols was unconstitutional based on a prior court ruling. The argument that they are unconstitutional, and their adoption was therefore illegal, however compelling, is not something we can say in Wikipedia's voice. We can only report that notable people hold that position.
Whether or not they should be included in the Infobox is not a question for RSN, but I will note that Nazi flags and symbols are included in numerous articles, notwithstanding that their display is explicitly illegal in numerous jurisdictions. Using them in those articles is appropriate because they are/were the flags and symbols of the Third Reich. It strikes me that this dispute is analogous. But, again, that is an issue for the article talk page, not here. Banks Irk ( talk) 01:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
it appears that this dispute is mostly about whether multiple sources are acceptable secondary sources or excluded primary sources. These questions can be better addressed at the reliable source noticeboard.So if the sources were resolved the symbols could be incorporated in the article. I admit that there was wrongdoing on my part on implementing the edit too early but there was consensus as no other opinion was given after one entire month. Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
On Boole's rule, there is one source that ostensibly belongs to a predatory journal: Ubale (2012) at revision 1137251261. User:Headbomb has removed it. My reading of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory journals is that the main concern is the lack of proper peer review and thus articles can be considered WP:SELFPUB. As I explained at Talk:Boole's rule#Ubale source, here, the source is being brought to support a mathematical identity which can be checked by anyone with pencil, paper, and algebra. As such, I believe the source should be acceptable under the circumstances. I am seeking consensus as to whether my interpretation is acceptable under the circumstances. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This is now moot, as I have found an acceptable journal source although its access is more restricted. -- Avi ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
On the reference [44] at Joseph Lister It states on the tooltip "borderline source, Benthan Open are of a concern. Indianjournals.com/Diva Enterprise journals Check the UGC Lists". Would that be a valid source/and/or where would the UGC Lists stored? The article is published from Thieme Medical Publishers. scope_creep Talk 10:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Is Alan Singh Chanda the correct name as the builder of Amber Fort? [1] -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 06:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Banks Irk: this person its author? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
What kind of source is this book and what does it tell about the Chanda ruler? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Not showing more than eleven pages. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 09:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The part of this book visible in Google search was not found here. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
How is this[ [1]] source? Karsan Chanda ( talk) 02:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
How are its other sources? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Banks Irk: Can it be used for historical claims? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 07:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
References
How is this source? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Erp: Is it useful for Alan Singh Chanda and Chanda dynasty. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 04:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting... Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". AndyTheGrump ( talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC to determine if a source is not acceptable for the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes’s section for possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. You can participate in the RfC in this discussion section. Elijahandskip ( talk) 08:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this site considered reliable when it comes to sourcing a DOB for an actor/actress or does it fall under the WP:DOB part of WP:BLP policy? I'm wondering because I saw it used as a source for an actresses' DOB and I notice everyday it puts out a list of actors that were born on that day as well as their age. However some of those actors and actresses have never publicity disclosed their DOB and sites that do have them listed are on unreliable ones like IMDB, Google or other wikis. As well as sites that likely got that info from the aforementioned ones. Kcj5062 ( talk) 01:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I just saw this [48] happen at Alice Walker and I'm worried we've got a WP:circular issue here... I suspect that Cleveland.com is using wikipedia to make these lists. I would not consider lists of celebrity birthdays to be the same sort of thing as real reporting... Its online content fluff that was probably created by an intern and fact checked by no one. That opinion is not limited to Cleveland.com, applies to a wide range of publications which publish online content fluff in addition to real reporting. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Should http://tnc.news the news services of the True North Centre for Public Policy be added to the list of deprecated sources at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources? 72.141.177.38 ( talk) 14:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Is
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice (a journal published by
Ubiquity Press on behalf of the
Citizen Science Association) a reliable source? The article "
Tracking Science: An Alternative for Those Excluded by Citizen Science" was used in Wikipedia's
Science article to support the statement that the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old
, but
Headbomb,
Andrew Lancaster, and
Artem.G have all challenged the reliability of this
peer-reviewed journal. —
Freoh 20:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
amateur? Its editorial board seems fairly professional to me. — Freoh 11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
amateur? — Freoh 09:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
serious? Also, I don't see how it's relevant that some of the authors are amateurs. That's how science works, a lot of the time: "amateur" graduate students publish in peer-reviewed journals with their advisors. I don't see how this is any different, and the article doesn't mention
wokeness at all. — Freoh 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
a serious analysis of archeological findings by professional historians of science. You can't dismiss a peer-reviewed article by reputable experts just because it's the first publication for some of the authors. — Freoh 16:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
based on the hypothesis that scientific reasoning is rooted in innate properties of the modern human mind(emphasis added). That's awfully weak sauce for supporting a strong statement. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The oldest direct evidence suggests that such integrated abstract thinking was already practiced in Africa more than 60,000 years ago ... forming the basis of modern science.
