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 420 | ← | Archive 424 | Archive 425 | Archive 426 | Archive 427 | Archive 428 | → | Archive 430 |
This journal [1] is used on a new page Al-Qaed Ibrahim Mosque and I noted that it was marked as unreliable/blacklisted by a user script ( CiteHighlighter) but could not find any reference to it anywhere on the site. Would like clarification. Recon rabbit 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I've just started working on a draft article for Zach Panning and have found extensive sources from two websites that I'm not sure qualify as reliable citable sources. They are https://www.flotrack.org/, and https://citiusmag.com/ I feel strongly that they do qualify - they have staff, function officially within the track world, etc. but I just want to be sure. Wondering what you (all) think. AdmiralAckbar1977 talk contribs 23:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm being told by newish contributors that this is a reliable source simply because it isn't on the list of unreliable sources. It seems obvious to me that it's a mirror site, and I feel sure it has been discussed before but it doesn't appear in the archive (or in the List of mirrors and forks). Can anyone point me to a previous discussion? If not, what do people think? Deb ( talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the adobo magazine reliable? I keep seeing it during looking for sources on my draft. - Dents ( talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Considering that they literally say "we rely on Jesus, not common sense", they don't seem like a very reliable source. Goldside852 ( talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion on the talk page for King Noah has not been able to come to a consensus about if sources published by Herald House, the Maxwell Institute, and Deseret Book are primary sources for pages about people in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is sacred writ for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other church in the Latter Day Saint movement, including the Church of Christ. I know this isn't the primary sources noticeboard, but I believe that some of the concerns about primary sources overlap with reliability in this case. Herald House is the publishing house for the Church of Christ. The Maxwell Institute is sponsored by Brigham Young University, which is owned by the LDS Church. Deseret Book is owned by the LDS Church. I believe that books published by these publishers/institutes are secondary sources and should be attributed in-text for interpretive information, but not for summary of Book of Mormon narrative. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions, so as a courtesy I have pinged Pbritti, out of the sense that this conversation could have implications for what are considered secondary and reliable sources for religious text topics beyond Book of Mormon studies and these particular presses.
original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. This is a conventional and reasonable definition that also matches the understanding taught in the humanities. Primary sources for King Noah would be sources close to the "event" of King Noah and written by people directly involved. Since King Noah is known via being a figure in the Book of Mormon, primary sources would be the Book of Mormon and manuscript materials from its production.
not made, provided, approved, or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Brant Gardner's commentary on the Book of Mormon is the source for the first paragraph about perceptions of Lamanites. Garder's interpretation of Zeniff's words are attributed in-text. It is published by Kofford Books, a publisher independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other churches within the Latter Day Saint movement. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Zeniff about if Brant Gardner is a reliable source for interpretation of Book of Mormon people. HEB argues that he is "not respected or mainstream scholarship". I argue that his work was foundational to Book of Mormon Studies. P-Makoto provides several secondary sources from within Mormon studies that judge Gardner's work favorably. FyzixFighter writes that this use by other scholars is sufficient to establish his commentary as reliable. HEB says that this does not establish reliability. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The person[I]
said is an expertwas a spin off the preacher example you gave; the "expert" I spoke of is a hypothetical Baptist preacher that doesn't exist; he's certainly not cited on the Zeniff or King Noah pages.
The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited.
minor LDS publisher, it is quite respected in the field of Mormon studies. Sociologist of religion Armand Mauss wrote that
Greg Kofford Books of Salt Lake City (www.koffordbooks.com) also specializes in Mormon Studies(in "The Emergence Of Mormon Studies In The Social Sciences", in American Sociology of Religion, ed. Anthony Blasi, Religion and the Social Order vol. 13 [Brill, 2007], 121–150, here 124). And academic organizations have recognized Greg Kofford Books publications with several awards, including Best Biography (from the John Whitmer Historical Association in 2016 and from the Mormon History Association in 2012), Best Book (from the Mormon History Association in 2015 and from JWHA and MHA in 2011), Best International Book (from MHA in 2013, 2014, and 2015), and Best Religious Nonfiction (from the Association for Mormon Letters in 2014). P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Can I use The Barony of Ynys Fawr to cite "In the Battle of Kauthal, the Bahmanis had a force of almost 40,000 whereas the Vijayanagar forces numbered almost 540,000", by taking from "In the battle of Kauthal 40,000 Muslim troops of the Bahmani Sultanate defeat possibly 540,000 troops of the kingdom of Vijayanagar by superior cavalry"? Imperial [AFCND] 13:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Our current RSP entry on
The Verge says that it is reliable for articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles
. I think this should be upgraded to being a reliable source in general, as it is owned by
Vox Media, which also operates Vox which RSP says is broadly generally reliable, and from my experience reading it I would consider it to be a largely impeccable source.
I ask this specifically because of the Eugene Gu article. Eugene Gu is a doctor who garnered considerable attention as a Twitter personality. In 2019, The Verge ran an investigative journalism piece on Gu, covering a number of controversies he had been involved with. [2]. The same allegations were also covered in a Vice News article published the year before [3]. The result of two RfCs conducted in 2021 and this month is that sexual assault/harrassment and domestic violence allegations mentioned in these pieces should not be included in the article due to the lack of wider coverage in other articles.
However @ TarnishedPath: has been using the result of these RfCs as an excuse to excise all uses of The Verge article as a reference, even for uses that are not related to those covered in the RfCs, such as the allegation that Gu used sockpuppets on Twitter to attack critics, which heavily features in The Verge and Vice News articles. I think this is a misrepresentation of the result of these RfCs which did not cover this content. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
If we don't use primary sources in articles, we shouldn't be using them in our arguments in RfCs., WP:NOR explicitly
does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 05:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
articles relating to technology, science, and automobilesis a question for WP:RSN. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
On Twitter, [Gu] claimed that Mary Laury’s account was “an anonymous account people close to me created to address the trolling issues I was encountering from Trump supporters on Twitter. After a while I also shared access of this account to help combat the trolls.”If Gu openly admits to it it's hardly "trumped up" is it? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!Emphasis mine. There was some discussion of The Verge article in Archive 2, and one user questioned whether the RSP label saying that the The Verge was reliable for
technology, science, and automobilesmeant that it was less reliable for other topics, which in my opinion is not the case. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars?and the close was that it was. That is all that can be taken from its entry on RSP. Whether it is reliable for anything else is not something that RSP can answer. RFCs answer only the question they ask, editors may have completely different answers to a different question. This would also apply to the RFC about the allegations by "Allison" against the subject. Just because those allegations shouldn't be included doesn't give reason to remove other instances of The Verge being used as a reference.
In populating the infobox result parameter, we would use X victory if this was the consensus of sources and this was also reflected by the body of the article. In this case, we have sources that would refer to this as an Indian victory and sources that would refer to this as a stalemate or inconclusive. In such a case, MOS:MIL and the template documentation would instruct us to populate the result parameter with See Aftermath section where the various views in the sources would be discussed. There is no dispute regarding the guidance.