Our definition recognizes continuity from the origins of scientific reasoning with the evolution of modern Homo sapiens hunter-gatherers in Africa more than 100,000 years ago through to modern physics
The definition of tracking science describes, among other things, what Indigenous communities in Africa have been doing for more than 100,000 years
The point isn't that it's "biased", it's that it's an opinion column. Those very quotes make clear that they are defining a kind of science to include old practices that evidence suggests people followed tens of millennia ago. At most, this kind of writing could support an attributed opinion claim. It's not enough to justify our saying, in Wiki-voice, that those practices are the "roots of science" and that they do in fact have the pedigree suggested. For my own part, I am actually sympathetic to the Saganesque expansiveness of defining "science" broadly. As rhetoric, it appeals to me. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, however, I find it much less suitable. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:49, 9 February 2023 (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 390 | ← | Archive 394 | Archive 395 | Archive 396 | Archive 397 | Archive 398 | → | Archive 400 |
User:David Gerard keeps removing a Daily Mail source I added to One Pair of Eyes (TV series). It isn't the only source for that episode either, and it follows the guidelines.
That's all David seems to do... Removing references from sources like Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, Daily Express, The Sun, Daily Star, News of the World, Metro, GB News etc which have all been listed as Generally Unreliable or Deprecated by this liberal community, without reading them.
Even though I see mistakes from left wing sources like The Guardian and The Independent every single time I read a story from them.
The reliable source guidelines [ [1]] here says:
"The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion. Some editors regard the Daily Mail as reliable historically, so old articles may be used in a historical context."
And then the linked About-Self Hashion section in those Daily Mail guidelines here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves which says:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:
Danstarr69 ( talk) 03:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves. What that means is that an article by Shirley Conran can be used as a source for information about herself. Not about the show she worked on. Andre 🚐 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
What needs sourced, that "Danger at Work" was episode 35, or that it was presented by Shirley Conran? Gimmetrow 03:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
To the people commenting in this section, what is being said about the actual validity of the source for this specific statement? Are the actual claim here that the Daily Mail wrote a fake article and published it under the name of some lady, with completely fictitious quotes talking about a TV show she made? This seems both implausible and easy to confirm/disprove: can't we just ask her if that's what she said? jp× g 04:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Extensive timewasting from blocked sockpuppet account
|
---|
This needs closing, the place to discuss user conduct is not here. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:15, 18 January 2023 (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.
The sources cited for tagging Marjorie Taylor Green a "far-right conspiracy theorist," are HIGHLY biased. It is improper for Wikipedia to state AS FACT, something that comes from such biased sources. "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Ariadne5844 ( talk) 19:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Sadly this is treated as a reliable source in many articles. [2] Maybe some of the authors are experts, I didn't find any. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
what is the reliability of this website [3] when i googled it says, "Chinese Encyclopedia is an encyclopedia website involving all Chinese knowledge fields, providing you with the latest and most complete Chinese encyclopedia entry knowledge." I'm not aware whether its user generated site or not. Can it be considered reliable for citing as a source for a Chinese artist? Arorapriyansh333 ( talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this website a reliable source for anything, in particular a BLP? [4] No author and its Facebook site makes me think it's more or less a personal website. [5]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Could use a wider perspective here - this site "thisis50.com" seems to be popping up quite frequently alongside known SEO/PR sites that pretend to be news. It's usually pretty easy to spot these kinds of SEO sinks, but this one appears to be different: it seems to be group blog created by 50 Cent and others, branding itself a "Top Entertainment & Hip-hop Blog." It's not clear how any of the names being dropped are still involved on the site.
While there may be legitimate content in there somewhere, there is a tremendous amount of material that is PR/SEO puffery, and is not clearly labeled as paid content, nor is there any hint of an editorial process. Worse, there are dozens of ads for paid placement on other PR sites (examples: [8], [9]). There are also SEO "experts" on fiverr and other gig sites promoting the same "guaranteed placement".
Since there's no attempt to distinguish the paid placement from any legitimate content, if any, I'd like to start removing the 230+ references to this source, but would like to make sure I'm not missing anything, given the context. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
An editor claims the Mint (newspaper) and Open (Indian magazine) to be "not reliable newspaper sources" as per "wikepedia relaible source list." Hence, they cannot be used to source what he feels to be "extremely rude, negative, and controversial" fact. Opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedians, hope you are doing well. Need your comments on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam. I want to cite one peer reviewed journal article, but before citing need comments on its reliability. Many thanks. 27.123.253.165 ( talk) 14:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
What is sufficient to support the claim that a subject is advocate or activist for diversity? this and this seem to support the claim. However, User:Melcous asserts this claim is not verifiably supported per this edit. Do I just need to reword the claim or is something wrong with this source?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Need some help with this. COI editor and subject User talk:Gryanwiik performed a "cleanup" which I reverted; it seemed like whitewashing to me. They disagree; see the article talk page and their talk page. They really want the article gone. C.Fred, last year, declined a PROD but sent it to AfD, which was inconclusive: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. I think the person might well be notable but in part that depends on the coverage in the Norwegian press. What this article needs is a good review/assessment/edit by an editor who can better figure out what to do with the sources than me, and your help is appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 21:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to ask about the reliability of this website. According to a user editing the Dragon Ball Super: Broly article, Showtime Analytics is "literally the most accurate source you could possibly get and where all these reporting sites like Deadline and Box Office Mojo get their numbers from in the first place." Despite this, I just found four articles (including the previous mentioned) directly citing this website; in all of them, the website was cited by the same user. I can't find evidence of their claim nor previous discussion about the site, so I want some input about it.
On another note, there is another issue in the way the user is citing the website, which I already reported on Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Dragon Ball Super: Broly. I would appreciate any comment on it. Xexerss ( talk) 09:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, so when reading through it all and not counting "votes", the result sits somewhere near to Option 2. Even some of those who supported Option #1 noted that not everything on the site should be considered neutrally reliable. And even those supporting Option 3 saw value in some of what the site provided.
There were several policy shortcuts tossed around concerning the site. But mostly the divergence of the commenters appeared to be concerned about how much of an opinion site, the site should be considered to be, and whether that disqualified it, as compared to other such sites which are considered reliable sources on Wikipedia.
And to quote WP:RS#Overview: "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."
One concern that I did not see refuted in the discussion was concerning WP:RS#Sponsored content. I checked the site itself, and it states: "9to5 sites use industry-standard Adsense ads, and offer sponsored posts to companies interested in reaching our readership through long-form articles rather than banners. Sponsored posts are always clearly marked as such, represent the views of their sponsors, and improve the site experience for readers by allowing us to remove some traditional banner ads." - I'll leave it to others to determine if they follow that policy. But if they do, then that presumably follows the policy at WP:RS#Sponsored content: "Reliable publications clearly indicate sponsored articles in the byline or with a disclaimer at the top of the article. Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content are also questionable."
So anyway, to sum up - following policy, and the discussion, the result is: Option #2. - jc37 07:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Which of the following best describes 9to5Google's (
9to5google.com) technology articles?
-- Yae4 ( talk) 22:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
9to5Google believes that Google is one of the most important companies shaping the future.". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
they also present gossip and speculation as facts or announcementsis false. As far as I know, rumors that they got from someone else are always labeled as "Rumor" in the article's title. The editors above who are basing their judgment solely on their About us page are clearly unfamiliar with the site's content and track record.
Pinged WP:WikiProject Computing with a neutral notice DFlhb 22:44, 20 Jan 2023 (UTC)
Over at James A. Lindsay, there is a dispute occurring that seems (to me, at least) heavily predicated on what we make of this source. There are also opinion/news issues, but I think this is the place to start. The mechanical parts of reliability (staff and whatnot) seem largely met to me, but it does describe itself as "surreal" and the like. Moreover, while I have tried to investigate whether it has an appropriate reputation for an RS, the unfortunately common name is frustrating most of my attempts. I would love to get others' opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
In this talk page thread, there is a discussion about the reliability of a paper published in the Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science ( website). There are various reasons why the paper itself is not reliable in context (see the thread on Talk:Badi' al-Din#Habs-I-dam above), but here I have a question about a metric used by the journal itself to present itself as reliable.
On the journal's website, it cites a Scientific Journal Impact Factor (SJIF) of 8.28. But this SJIF factor (see http://sjifactor.com/masterlist.php) itself seems rather dodgy. Whenever I type in the name or ISSN of a journal which I know to be highly reputable (e.g., Middle Eastern Studies, Bulletin of the School of Oriental & African Studies), I get 'There is no record with this parameter'.
I'm wondering whether this 'impact factor' includes any reputable journals at all, and if so, in what proportion? More broadly, is SJIF a reliable metric? Interestingly, Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science on its website also cites Global Impact Factor (GIF), which redirects to a section in our article about impact factors on 'Counterfeit impact factors'. Would SJIF perchance be similar? ☿ Apaugasma ( talk ☉) 15:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, looking for some further perspective on the matter of UK bus fleet lists.
I might be slightly biased from past contributions to that site, but bustimes.org, a UK-wide tracker of buses using timetables and tracking data from the Bus Open Data Service, began allowing registered users to make edits to 'fleet' sections of operators that have buses tracked on the service.
Unfortunately, I believe that now makes the site fall under WP:UGC, and I'm of the mind the the site should be considered highly unreliable when referring to bus fleets; timetables shouldn't be, however, I don't see any problem due to them being taken from BODS and uneditable by users.
I contend depreciating fleet list sourcing because users are free to change about tracked buses such as about bus type, bus livery and branding (there was a major internal conflict over this making routes harder to see in March last year), and crucially, whether a bus is withdrawn or not, at their own will - there have been edit wars about this in the past, see: [29], [30] and [31]. The site itself also says, very boldly, at the top of fleet list pages:
This is an unofficial and probably incomplete list of [operator] vehicles (or their ticket machines), created purely as a by-product of the live bus tracking system.