An assertion is being made that all sources listed in the article reporting a result that is a stalemate/inconclusive are passing mentions that fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and consequently are to be discounted en masse. I have copied to here, the citations as they appear in the article and also included those supporting an Indian victory for comparison.
While there has been some commentary regarding some of these sources specifically in the pre RfC discussion, there has been no detailed analysis documented that would substantiate that all of these sources are not reliable in that they fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
If participants in the RfC feel they must comment, then please indicate that they are involved. For the record, I initiated the RfC. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Question Which (if any) of the sources cited are reliable for asserting that the result of the war was inconclusive or a stalemate?
Following their open intervention, of course, the Indian strength on this sector, once established, increased rapidly; but never to such an extent as to threaten to overwhelm the Azad Kashmiri defenders. During the course of 1948 a stalemate was reached which has persisted more or less to the present day. A front line was stabilised which ran south from the Indian controlled Poonch salient, passed just west of Naoshera (which remained in Indian hands), and reached the old Punjab border (now that of Pakistan) a few miles to the west of the Chenab River. The Jammu & Kashmir State town garrisons to the west of this line were unable to hold out against Azad Kashmiri siege, many falling during the course of November 1947. The extreme south of this sector was really an extension of the Punjab plains; and here fighting could take place on a surprisingly large scale, so that in successive Indo-Pakistani Wars this was to be the scene of great clashes of armour and the use of tactical air power, at times of a magnitude which would have aroused notice in World War II
As 1947 drew to a close, it was already possible to detect a pattern in the Kashmir conflict. The combination of the Azad Kashmiris and the Gilgit Scouts, with varying degrees of assistance both moral and material from Pakistan, had produced the beginnings of a stalemate, and this the cleverer soldiers on both sides appreciated. India now had over 90,000 regular troops in Jammu & Kashmir and yet no quick military solution was in sight. There would, of course, be much fighting in the future. 1948 saw both the epic struggle for Poonch and, later in the year, the Indian victories at the Zoji La and Kargil which achieved control over the Leh-Srinagar road and not only gave India Possession of the Ladakhi capital but also access to the desolate Tibetan borderlands without which the Sino-Indian conflict of the late 1950s would certainly have assumed a rather different form. By the beginning of 1948, however, astute observers could well have concluded that some kind of partition.
Despite its inconclusive ending, the first Kashmir war had two major results. First, it demonstrated that nonstate actors could enable Pakistan to challenge India in a manner that limited the prospect of direct military confrontation ... Second, the war enhanced Kashmir's importance to Pakistan, extending the dispute well past the time of partition and transforming it into a contest of national resolve with India.
Meanwhile, in typical tribal fashion, the Pathans delayed their attack on Srinagar and its airfield in order to devote themselves to looting and pillage. This delay allowed India time to mount an air bridge to Srinagar. The Indians used their entire inventory of thirty Dakota military transports to airlift a battalion of Sikhs, blood enemies of the Pathans, to Srinagar's airfield. A three-thousand-man army brigade was rushed up the terrible roads from the plains to Kashmir. After a month of chaotic fighting, the Pathans and Muslim irregular forces were pushed westward by arriving Indian Army troops. Further inconclusive fighting, which was joined in 1948 by regular Pakistani army units, sputtered on until the United Nations imposed a ceasefire in January 1949 between India and Pakistan.
Kargil was a pivotal battleground during the First Kashmir War. In October 1947, Gilgit Scouts, assisted by Muslim soldiers in the Kashmir state army, mounted a successful coup d'etat in the Northern Areas. The so-called Azad (Free) Forces set up headquarters in the valley town of Astore. The rebels then recruited additional volunteers in the Gilgit and Baltistan regions and moved along the valleys and Indus River while pushing back the Kashmir state army. In February 1948, the "Azad Forces" besieged the garrison in Skardu where non-Muslim civilian and military personnel had taken refuge. In response Pakistan's motivations and calculations for the Kargil In the end, the fighting proved inconclusive, and Pakistani and Indian forces reached a military stalemate in Kashmir. The negotiated Cease-Fire Line was codified in the Karachi Agreement of 1949
The war escalated toward the end of 1948, when Pakistan moved troops up from Lahore to fight in Jammu province, exposing itself to possible attack in the Punjab. However, before the war spread beyond the Kashmir territory, and before a conclusive military outcome was reached on the battlefield, a cease-fire was arranged by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), a five-member body send by the UN to help resolve the conflict.
The first fifteen years of the India-Pakistan conflict witnessed violence of different intensities. Even before institutionalizing their independence, India and Pakistan were locked in a crisis which led to their first war from 1947 to 1949. Pakistan showed no hesitation in starting the war and India reciprocated in kind. Though inconclusive, the war has left a permanent mark on the India-Pakistan conflict.
Later, when the outcome of the First Kashmir War did not favor either side, the resulting stalemate led to a puzzling division of Kashmir between the two adversaries.
Although certain minor operations were possible, India was essentially confronted with a stalemate.
Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded.
In the stalemate that followed the first Indo-Pakistani War...
That effort failed, and the ensuing war in 1947 – 48 ended in a military stalemate.
In January 1948, with a military stalemate at hand, India referred the Kashmir dispute to the UN.
With British officers present in both armies and the international community urging restraint, the conflict ended in a tactical and strategic stalemate.
A stalemate developed, with neither side able to win an overwhelming victory.
In the south of J&K, the war situation was essentially a stalemate by 1949.
The first Kashmir War between India and Pakistan lasted from October 1947 to January 1949 and ended in a stalemate...
The outcome was a stalemate in which India's democratic desires and Pakistan's security aims were stymied on the altar of greater concerns
The 1947 war ended in a military stalemate
With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply lines, the military situation reached a stalemate.
Since India's independence from British colonial rule and the subsequent partition in 1947, India and Pakistan, both of which claim sovereign control over the region, have found four inconclusive wars over Kashmir.
In the first Kashmir war, India occupied two-thirds of the disputed territory and Pakistan was clearly defeated during its first war with India.
The war for states had not only ended in Indian military victory but had given its leaders enormous self-confidence and satisfaction over a job well done.
India won, and gained two-thirds of Kashmir, which it successfully held against another Pakistani invasion in 1965.
the 1947 First Kashmir (won by India, according to MIDS classification)
Victor: India, Defeated: Pakistan
Pakistan lost all three wars, which is a major source of humiliation for Pakistanis. The first war (1947-1948) was fought over Kashmir, a predominately Muslim region that remained in India when India was portioned into two states. The war failed to secure Pakistan's sovereignty over the region as it left the majority of it under India.
Pakistan has fought and lost four wars with India (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999)
That war represented a defeat for Pakistan. Hoping to conquer Kashmir, the Pakistani leaders had sent their best troops into battle against the Indian army. Military victory proved beyond the means of the smaller state, though it was by the mid - 1960s a militaristic regime.
based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir.
Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir.