Remember: Ticket machines IDs don’t always correspond with the actual vehicles they’re attached to. Equipment is often swapped between vehicles.
Vehicles don’t always track all the time. If a journey isn’t listed, it doesn’t necessarily mean it didn’t operate.
I've removed a few fleet citations using Bustimes already, replacing those with fleet figures from either the operator or local/bus industry news sites, but I was wondering if there was wider consensus on this from other experienced editors. Not entirely sure if this really should be an RFC because I personally think the reliability issue is pretty clear-cut, but again, I'm open to different opinions. Hullian111 ( talk) 08:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Noticed this site being added to several articles. It doesn't appear to have the necessary features to be a reliable source, and may be a sales portal for Amazon, but I thought I'd seek some additional opinions. Thanks - wolf 23:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
We've deprecated the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Just as well, really - I was chatting to a couple of ex-GT journalists who confessed that they used to make up nonsense specifically so they could get it into Wikipedia! They concurred that deprecating the GT was absolutely the right move. Both are now working for solid RSes, I'm glad to say ;-) - David Gerard ( talk) 00:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I continue to believe the BtVA should be considered an unreliable source. I started an RfC a couple of months ago on this topic but it failed to attract any attention. I said this then: How on Earth did it manage to get listed as reliable this year? That they claim to do research does not make them reliable, since we have no way of checking that they did indeed do research and they are quite happy to list credits without any sort of public source. That their response in their FAQ to "your credit is inaccurate" is to defend their honour rather than provide information on a correction-submitting process is not a good sign, in my opinion. In fact, as far as I can tell, there is no correction-submitting process, which is a severe problem for any source hoping to be considered reliable, especially as I know for a fact, using actor's websites as sources, that their credits for at least one video game are wrong. If we have no means to know if they are actually doing research and fact-checking, yet keep them as a reliable source, why shouldn't we allow every random website that claims to have a fact-checking process as a source? I know someone will bring up the green tick, but if a credit has a green tick that means there's another, almost certainly better, source we can use. I appreciate this comes very soon after a previous RfC on the same site, but I wasn't aware of that until today and it seems to have been waved through based simply on its own claims of accuracy. I still agree with everything I said. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 18:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello everyone, is this work by Meduza reliable enough for mentioning, with attribution, the first explanations for the 2023 Brovary helicopter crash? Mhhossein talk 06:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There's also also another source on this matter. -- Mhhossein talk 06:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on revamping the article Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization), which hasn't had any substantial updates since 2009 despite still being an extremely active organization to the present. The problem is, as a grassroots activist group, it isn't well covered by news, and as a student activist group, student news coverage is often way too difficult to find if there is any. That said, it's very well covered by FightBack News, since most of the articles about SDS are written and submitted by the members of SDS themselves, making it a primary source. The site itself is affiliated with Freedom Road Socialist Organization, but its paper is open to circulating news from groups unaffiliated with the Organization, including SDS.
I would frankly argue it is reliable, despite politically motivated claims to the contrary. As someone who's attended some of the protests being written about, it's one of the best sources for information from the perspectives of the organizers. Again, these are often effectively primary sources. It would be a shame if I can't use this as a source as it would basically leave the article as is, which is to say extremely inaccuarate and outdated without much ability to add information about the work SDS has carried out in the last 14 years. Thoughts? - Skyler 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Legacy.com an RS for the date of death of Truddi Chase? Nightscream ( talk) 03:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
What about using the "via" parameter in the citation template like I did here? Cite WaPo as the original source, but Legacy in the "via" parameter as the source that reprinted it, where we, the editors, found it? Would that be an acceptable compromise, at least until the original article, or a substitute, may be found? Is Legacy not reliable enough to even do this, as the other editors above opined? (Just asking.) Nightscream ( talk) 19:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI last month I asked a similar question in a specific case at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive344#Paid obituaries as sources for death of BLP and the general answer was paid obits are OK to use for date and maybe place of death. I'm not sure how far that consensus goes, but I hope we can put some guidance at WP:OBITUARIES. Levivich ( talk) 20:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Are the following authors and works reliable sources with respect to Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921)?
{{
cite book}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; 6 November 2022 suggested (
help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)Robert McClenon ( talk) 06:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
very old now- I don't think it should be a huge problem, considering that WP:OLDSOURCES is mostly for cases when the subject is science, politics or fashion related, but when it comes to history, the guideline states that
historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. A b r v a g l ( PingMe) 20:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
20th-century ones are too old and shouldn't be used because newer sources are available, per WP:AGEMATTERS. The 21st-century scholarship published by established academic publishers (Springer, Routledge, university presses) are the best sources to use ( WP:TIER1). Specifically:
Levivich ( talk) 21:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Are Den Fami Nico Gamer and Automaton Media considered reliable sources? It appears that both websites have been used in numerous articles throughout Wikipedia (some of which are GA) for mostly Japanese video game/anime subjects, and they appear to be reputable within gaming communities in and out of Japan. I'd like to hear what others think, especially if you understand Japanese. — HackerKnownAs ( talk) 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Chain D.L.K. is an English-language Italian webzine that focuses on ambient, industrial, electronic and experimental music (mostly underground genres that don't get written about in mainstream publications). As far as I could find, this webzine was never discussed on here, so I'd like opinions whether or not it can be added to the list of reliable sources.
The website is currently linked to citations in nearly 100 Wikipedia articles.
The webzine's header claims that it was started in 1994, but the Wayback Machine only has snapshots from 2000 on, which is still pretty old. Most webzines don't last this long. From one of the webzine's archived pages, it would appear that Chain D.L.K. started out as a physical magazine in the mid-1990s, before becoming fully digital (which might explain why there are no older digital traces).
The magazine/webzine was started by Marc Urselli and Maurizio Pustianaz, and has had hundreds of writers over the years. I'm not an expert with this website, but I have read several of their reviews and interviews over the last 15 years, usually stumbling on them by accident when looking for information on artists from the genres listed above.
Opinions, please? Bricks&Wood talk 11:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I've done some work on a BLP about someone whose career is in film and TV, and have been searching for additional references. One of the searches I did was on their purported birth year, in case I could shake loose some acceptable source in order to add it and other biographical info; like many in showbiz, this person has a date of birth out there on the internet, but overwhelmingly on non-RS sites such as IMDb. It has however been added to Wikidata (with no reference), and thus is in other-language Wikipedia articles. I found the British Film Institute page on them also has the birthdate (and birthplace). I find one previous discussion here of BFI as a source, which focussed on its reliability for genres and for films in general, but not its reliability for biographical data on living people. I would consider the BFI an adequate source for a person's filmography, and have used it for that in the past. Is the BFI website a reliable source for a living person's date and/or place of birth? (The page in question is here.) Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I recently removed a link to http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk being used to support the claim that Juicy (The Notorious B.I.G. song) is one of the top Hip Hop songs of all time. The claim still stands, as it's well-sourced to other reliable sources; but Rock List Music is being used throughout Wikipedia, mostly to source "best of" claims. Is it reliable or OK to do that? Therapyisgood ( talk) 22:03, 28 January 2023 (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.
This source is spreading claims about individual without proper any proper source or mention of the source. I searched YouTube and Google to find this claim but what I found is the exact opposite.
BBC Headline: Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer
Who is the self-proclaimed misogynist influencer Andrew Tate? https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1608864105988767744
Who is Andrew Tate? The self-proclaimed misogynist influencer
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64125045
They claim that Andrew Tate is a "self-proclaimed misogynist" however as per the following video he rejects these claim. Hence, he is not a "self-proclaimed misogynist"
YouTube Video: Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan | The Full Interview @ 5:31 46.153.43.213 ( talk) 11:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering if the website, Archaeology-World.com can be used as a reliable source. The article where it has been questioned is at Out-of-place artifact. The source seems to be professional, and not some blog or fansite, but I get why any source used in the article is going to be questioned. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Per their own disclaimer page "All the information on this website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. archaeology-world does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information. Any action you take upon the information you find on this website (archaeology-world), is strictly at your own risk. archaeology-world will not be liable for any losses and/or damages in connection with the use of our website." [38] He iro 19:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Blacklist - I'm on mobile so I won't (and shouldn't) link them, but many articles with the " Archaeology World Staff" byline are copied verbatim from other sources without attribution. – dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the heads-up. It doesn't get any more of a consensus than that. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
After attempting to help in cutting down the size of the marketing section of The Super Mario Bros. Movie, I noticed that one of the sources used for it is The Guardian. Now, normally this wouldn't be an issue, however it appears to be a newsletter from The Guardian. I don't think this is one of the blogs mentioned at The Guardian's sections as it doesn't have a blogpost tag, however it does seem to be written purely from the opinion of the writer of The Guardian. The source I'm referring to is this one in which the writer seems to be strongly against video game movies (which I think they're overreacting but that's my opinion and not relevant here). So should these be considered on the same level as The Guardian's blogs or not? I'm not looking to start an RFC for this quite yet, although I'm willing to if this gain enough attention that one might be warranted. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
As per WP:TRANSFERMARKT, the Wikipedia community currently rejects Transfermarkt and it should not be used in articles nor does it confer notability. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I will copy and paste a comment from Hans Footballscout2023, which was added to the archived discussion and invite anyone to comment. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I have become sort of fascinated by this issue--during a (civil) dispute on Talk:Libs of TikTok, I pointed to a letter signed by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Children's Hospital Association talking about a "campaign of disinformation." Now, the letter does not explicitly name Libs of TikTok, but let's set that aside as a battle for another day. If we assume, arguendo, that the letter refers to Libs of TikTok, would this be a reliable source that the account had engaged in disinformation? I am honestly of two minds, and would love input. Nothing is riding on this particular determination, but curiosity compels me to ask. Thanks all. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Are Future Tense columns published in Slate governed by
WP:RSOPINION? I'm reading the
description of the columns and Slate labels the pieces as daily commentary published on Slate
, and it seems to be a cooperation between the magazine, the
New America think tank, and
Arizona State. Commentary pieces tend to be treated as opinion and think-tanks tend to be
WP:MREL, though I'm not sure the extent to which ASU is involved in exercising editorial oversight. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 05:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
As do-good activities go, it seems to me that occasional Wikipedia editing is not nearly as difficult as, say, composting food waste in an apartmentand
At the time, I thought his assessment of social media was rather harsh, but I’ve begun to think that he was largely right. If the choices are between volunteering a few minutes’ time to make Wikipedia better or else passively consuming more social media, the active option is superior), and typically those things are indicators that those columns are opinion pieces.