Notified at WP:NPOVN. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Can we get some experience editors over at Talk:North Korea#Government Type Infobox. Moxy- 05:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed William Keiser at AfC and decided to accept the draft because I felt it would have a half decent chance in an AfD if it were to be nominated. Before accepting the draft I provided my analysis of the sources and their reliability on the talk page (in this diff). I'm curious what other editors thoughts are on the sources from the Washington City Paper, the Washington Blade, and the Washingtonian. Are these sources reliable enough to contribute to the notability of Keiser? TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to add information stating that there have been consultation requests from certain government departments to this Native American Tribe on the Tribe’s Wikipedia page.
The government letters are official documents that the Tribe received, and they posted copies of the letters on their website.
I guess these letters would be considered primary sources that contain information on different government projects they wish to inform or consult with the Tribe about.
The letters I want to use are all on government letterhead, written by an official representative of the department, signed by the official, and contact information is included.
They are not replies to previous communications and they do not state opinions.
I’m thinking that I want to state that a particular government department requested consultation with the Tribe on so-and-so project then cite the statement with the letter posted for this department on the Tribe’s website.
If done like this, would this be considered a reliable source?
Context information: The Tribe’s webpage that contains the letters is Government Agencies Relationships and Consults with the Tribe. If this is considered an acceptable source, then it will be added under Government Agencies Relationships and Consults with the Tribe.
The first letter linked to on this page would be an example showing that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested comments from the Chairman of the Tribe on a South Texas Project. I have not yet edited anything on the Tribe’s Wikipedia page because I want to be sure that the Tribe’s webpage with the letters I use are reliable sources.
https://www.lipanapache.org/LAT/assets/PDFs/G2G/2020-05-04_US_NRC.pdf
Using this example of a letter I would cite on the Tribe’s webpage, I would add to the Wikipedia page in an appropriate place that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested comments that the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas may have to offer on the scope of the environmental review.” Whitewolfdog1 ( talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TV_Guide says:
Two separate questions:
(1) Is
TV Guide a reliable source for the matters named in the subject line above? 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) --
David Tornheim (
talk) 20:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
(2) Is
TV Guide reliable for the list of films acted in by
Torin Thatcher
[5] --
David Tornheim (
talk) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I have written an article Reardon Building using several Arcadia Publishing books as sources. I need a second pair of eyes to let me know if these citations are reliable. This building is part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California Historic Commercial District. Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: see Talk:Reardon Building#Notability tag for recent ongoing discussion about the source, and WP:ARCADIA for an archived community-wide RSN discussion. Left guide ( talk) 23:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities. As co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky (forthcoming from University Press of Kentucky), I have proudly worked with nearly all of the authors reviewed in this essay, many of whom have contributed entries to the encyclopedia. They include librarians, historians, a professor, two historic preservationists, two planners, a medical doctor, a nurse, and a journalist/publisher.See page 85 of Tenkotte, Paul A. (Summer 2007). "The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing". Ohio Valley History. 33 (1): 85–91.
It just came to my realization that virtually all of the Arcadia books I've been dealing with are written by "Alissandra Dramov", who's three Arcadia books (and one book self-published by AuthorHouse) are cited en masse across articles related to Carmel-by-the-Sea. I could not find any evidence of her writing under other publishers, nor any evidence of her work being vouched for by independent reliable sources. Is this author reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria? Left guide ( talk) 05:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
For anyone interested in local history, this book is a good start, offering an overview of Carmel's first 10 years without getting into extraneous details.
career in broadcast journalism, described as follows: she
went off to University of San Francisco, where she majored in government and minored in history, before heading to law school. One year in, she decided law was not her field, and pursued broadcast journalism instead[...]
Dramov became the producer of the 6 o’clock news at KION. More interested in working on air, she pursued new markets in Arizona, Ohio, and Nebraska[...]
In late 2001, she came home to Carmel and continued her broadcast career in Monterey County. And then wrote four books.
idk :DragonflySixtyseven said it is not Dr Jackson is not rweal ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
For reference, the specific claim under dispute here is whether this constitutes a basis to include soyjak.party in the "Soyjak" section of Wojak. Without getting into too much detail, this is a website whose users are remarkably badly behaved, even by the standards of imageboards (indeed, even by the standards of imageboard in 2024, which are lower still). The diff of the content that's being sourced to this site is Special:Diff/1205403768, which seems like obvious SEO slop.
With that out of the way, and looking at the site itself, it is more or less entirely SEO slop: most recent articles include "How to Fix Error Code 5 1 503 in Helldivers 2", "How to Fix “Server Request Failed” Error in Helldivers 2", "How to Fix Helldivers 2 Failed to Join Game Lobby Error", and "What is the purpose of a “staking pool” in a Proof of Stake blockchain?", which is maybe the sloppiest slop ever slopped. I'd be inclined to say that this is some kind of marketing/content mill site. jp× g 🗯️ 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I left a message at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 5 regarding a copyright issue at Ian Lavender but as it seems to be an issue with Bristol Live instead of the Wikipedia article I should have posted it here instead. A paragraph at https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/dads-army-star-ian-lavender-9078725 published today is identical to one in the article dating from at least 2013. The publication has editorial oversight but it seems that the article lifted information straight from the article so a discussion over how reliable the publication is and other's related to its parent company Reach PLC would be helpful. Suonii180 ( talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This source: https://www.naijanews.com/buzz/people/orlando-brown-actor-wife-girlfriend-boyfriend-children-net-worth/ was used in Orlando Brown (actor) to support the claim that his fiance is Omena Alexandria. This source seems questionable, and so I wanted to get some input on it. Specifically, the website say wiki, which suggests that it might be user generated, but I could not find confirmation for that. GrayStorm( Talk| Contributions) 17:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh man. I have been noticing a decline in their editorial oversight recently, but this is just ridiculous. Scorpions1325 ( talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
so ill – with flu-like symptoms and terrible headaches that went on for agesand how that "vindicated [her] opnion" not to vaccinate her children.
It's green because we've had numerous RfCs- links? I see exactly one RfC, and it was only about transgender topics. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Once again, Wikipedians reach a clear consensus that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In effect it is almost like some people read WP:BIASED as saying that bias alone renders a source reliable, as opposed to being something that does not necessarily render a source unreliable. And certainly publishing actual fringe positions goes beyond just being biased. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
secondhand smoke does no harm, in the scathing manner you would expect (
The story she filed about a small, run-of-the-mill study involving exposure to secondhand smoke consisted mostly of tobacco-lobby spin and a lot of egregious mistakes.) Another source (pg. 354) covering conspiracy theories about vaccines notes that, of the sources they surveyed,
...only in one case does the author endorse conspiratorial thinking. This is an article published in 2010 by The Daily Telegraph and significantly titled “The hidden hand of powerful forces”; while discussing the GMC’s ruling against Andrew Wakefield [...] The author is here claiming that Andrew Wakefield and his colleague were not struck off the British medical register because of scientific and medical malpractice, and that this ruling is actually an attempt to silence them on the part of the so-called “medical establishment”.-- Aquillion ( talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder what is going on with people posting on here. Is anybody saying that there is a false claim in this article? This is absolutely obviously an opinion article, relating one individual's personal interpretation of their own experience. It would not be RS for anything relating to medicine (or indeed anything not the opinion of the writer), and would not be WP:DUE for anything else. Also, there is no evidence of a single false claim here so far. I can't read it, as it's behind a paywall, so we need direct quotes on here please. Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) This particular article doesn't really raise issues to me. It's very obviously a personal story. It's not opinion; it's more "human interest". I don't think its a concern it doesn't have the word "opinion", because it's from a "Health" section, not a news section. I can't imagine a single conceivable instance where someone would think to use this article as a source in Wikipedia. Even if someone did, we could just remove it on the basis of WP:MEDRS. I do agree that the Telegraph is not a great source for culture war topics (e.g. gender, critical race theory), and maybe some words of caution should be inserted into RSP, but I'm not sure it's worth removing its green status for that. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 22:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I've read this now, and I'm baffled with the response. It's a "one woman's personal story" article. It would never be used. The Wakefield adjacent claim is actually this And I didn’t want my child’s system overloaded by dosing them with three illnesses at the same time, especially since they are very low risk diseases.