[t]he challenge for social movements to expand entrenched beliefs related to open and free knowledge in a politicized society involves social justice challenges in practice, though we use in-text attribution for the column in Racial bias on Wikipedia, as well as for a separate Future Tense work in Ideological bias on Wikipedia. I'm just not getting a firm understanding of how the community approaches the source w.r.t. its coverage of the Wikimedia communities, and whether or not this is the sort of thing that carries reliability for contentious claims in Wikivoice. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering whether novayagazeta / novayagazeta.eu would be considered a generally reliable source and whether it merits inclusion in " Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources " and above all I would like to ask all you wonderful people how one should approach such questions in general. I am a total noob at evaluating sources, so please bear with me, and if possible, explain it simply, perhaps with novayagazeta as a case study . I did read, "Wikipedia:Reliable sources ", but did not feel it helped me. Star Lord - 星爵 ( talk) 16:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Novaya Gazeta, a stalwart of Russia's media scene since its foundation in 1993 with money from the Nobel Peace Prize of late Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, had carved out a niche as Russia's leading investigative outlet, even as press freedoms were gradually rolled back.[1] signed, Rosguill talk 17:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
References
There is a significant error in Esmail Qasemyar's article. In his work, he refers to an article by Bacon. He writes "Bacon (1951) describes that the original language of Hazaras was Persian (Dari) from the beginning. Bacon also believes that it is possible that the Jaghtai Mongols the forefathers of Hazaras – before coming to Hazarajat had accepted Turkic language and used it because there are countable numbers of Turkic word in Hazaragi than Mongolian word". However, there are no such statements in the original article. There is only the following: "If the ancestors of the Hazaras came directly from Mongolia to Afghanistan, why did their language, an archaic Persian, contain so many more Turkic words than Mongol?". There are no words about their original Persian-speaking. Also it speaks only about Turkic words, and not about the Turkic language. I ask you to prohibit quoting this passage, taking into account the rules described in WP:VERIFY. KoizumiBS ( talk) 20:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If the ancestors of the Hazaras came directly from Mongolia to Afghanistan, why did their language, an archaic Persian, contain so many more Turkic words than Mongol?, so Qasemyar does appear to have overstated Bacon's position. The rest of Bacon's article details the possible origins of the Hazaras, but makes no further mention of language. However I'm no expert in the area so more input from other editors would be good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 00:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
References
Is Queensland Places and the spin-off project Victorian Places by Monash University and the University of Queensland reliable? They seem kind of outdated, but for rural locations in these Australian states, they're some of the only online sources that offer good information. — VORTEX 3427 ( Talk!) 12:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This [40] Allsides blog post uses Wikipediocracy [41] as a source in an article by someone named simply "sashi" as well as another article there [42] by someone named Exotic Beat. The Breitbart article is described as being about "American academics" whose reports are already mentioned in the blog and is by T.A.Adler ie the banned "The Devil's Advocate" Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Devil's Advocate/Archive Doug Weller talk 12:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
People typically point to five studies that have found evidence of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias, and then introduces the list of the studies with
We lay out a summary of the claims of Wikipedia’s left-wing bias below. It proceeds to accurately represent each of what the five pieces says about Wikipedia, moves onto Sanger's claims (which it represents accurately), moves onto Stossel's criticism, then moves to whitewashing of Communism, etc., but the vast majority of the piece is a summary about what people have written about Wikipedia, with very little claims of fact in its own editorial voice. When AllSides does speak with its own voice, it's either saying things that are verifiably true (even though there may good editorial reasons for doing so, we do indeed label The Daily Caller as unreliable and list failed fact-checks while not mentioning that the NYT incorrectly reported that a January 6 rioter bludgeoned a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher), or it's a candid admission that