which is preceeded by My main concern with the MMR vaccine was giving it all at once to young babies, it wasn’t the link with autism (which has since been debunked) that scared me.
The whole article is simply an interview detailing an individual woman's experience in the first person, she is not presented as an expert. There is no claim whatsoever about the safety of vaccines in the article.
Interviewing a vaccine-hesitant woman does not have any bearing at all on whether a source is reliable, it is hard not to see this discussion as part of a culture war in and of itself. Boynamedsue ( talk) 05:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Unmissable features, opinions and experiences from across The Telegraph’s lifestyle sections. I definitely feel like I've run into this before and have had disputes with editors who argued that the wording means that only some parts of the lifestyle section are opinion, which doesn't seem defensible if they're publishing stuff like this there. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hindustan Times is an Indian English-language newspaper that is used as a source in lots of articles (I used the source sometimes). I tried searching up for its reliability, only to get a primary source about its reliability (positive) and a Quora post (negative). Since both can’t really establish anything about its reliability, I thought it would be good to bring this up here. P.S. There is this discussion where Hindustan Times mirrored Wikipedia here if I’m not wrong.
Options:
Brachy08 (Talk) 07:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Colddays underwater uses it as a source in nearly all of their edits Interestingly, the source has never been checked for trustworthiness. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
not known for fact-checking, and with a right-wing bias"
where no significant journalism work was done".
I'm asking because I wanted to assign the political position to a movement and I don't know if the source is reliable. Monito rapido ( talk) 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article List of informally named dinosaurs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, unsurprisingly, a cruft magnet. At present, a non-trivial number of entries are supported solely by the blogs of Darren Naish. Naish does publish books, and these are cited, and I think unproblematic, but should we really include entries sourced solely to his blog, or his "Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week" (svpow.wordpress.com / svpow.com)?
I guess my concern is single-sourcing as much as the unreviewed nature of these articles. If only one person attests an "informal name", that seems to me to be a bit of an open door for nonsense. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
We at WikiProject Dinosaurs have had various discussions about sourcing criteria for this list, see Talk:List_of_informally_named_dinosaurs#Sourcing_requirements. Naish's blog was for a long time published on the Scientific American website, for what that's worth, and some of the early articles were published as a book [10]. SVPOW is run by Michael P. Taylor and Matt Wedel, two well-respected sauropod paleontologists, and not Naish. There has been disagreement on the talk page about whether specimens given nicknames by Naish (which I largely added) should be included on the list. That's something really to be discussed on the talkpage, as others have mentioned. (Full disclosure, I have corresponded with Naish on a handful of occasions years ago and went to his convention TetZooCon a decade ago). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This is regarding a discussion I had with Phastolph regarding the sources they were providing for their edits in Drowned World Tour, regarding a remix in the Set list section. These are the sources they had provided for the talk page discussion we had:
They insist that the YouTube account is official (it's topic), but I have a feeling that it may be original research. Are these sources they provided reliable? HorrorLover555 ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
At the John James Cunningham article, there are currently 19 citations to this book ( Google Books link) being used to support what looks like more than half of the article's content. I was unable to find any information online that vouches for the credibility of either the author (Alice Putnam Erskine) or the publisher (Anava Designs). Is this book reliable or self-published? Left guide ( talk) 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Published by Oakland Tribune on Dec. 24, 2006.P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
the subject was a friend of the author, does that mean it's considered a WP:COISOURCE? Left guide ( talk) 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
In 1951, Cunningham won the First Honorable Mention in the seventieth annual exhibition; Filler that he was simply a person doing paid odd jobs like:
He worked as a decorator for Gimbels department store.as well as the rest of that entire paragraph that’s about showing at non-notable venues; Also, the entire first two paragraphs of “Early life” including his education; and there is this fluff from when he was a student:
During his time at Berkeley, he created the official senior class ring for the University of California. In 1927, he was responsible for creating the sets for the Senior Extravaganza held at the Berkeley Theater. The play titled High Hat was written by playwright Elaine Ryan.; etc. etc. This type of content is pure filler and fluff. Netherzone ( talk) 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an increasing prevalence on some websites of having a) a cookie policy that not only makes it difficult to opt out, decline or refuse cookies, but also b) uses a separate "legitimate interest" basis for including cookies, even as they claim they care about our privacy. The cookies are for a lot of what they call "affiliates." We're not just talking Google Analytics/AdWords and equivalents, we're talking over 1,500 listed affiliates on some sites! I wanted to check the content of one such page just now - a page on the Comic Book Resources website used ten times as a reference on Daredevil: Born Again, but to do so without accepting affiliates' "legitimate interest" cookies (the "legitimate interest" is "we want to advertise stuff to you and track the other sites you visit to do that"), I had to click over 100 times to opt out of receiving such cookies, and in doing so, I had only got as far as the letter D, before I gave up. Not every affiliate had the 'legitimate interest' option, but any that did have it were opt-out rather than opt-in. I'm guessing it would have taken over 500 clicks to decline them all and get to the content. There was no 'Reject all' option.
What would peoples' thoughts be on declaring such sites to be non-reliable, by default? I've come across them mostly on pop-culture topics - movies, music, games, "celebrities" and similar. While they are legitimate sites, their content rarely seems to be in-depth, and it may just be confirmation bias, but the standard of content seems to have dropped since the trend of "legitimate interest" has come along, as they're presumably getting increased income per page view and are using SEO tactics to have many smaller, related articles rather than longer, more in-depth ones. I want to get a general feel for opinions here, before possibly posting a formal RfC. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 8 February 2024 (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 420 | ← | Archive 424 | Archive 425 | Archive 426 | Archive 427 | Archive 428 | → | Archive 430 |
This journal [1] is used on a new page Al-Qaed Ibrahim Mosque and I noted that it was marked as unreliable/blacklisted by a user script ( CiteHighlighter) but could not find any reference to it anywhere on the site. Would like clarification. Recon rabbit 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I've just started working on a draft article for Zach Panning and have found extensive sources from two websites that I'm not sure qualify as reliable citable sources. They are https://www.flotrack.org/, and https://citiusmag.com/ I feel strongly that they do qualify - they have staff, function officially within the track world, etc. but I just want to be sure. Wondering what you (all) think. AdmiralAckbar1977 talk contribs 23:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm being told by newish contributors that this is a reliable source simply because it isn't on the list of unreliable sources. It seems obvious to me that it's a mirror site, and I feel sure it has been discussed before but it doesn't appear in the archive (or in the List of mirrors and forks). Can anyone point me to a previous discussion? If not, what do people think? Deb ( talk) 09:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the adobo magazine reliable? I keep seeing it during looking for sources on my draft. - Dents ( talk2me 🖂) he/him btw!!! 08:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Considering that they literally say "we rely on Jesus, not common sense", they don't seem like a very reliable source. Goldside852 ( talk) 19:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited, the context of the fact and cite in the article, incentives of the source to be reliable, the general tone of credibility of the source for the specific fact, etc. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Ongoing discussion on the talk page for King Noah has not been able to come to a consensus about if sources published by Herald House, the Maxwell Institute, and Deseret Book are primary sources for pages about people in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is sacred writ for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other church in the Latter Day Saint movement, including the Church of Christ. I know this isn't the primary sources noticeboard, but I believe that some of the concerns about primary sources overlap with reliability in this case. Herald House is the publishing house for the Church of Christ. The Maxwell Institute is sponsored by Brigham Young University, which is owned by the LDS Church. Deseret Book is owned by the LDS Church. I believe that books published by these publishers/institutes are secondary sources and should be attributed in-text for interpretive information, but not for summary of Book of Mormon narrative. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 16:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia relies on similar sources for its coverage of Catholicism, Hinduism, and many other major world religions, so as a courtesy I have pinged Pbritti, out of the sense that this conversation could have implications for what are considered secondary and reliable sources for religious text topics beyond Book of Mormon studies and these particular presses.
original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. This is a conventional and reasonable definition that also matches the understanding taught in the humanities. Primary sources for King Noah would be sources close to the "event" of King Noah and written by people directly involved. Since King Noah is known via being a figure in the Book of Mormon, primary sources would be the Book of Mormon and manuscript materials from its production.
not made, provided, approved, or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Brant Gardner's commentary on the Book of Mormon is the source for the first paragraph about perceptions of Lamanites. Garder's interpretation of Zeniff's words are attributed in-text. It is published by Kofford Books, a publisher independent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and other churches within the Latter Day Saint movement. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page for Zeniff about if Brant Gardner is a reliable source for interpretation of Book of Mormon people. HEB argues that he is "not respected or mainstream scholarship". I argue that his work was foundational to Book of Mormon Studies. P-Makoto provides several secondary sources from within Mormon studies that judge Gardner's work favorably. FyzixFighter writes that this use by other scholars is sufficient to establish his commentary as reliable. HEB says that this does not establish reliability. Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The person[I]
said is an expertwas a spin off the preacher example you gave; the "expert" I spoke of is a hypothetical Baptist preacher that doesn't exist; he's certainly not cited on the Zeniff or King Noah pages.
The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another. Evaluation of reliability of a source considers the fact for which the source is cited.
minor LDS publisher, it is quite respected in the field of Mormon studies. Sociologist of religion Armand Mauss wrote that
Greg Kofford Books of Salt Lake City (www.koffordbooks.com) also specializes in Mormon Studies(in "The Emergence Of Mormon Studies In The Social Sciences", in American Sociology of Religion, ed. Anthony Blasi, Religion and the Social Order vol. 13 [Brill, 2007], 121–150, here 124). And academic organizations have recognized Greg Kofford Books publications with several awards, including Best Biography (from the John Whitmer Historical Association in 2016 and from the Mormon History Association in 2012), Best Book (from the Mormon History Association in 2015 and from JWHA and MHA in 2011), Best International Book (from MHA in 2013, 2014, and 2015), and Best Religious Nonfiction (from the Association for Mormon Letters in 2014). P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Can I use The Barony of Ynys Fawr to cite "In the Battle of Kauthal, the Bahmanis had a force of almost 40,000 whereas the Vijayanagar forces numbered almost 540,000", by taking from "In the battle of Kauthal 40,000 Muslim troops of the Bahmani Sultanate defeat possibly 540,000 troops of the kingdom of Vijayanagar by superior cavalry"? Imperial [AFCND] 13:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Our current RSP entry on
The Verge says that it is reliable for articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles
. I think this should be upgraded to being a reliable source in general, as it is owned by
Vox Media, which also operates Vox which RSP says is broadly generally reliable, and from my experience reading it I would consider it to be a largely impeccable source.
I ask this specifically because of the Eugene Gu article. Eugene Gu is a doctor who garnered considerable attention as a Twitter personality. In 2019, The Verge ran an investigative journalism piece on Gu, covering a number of controversies he had been involved with. [2]. The same allegations were also covered in a Vice News article published the year before [3]. The result of two RfCs conducted in 2021 and this month is that sexual assault/harrassment and domestic violence allegations mentioned in these pieces should not be included in the article due to the lack of wider coverage in other articles.
However @ TarnishedPath: has been using the result of these RfCs as an excuse to excise all uses of The Verge article as a reference, even for uses that are not related to those covered in the RfCs, such as the allegation that Gu used sockpuppets on Twitter to attack critics, which heavily features in The Verge and Vice News articles. I think this is a misrepresentation of the result of these RfCs which did not cover this content. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
If we don't use primary sources in articles, we shouldn't be using them in our arguments in RfCs., WP:NOR explicitly
does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 05:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
articles relating to technology, science, and automobilesis a question for WP:RSN. P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
On Twitter, [Gu] claimed that Mary Laury’s account was “an anonymous account people close to me created to address the trolling issues I was encountering from Trump supporters on Twitter. After a while I also shared access of this account to help combat the trolls.”If Gu openly admits to it it's hardly "trumped up" is it? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!Emphasis mine. There was some discussion of The Verge article in Archive 2, and one user questioned whether the RSP label saying that the The Verge was reliable for
technology, science, and automobilesmeant that it was less reliable for other topics, which in my opinion is not the case. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Is The Verge generally considered a reliable news source for use in articles relating to technology, science, culture, and cars?and the close was that it was. That is all that can be taken from its entry on RSP. Whether it is reliable for anything else is not something that RSP can answer. RFCs answer only the question they ask, editors may have completely different answers to a different question. This would also apply to the RFC about the allegations by "Allison" against the subject. Just because those allegations shouldn't be included doesn't give reason to remove other instances of The Verge being used as a reference.
In populating the infobox result parameter, we would use X victory if this was the consensus of sources and this was also reflected by the body of the article. In this case, we have sources that would refer to this as an Indian victory and sources that would refer to this as a stalemate or inconclusive. In such a case, MOS:MIL and the template documentation would instruct us to populate the result parameter with See Aftermath section where the various views in the sources would be discussed. There is no dispute regarding the guidance.
An assertion is being made that all sources listed in the article reporting a result that is a stalemate/inconclusive are passing mentions that fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and consequently are to be discounted en masse. I have copied to here, the citations as they appear in the article and also included those supporting an Indian victory for comparison.