Determining the bias of an entire encyclopedia is tricky for us at AllSides, as we are better equipped to determine the bias of news outlets. (Wow! A source that admits its limitations! We might be much better off if other media analysis sources were to follow suit.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Allsides.com isn't used in any articles other than the article about AllSides (unless my linksearch use is off). That indicates it probably doesn't need a long discussion about specific entries. It does highlight that the summary at RSP doesn't seem right. If there's consensus to evaluate it on a case by case basis, but there's consensus against using it in every case that's come up, the RSP guidance isn't terribly useful and should be updated. Like Springee, I'm under the impression, that allsides, mbfc, and ad fontes are all generally avoided in mainspace, even if we might use them from time to time on talk pages. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Isn't https://www.streetlib.com/ a self-publisher WP:SPS [43] (also see this)? Asking from Template:Did you know nominations/Religious significance of rice in India for a book:
Thanks — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 15:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
In the Diwali article, there is a section regarding air pollution that contains many biomedical claims. These claims do not have sources that meet the WP:MEDRS policy. Additionally, these sources do not actually contain the information or claims that have been put into the article. Examples of such biomedical claims and their sources are below:
1. "Getting exposed to harmful chemicals while firing crackers can hinder growth in people and increases the toxic levels in their bodies" - link to source: https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/in-focus/article/delhis-air-quality-turns-toxic-on-diwali-aqi-docks-at/829295
2. "When these compounds pollute the air, they increase the risk of cancer in people" - link to source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/diyas-symbolise-diwali-crackers-cause-pollution-delhi-environment-minister-101635359379184.html
3. "The air and noise pollution that is caused by firecrackers can affect people with disorders related to the heart, respiratory and nervous system." - Link to source: https://www.news18.com/news/india/a-look-at-how-firecrackers-pollute-the-environment-and-carry-carcinogenic-agents-1916801.html
4. "The harmful fumes while firing crackers can lead to miscarriage." - link to source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/diyas-symbolise-diwali-crackers-cause-pollution-delhi-environment-minister-101635359379184.html
All of the above are biomedical claims with unreliable sources. I originally raised in the dispute resolution noticeboard but was redirected to the reliable sources noticeboard.
I believe the air pollution section should be removed, or at least content relating to biomedical claims. A discussion has taken place on the article's talk page. I have tried to suggest a compromise with a link to some alternative wording in a sandbox page but no outcome has been reached.
It may be beneficial for another opinion / another set of eyes.
In summary, many biomedical claims have been made with sources that not only do not meet WP:MEDRS, but do not contain any of the content put into the article. After discussions on the talk page and suggesting alternative wording, a solution has still not been reached.
Thanks for your time and help!
Starlights99 (
talk) 12:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Are the following sources reliable sources to determine the constitutionality of the West Herzegovina Canton symbols? Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
After discussion at the DRN, the discussion at Talk:West Herzegovina Canton § Flag concerning West Herzegovina Canton's coat of arms and flag (referred to as "the symbols" below) has been moved here. The arguments for and against the sources below are presented on the aforementioned pages. In summary, there were provisions in the canton's constitution defining the symbols that were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. After that, the canton amended the constitution to remove said provisions in 2000 and passed laws that define and regulate the usage of the symbols in 2003. It might be helpful to note that this RfC was created from an archived discussion here at RSN with no discussion.
Answer Yes or No or the equivalent to each following question:
Aaron Liu ( talk) 14:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
So he is a reliable source on flags and can be used as a reference that this is the "official" flag of the canton. He's clearly not an expert on constitutional jurisprudence of Bosnia-Herzegovinia; so whether or not the flag is "constitutional" or not is not something I would cite him for.And I don't see any objections that the officialness should be disregarded if "according to previous judgements, this should be unconstitutional, but it has not been judged unconstitutional yet" so it's still official.
I'm not sure why this is back here at RSN. As you say, all of the reliable sources are in total agreement that these are the official flag and symbols. There are also reliable sources which report that various notable people argue that the adoption of the flag and symbols was unconstitutional based on a prior court ruling. The argument that they are unconstitutional, and their adoption was therefore illegal, however compelling, is not something we can say in Wikipedia's voice. We can only report that notable people hold that position.