While there has been some commentary regarding some of these sources specifically in the pre RfC discussion, there has been no detailed analysis documented that would substantiate that all of these sources are not reliable in that they fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.
If participants in the RfC feel they must comment, then please indicate that they are involved. For the record, I initiated the RfC. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Question Which (if any) of the sources cited are reliable for asserting that the result of the war was inconclusive or a stalemate?
Following their open intervention, of course, the Indian strength on this sector, once established, increased rapidly; but never to such an extent as to threaten to overwhelm the Azad Kashmiri defenders. During the course of 1948 a stalemate was reached which has persisted more or less to the present day. A front line was stabilised which ran south from the Indian controlled Poonch salient, passed just west of Naoshera (which remained in Indian hands), and reached the old Punjab border (now that of Pakistan) a few miles to the west of the Chenab River. The Jammu & Kashmir State town garrisons to the west of this line were unable to hold out against Azad Kashmiri siege, many falling during the course of November 1947. The extreme south of this sector was really an extension of the Punjab plains; and here fighting could take place on a surprisingly large scale, so that in successive Indo-Pakistani Wars this was to be the scene of great clashes of armour and the use of tactical air power, at times of a magnitude which would have aroused notice in World War II
As 1947 drew to a close, it was already possible to detect a pattern in the Kashmir conflict. The combination of the Azad Kashmiris and the Gilgit Scouts, with varying degrees of assistance both moral and material from Pakistan, had produced the beginnings of a stalemate, and this the cleverer soldiers on both sides appreciated. India now had over 90,000 regular troops in Jammu & Kashmir and yet no quick military solution was in sight. There would, of course, be much fighting in the future. 1948 saw both the epic struggle for Poonch and, later in the year, the Indian victories at the Zoji La and Kargil which achieved control over the Leh-Srinagar road and not only gave India Possession of the Ladakhi capital but also access to the desolate Tibetan borderlands without which the Sino-Indian conflict of the late 1950s would certainly have assumed a rather different form. By the beginning of 1948, however, astute observers could well have concluded that some kind of partition.
Despite its inconclusive ending, the first Kashmir war had two major results. First, it demonstrated that nonstate actors could enable Pakistan to challenge India in a manner that limited the prospect of direct military confrontation ... Second, the war enhanced Kashmir's importance to Pakistan, extending the dispute well past the time of partition and transforming it into a contest of national resolve with India.
Meanwhile, in typical tribal fashion, the Pathans delayed their attack on Srinagar and its airfield in order to devote themselves to looting and pillage. This delay allowed India time to mount an air bridge to Srinagar. The Indians used their entire inventory of thirty Dakota military transports to airlift a battalion of Sikhs, blood enemies of the Pathans, to Srinagar's airfield. A three-thousand-man army brigade was rushed up the terrible roads from the plains to Kashmir. After a month of chaotic fighting, the Pathans and Muslim irregular forces were pushed westward by arriving Indian Army troops. Further inconclusive fighting, which was joined in 1948 by regular Pakistani army units, sputtered on until the United Nations imposed a ceasefire in January 1949 between India and Pakistan.
Kargil was a pivotal battleground during the First Kashmir War. In October 1947, Gilgit Scouts, assisted by Muslim soldiers in the Kashmir state army, mounted a successful coup d'etat in the Northern Areas. The so-called Azad (Free) Forces set up headquarters in the valley town of Astore. The rebels then recruited additional volunteers in the Gilgit and Baltistan regions and moved along the valleys and Indus River while pushing back the Kashmir state army. In February 1948, the "Azad Forces" besieged the garrison in Skardu where non-Muslim civilian and military personnel had taken refuge. In response Pakistan's motivations and calculations for the Kargil In the end, the fighting proved inconclusive, and Pakistani and Indian forces reached a military stalemate in Kashmir. The negotiated Cease-Fire Line was codified in the Karachi Agreement of 1949
The war escalated toward the end of 1948, when Pakistan moved troops up from Lahore to fight in Jammu province, exposing itself to possible attack in the Punjab. However, before the war spread beyond the Kashmir territory, and before a conclusive military outcome was reached on the battlefield, a cease-fire was arranged by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), a five-member body send by the UN to help resolve the conflict.
The first fifteen years of the India-Pakistan conflict witnessed violence of different intensities. Even before institutionalizing their independence, India and Pakistan were locked in a crisis which led to their first war from 1947 to 1949. Pakistan showed no hesitation in starting the war and India reciprocated in kind. Though inconclusive, the war has left a permanent mark on the India-Pakistan conflict.
Later, when the outcome of the First Kashmir War did not favor either side, the resulting stalemate led to a puzzling division of Kashmir between the two adversaries.
Although certain minor operations were possible, India was essentially confronted with a stalemate.
Although the war ended in a stalemate with international intervention, Pakistan may have rightly concluded that the strategy of using irregular fighters succeeded.
In the stalemate that followed the first Indo-Pakistani War...
That effort failed, and the ensuing war in 1947 – 48 ended in a military stalemate.
In January 1948, with a military stalemate at hand, India referred the Kashmir dispute to the UN.
With British officers present in both armies and the international community urging restraint, the conflict ended in a tactical and strategic stalemate.
A stalemate developed, with neither side able to win an overwhelming victory.
In the south of J&K, the war situation was essentially a stalemate by 1949.
The first Kashmir War between India and Pakistan lasted from October 1947 to January 1949 and ended in a stalemate...
The outcome was a stalemate in which India's democratic desires and Pakistan's security aims were stymied on the altar of greater concerns
The 1947 war ended in a military stalemate
With the onset of winter and the consequent problems of maintaining the supply lines, the military situation reached a stalemate.
Since India's independence from British colonial rule and the subsequent partition in 1947, India and Pakistan, both of which claim sovereign control over the region, have found four inconclusive wars over Kashmir.
In the first Kashmir war, India occupied two-thirds of the disputed territory and Pakistan was clearly defeated during its first war with India.
The war for states had not only ended in Indian military victory but had given its leaders enormous self-confidence and satisfaction over a job well done.
India won, and gained two-thirds of Kashmir, which it successfully held against another Pakistani invasion in 1965.
the 1947 First Kashmir (won by India, according to MIDS classification)
Victor: India, Defeated: Pakistan
Pakistan lost all three wars, which is a major source of humiliation for Pakistanis. The first war (1947-1948) was fought over Kashmir, a predominately Muslim region that remained in India when India was portioned into two states. The war failed to secure Pakistan's sovereignty over the region as it left the majority of it under India.
Pakistan has fought and lost four wars with India (1947, 1965, 1971 and 1999)
That war represented a defeat for Pakistan. Hoping to conquer Kashmir, the Pakistani leaders had sent their best troops into battle against the Indian army. Military victory proved beyond the means of the smaller state, though it was by the mid - 1960s a militaristic regime.
based on the disaffection of a layer of army officers reeling from their defeat in Kashmir.
Though swiftly crushed, it pointed to the presence of a simmering debate in the army unleashed by Pakistan's military defeat in Kashmir.