Whether or not they should be included in the Infobox is not a question for RSN, but I will note that Nazi flags and symbols are included in numerous articles, notwithstanding that their display is explicitly illegal in numerous jurisdictions. Using them in those articles is appropriate because they are/were the flags and symbols of the Third Reich. It strikes me that this dispute is analogous. But, again, that is an issue for the article talk page, not here. Banks Irk ( talk) 01:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
it appears that this dispute is mostly about whether multiple sources are acceptable secondary sources or excluded primary sources. These questions can be better addressed at the reliable source noticeboard.So if the sources were resolved the symbols could be incorporated in the article. I admit that there was wrongdoing on my part on implementing the edit too early but there was consensus as no other opinion was given after one entire month. Aaron Liu ( talk) 15:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
On Boole's rule, there is one source that ostensibly belongs to a predatory journal: Ubale (2012) at revision 1137251261. User:Headbomb has removed it. My reading of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Predatory journals is that the main concern is the lack of proper peer review and thus articles can be considered WP:SELFPUB. As I explained at Talk:Boole's rule#Ubale source, here, the source is being brought to support a mathematical identity which can be checked by anyone with pencil, paper, and algebra. As such, I believe the source should be acceptable under the circumstances. I am seeking consensus as to whether my interpretation is acceptable under the circumstances. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 17:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
This is now moot, as I have found an acceptable journal source although its access is more restricted. -- Avi ( talk) 19:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
On the reference [44] at Joseph Lister It states on the tooltip "borderline source, Benthan Open are of a concern. Indianjournals.com/Diva Enterprise journals Check the UGC Lists". Would that be a valid source/and/or where would the UGC Lists stored? The article is published from Thieme Medical Publishers. scope_creep Talk 10:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Is Alan Singh Chanda the correct name as the builder of Amber Fort? [1] -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 06:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
References
@ Banks Irk: this person its author? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 03:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
What kind of source is this book and what does it tell about the Chanda ruler? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 07:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Not showing more than eleven pages. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 09:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The part of this book visible in Google search was not found here. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
How is this[ [1]] source? Karsan Chanda ( talk) 02:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
How are its other sources? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Banks Irk: Can it be used for historical claims? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 07:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
References
How is this source? -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 14:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@ Erp: Is it useful for Alan Singh Chanda and Chanda dynasty. -- Karsan Chanda ( talk) 04:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting... Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". AndyTheGrump ( talk) 05:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
There is an ongoing RfC to determine if a source is not acceptable for the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes’s section for possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. You can participate in the RfC in this discussion section. Elijahandskip ( talk) 08:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this site considered reliable when it comes to sourcing a DOB for an actor/actress or does it fall under the WP:DOB part of WP:BLP policy? I'm wondering because I saw it used as a source for an actresses' DOB and I notice everyday it puts out a list of actors that were born on that day as well as their age. However some of those actors and actresses have never publicity disclosed their DOB and sites that do have them listed are on unreliable ones like IMDB, Google or other wikis. As well as sites that likely got that info from the aforementioned ones. Kcj5062 ( talk) 01:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I just saw this [48] happen at Alice Walker and I'm worried we've got a WP:circular issue here... I suspect that Cleveland.com is using wikipedia to make these lists. I would not consider lists of celebrity birthdays to be the same sort of thing as real reporting... Its online content fluff that was probably created by an intern and fact checked by no one. That opinion is not limited to Cleveland.com, applies to a wide range of publications which publish online content fluff in addition to real reporting. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Should http://tnc.news the news services of the True North Centre for Public Policy be added to the list of deprecated sources at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources? 72.141.177.38 ( talk) 14:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Is
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice (a journal published by
Ubiquity Press on behalf of the
Citizen Science Association) a reliable source? The article "
Tracking Science: An Alternative for Those Excluded by Citizen Science" was used in Wikipedia's
Science article to support the statement that the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old
, but
Headbomb,
Andrew Lancaster, and
Artem.G have all challenged the reliability of this
peer-reviewed journal. —
Freoh 20:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
amateur? Its editorial board seems fairly professional to me. — Freoh 11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.
amateur? — Freoh 09:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
serious? Also, I don't see how it's relevant that some of the authors are amateurs. That's how science works, a lot of the time: "amateur" graduate students publish in peer-reviewed journals with their advisors. I don't see how this is any different, and the article doesn't mention
wokeness at all. — Freoh 14:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
a serious analysis of archeological findings by professional historians of science. You can't dismiss a peer-reviewed article by reputable experts just because it's the first publication for some of the authors. — Freoh 16:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
based on the hypothesis that scientific reasoning is rooted in innate properties of the modern human mind(emphasis added). That's awfully weak sauce for supporting a strong statement. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The oldest direct evidence suggests that such integrated abstract thinking was already practiced in Africa more than 60,000 years ago ... forming the basis of modern science.
Our definition recognizes continuity from the origins of scientific reasoning with the evolution of modern Homo sapiens hunter-gatherers in Africa more than 100,000 years ago through to modern physics
The definition of tracking science describes, among other things, what Indigenous communities in Africa have been doing for more than 100,000 years
The point isn't that it's "biased", it's that it's an opinion column. Those very quotes make clear that they are defining a kind of science to include old practices that evidence suggests people followed tens of millennia ago. At most, this kind of writing could support an attributed opinion claim. It's not enough to justify our saying, in Wiki-voice, that those practices are the "roots of science" and that they do in fact have the pedigree suggested. For my own part, I am actually sympathetic to the Saganesque expansiveness of defining "science" broadly. As rhetoric, it appeals to me. For the purposes of an encyclopedia article, however, I find it much less suitable. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)