Notified at WP:NPOVN. Cinderella157 ( talk) 03:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Can we get some experience editors over at Talk:North Korea#Government Type Infobox. Moxy- 05:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed William Keiser at AfC and decided to accept the draft because I felt it would have a half decent chance in an AfD if it were to be nominated. Before accepting the draft I provided my analysis of the sources and their reliability on the talk page (in this diff). I'm curious what other editors thoughts are on the sources from the Washington City Paper, the Washington Blade, and the Washingtonian. Are these sources reliable enough to contribute to the notability of Keiser? TipsyElephant ( talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. I would like to add information stating that there have been consultation requests from certain government departments to this Native American Tribe on the Tribe’s Wikipedia page.
The government letters are official documents that the Tribe received, and they posted copies of the letters on their website.
I guess these letters would be considered primary sources that contain information on different government projects they wish to inform or consult with the Tribe about.
The letters I want to use are all on government letterhead, written by an official representative of the department, signed by the official, and contact information is included.
They are not replies to previous communications and they do not state opinions.
I’m thinking that I want to state that a particular government department requested consultation with the Tribe on so-and-so project then cite the statement with the letter posted for this department on the Tribe’s website.
If done like this, would this be considered a reliable source?
Context information: The Tribe’s webpage that contains the letters is Government Agencies Relationships and Consults with the Tribe. If this is considered an acceptable source, then it will be added under Government Agencies Relationships and Consults with the Tribe.
The first letter linked to on this page would be an example showing that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested comments from the Chairman of the Tribe on a South Texas Project. I have not yet edited anything on the Tribe’s Wikipedia page because I want to be sure that the Tribe’s webpage with the letters I use are reliable sources.
https://www.lipanapache.org/LAT/assets/PDFs/G2G/2020-05-04_US_NRC.pdf
Using this example of a letter I would cite on the Tribe’s webpage, I would add to the Wikipedia page in an appropriate place that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has requested comments that the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas may have to offer on the scope of the environmental review.” Whitewolfdog1 ( talk) 04:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TV_Guide says:
Two separate questions:
(1) Is
TV Guide a reliable source for the matters named in the subject line above? 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) --
David Tornheim (
talk) 20:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
(2) Is
TV Guide reliable for the list of films acted in by
Torin Thatcher
[5] --
David Tornheim (
talk) 20:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I have written an article Reardon Building using several Arcadia Publishing books as sources. I need a second pair of eyes to let me know if these citations are reliable. This building is part of the Carmel-by-the-Sea, California Historic Commercial District. Greg Henderson ( talk) 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment: see Talk:Reardon Building#Notability tag for recent ongoing discussion about the source, and WP:ARCADIA for an archived community-wide RSN discussion. Left guide ( talk) 23:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities. As co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky (forthcoming from University Press of Kentucky), I have proudly worked with nearly all of the authors reviewed in this essay, many of whom have contributed entries to the encyclopedia. They include librarians, historians, a professor, two historic preservationists, two planners, a medical doctor, a nurse, and a journalist/publisher.See page 85 of Tenkotte, Paul A. (Summer 2007). "The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing". Ohio Valley History. 33 (1): 85–91.
It just came to my realization that virtually all of the Arcadia books I've been dealing with are written by "Alissandra Dramov", who's three Arcadia books (and one book self-published by AuthorHouse) are cited en masse across articles related to Carmel-by-the-Sea. I could not find any evidence of her writing under other publishers, nor any evidence of her work being vouched for by independent reliable sources. Is this author reliable in accordance with WP:RS criteria? Left guide ( talk) 05:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
For anyone interested in local history, this book is a good start, offering an overview of Carmel's first 10 years without getting into extraneous details.
career in broadcast journalism, described as follows: she
went off to University of San Francisco, where she majored in government and minored in history, before heading to law school. One year in, she decided law was not her field, and pursued broadcast journalism instead[...]
Dramov became the producer of the 6 o’clock news at KION. More interested in working on air, she pursued new markets in Arizona, Ohio, and Nebraska[...]
In late 2001, she came home to Carmel and continued her broadcast career in Monterey County. And then wrote four books.
idk :DragonflySixtyseven said it is not Dr Jackson is not rweal ( talk) 21:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
For reference, the specific claim under dispute here is whether this constitutes a basis to include soyjak.party in the "Soyjak" section of Wojak. Without getting into too much detail, this is a website whose users are remarkably badly behaved, even by the standards of imageboards (indeed, even by the standards of imageboard in 2024, which are lower still). The diff of the content that's being sourced to this site is Special:Diff/1205403768, which seems like obvious SEO slop.
With that out of the way, and looking at the site itself, it is more or less entirely SEO slop: most recent articles include "How to Fix Error Code 5 1 503 in Helldivers 2", "How to Fix “Server Request Failed” Error in Helldivers 2", "How to Fix Helldivers 2 Failed to Join Game Lobby Error", and "What is the purpose of a “staking pool” in a Proof of Stake blockchain?", which is maybe the sloppiest slop ever slopped. I'd be inclined to say that this is some kind of marketing/content mill site. jp× g 🗯️ 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I left a message at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 February 5 regarding a copyright issue at Ian Lavender but as it seems to be an issue with Bristol Live instead of the Wikipedia article I should have posted it here instead. A paragraph at https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/dads-army-star-ian-lavender-9078725 published today is identical to one in the article dating from at least 2013. The publication has editorial oversight but it seems that the article lifted information straight from the article so a discussion over how reliable the publication is and other's related to its parent company Reach PLC would be helpful. Suonii180 ( talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This source: https://www.naijanews.com/buzz/people/orlando-brown-actor-wife-girlfriend-boyfriend-children-net-worth/ was used in Orlando Brown (actor) to support the claim that his fiance is Omena Alexandria. This source seems questionable, and so I wanted to get some input on it. Specifically, the website say wiki, which suggests that it might be user generated, but I could not find confirmation for that. GrayStorm( Talk| Contributions) 17:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh man. I have been noticing a decline in their editorial oversight recently, but this is just ridiculous. Scorpions1325 ( talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
so ill – with flu-like symptoms and terrible headaches that went on for agesand how that "vindicated [her] opnion" not to vaccinate her children.
It's green because we've had numerous RfCs- links? I see exactly one RfC, and it was only about transgender topics. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Once again, Wikipedians reach a clear consensus that the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source-- Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In effect it is almost like some people read WP:BIASED as saying that bias alone renders a source reliable, as opposed to being something that does not necessarily render a source unreliable. And certainly publishing actual fringe positions goes beyond just being biased. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
secondhand smoke does no harm, in the scathing manner you would expect (
The story she filed about a small, run-of-the-mill study involving exposure to secondhand smoke consisted mostly of tobacco-lobby spin and a lot of egregious mistakes.) Another source (pg. 354) covering conspiracy theories about vaccines notes that, of the sources they surveyed,
...only in one case does the author endorse conspiratorial thinking. This is an article published in 2010 by The Daily Telegraph and significantly titled “The hidden hand of powerful forces”; while discussing the GMC’s ruling against Andrew Wakefield [...] The author is here claiming that Andrew Wakefield and his colleague were not struck off the British medical register because of scientific and medical malpractice, and that this ruling is actually an attempt to silence them on the part of the so-called “medical establishment”.-- Aquillion ( talk) 13:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I sometimes wonder what is going on with people posting on here. Is anybody saying that there is a false claim in this article? This is absolutely obviously an opinion article, relating one individual's personal interpretation of their own experience. It would not be RS for anything relating to medicine (or indeed anything not the opinion of the writer), and would not be WP:DUE for anything else. Also, there is no evidence of a single false claim here so far. I can't read it, as it's behind a paywall, so we need direct quotes on here please. Boynamedsue ( talk) 21:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC) This particular article doesn't really raise issues to me. It's very obviously a personal story. It's not opinion; it's more "human interest". I don't think its a concern it doesn't have the word "opinion", because it's from a "Health" section, not a news section. I can't imagine a single conceivable instance where someone would think to use this article as a source in Wikipedia. Even if someone did, we could just remove it on the basis of WP:MEDRS. I do agree that the Telegraph is not a great source for culture war topics (e.g. gender, critical race theory), and maybe some words of caution should be inserted into RSP, but I'm not sure it's worth removing its green status for that. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 22:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so I've read this now, and I'm baffled with the response. It's a "one woman's personal story" article. It would never be used. The Wakefield adjacent claim is actually this And I didn’t want my child’s system overloaded by dosing them with three illnesses at the same time, especially since they are very low risk diseases.
which is preceeded by My main concern with the MMR vaccine was giving it all at once to young babies, it wasn’t the link with autism (which has since been debunked) that scared me.
The whole article is simply an interview detailing an individual woman's experience in the first person, she is not presented as an expert. There is no claim whatsoever about the safety of vaccines in the article.
Interviewing a vaccine-hesitant woman does not have any bearing at all on whether a source is reliable, it is hard not to see this discussion as part of a culture war in and of itself. Boynamedsue ( talk) 05:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Unmissable features, opinions and experiences from across The Telegraph’s lifestyle sections. I definitely feel like I've run into this before and have had disputes with editors who argued that the wording means that only some parts of the lifestyle section are opinion, which doesn't seem defensible if they're publishing stuff like this there. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Hindustan Times is an Indian English-language newspaper that is used as a source in lots of articles (I used the source sometimes). I tried searching up for its reliability, only to get a primary source about its reliability (positive) and a Quora post (negative). Since both can’t really establish anything about its reliability, I thought it would be good to bring this up here. P.S. There is this discussion where Hindustan Times mirrored Wikipedia here if I’m not wrong.
Options:
Brachy08 (Talk) 07:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Colddays underwater uses it as a source in nearly all of their edits Interestingly, the source has never been checked for trustworthiness. ''Flux55'' ( talk) 03:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
not known for fact-checking, and with a right-wing bias"
where no significant journalism work was done".
I'm asking because I wanted to assign the political position to a movement and I don't know if the source is reliable. Monito rapido ( talk) 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
The article List of informally named dinosaurs ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is, unsurprisingly, a cruft magnet. At present, a non-trivial number of entries are supported solely by the blogs of Darren Naish. Naish does publish books, and these are cited, and I think unproblematic, but should we really include entries sourced solely to his blog, or his "Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week" (svpow.wordpress.com / svpow.com)?
I guess my concern is single-sourcing as much as the unreviewed nature of these articles. If only one person attests an "informal name", that seems to me to be a bit of an open door for nonsense. Guy ( help! - typo?) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
We at WikiProject Dinosaurs have had various discussions about sourcing criteria for this list, see Talk:List_of_informally_named_dinosaurs#Sourcing_requirements. Naish's blog was for a long time published on the Scientific American website, for what that's worth, and some of the early articles were published as a book [10]. SVPOW is run by Michael P. Taylor and Matt Wedel, two well-respected sauropod paleontologists, and not Naish. There has been disagreement on the talk page about whether specimens given nicknames by Naish (which I largely added) should be included on the list. That's something really to be discussed on the talkpage, as others have mentioned. (Full disclosure, I have corresponded with Naish on a handful of occasions years ago and went to his convention TetZooCon a decade ago). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This is regarding a discussion I had with Phastolph regarding the sources they were providing for their edits in Drowned World Tour, regarding a remix in the Set list section. These are the sources they had provided for the talk page discussion we had:
They insist that the YouTube account is official (it's topic), but I have a feeling that it may be original research. Are these sources they provided reliable? HorrorLover555 ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
At the John James Cunningham article, there are currently 19 citations to this book ( Google Books link) being used to support what looks like more than half of the article's content. I was unable to find any information online that vouches for the credibility of either the author (Alice Putnam Erskine) or the publisher (Anava Designs). Is this book reliable or self-published? Left guide ( talk) 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Published by Oakland Tribune on Dec. 24, 2006.P-Makoto (she/her) ( talk) 11:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
the subject was a friend of the author, does that mean it's considered a WP:COISOURCE? Left guide ( talk) 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
In 1951, Cunningham won the First Honorable Mention in the seventieth annual exhibition; Filler that he was simply a person doing paid odd jobs like:
He worked as a decorator for Gimbels department store.as well as the rest of that entire paragraph that’s about showing at non-notable venues; Also, the entire first two paragraphs of “Early life” including his education; and there is this fluff from when he was a student:
During his time at Berkeley, he created the official senior class ring for the University of California. In 1927, he was responsible for creating the sets for the Senior Extravaganza held at the Berkeley Theater. The play titled High Hat was written by playwright Elaine Ryan.; etc. etc. This type of content is pure filler and fluff. Netherzone ( talk) 14:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an increasing prevalence on some websites of having a) a cookie policy that not only makes it difficult to opt out, decline or refuse cookies, but also b) uses a separate "legitimate interest" basis for including cookies, even as they claim they care about our privacy. The cookies are for a lot of what they call "affiliates." We're not just talking Google Analytics/AdWords and equivalents, we're talking over 1,500 listed affiliates on some sites! I wanted to check the content of one such page just now - a page on the Comic Book Resources website used ten times as a reference on Daredevil: Born Again, but to do so without accepting affiliates' "legitimate interest" cookies (the "legitimate interest" is "we want to advertise stuff to you and track the other sites you visit to do that"), I had to click over 100 times to opt out of receiving such cookies, and in doing so, I had only got as far as the letter D, before I gave up. Not every affiliate had the 'legitimate interest' option, but any that did have it were opt-out rather than opt-in. I'm guessing it would have taken over 500 clicks to decline them all and get to the content. There was no 'Reject all' option.
What would peoples' thoughts be on declaring such sites to be non-reliable, by default? I've come across them mostly on pop-culture topics - movies, music, games, "celebrities" and similar. While they are legitimate sites, their content rarely seems to be in-depth, and it may just be confirmation bias, but the standard of content seems to have dropped since the trend of "legitimate interest" has come along, as they're presumably getting increased income per page view and are using SEO tactics to have many smaller, related articles rather than longer, more in-depth ones. I want to get a general feel for opinions here, before possibly posting a formal RfC. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)