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.

• The Hustler's Digest
• External Links

I came across The Hustler's Digest while reviewing an AfC submission and decided to investigate the source. The media company produces news articles and other content for its customers. Following are things I noted about it as a source;

• The digest has a clear policy and distinguishes news from sponsored content.
• Articles on the site are written by either staff (team members) or by contributors
• Content produced by contributors is subject to some editorial oversight and follows guidelines

Taking the above into consideration, articles written by company staff may be considered reliable at first glance. However, it should be noted that the site's editorial policy seems to allow for native advertising that is distinct from sponsored content, so sources written by staff should be used with caution. As for contributor content, said content is user-generated and as such is unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. In addition, a search for citations of thehustlersdigest.com on en.wiki shows that - in 7/8 instances - the source cited was written by a contributor and not by staff. It should also be noted that while staff articles distinguish paid content from unpaid content, this standard may not apply to contributor content as most contributors seem to be digital marketers. Surmising all of the above, the source in question should probably be considered as generally unreliable with only staff articles being considered as WP:RS, and then only with proper vetting. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

SamHolt6, I think you give the publication too much credit. It has all the hallmarks of a pay-to-print enterprise. A staff of 4 and no designated editors does not indicate to me that it is a reliable source. I would consider it a self-published source. I mean the home page has "EDITORS PICK" instead of "EDITOR'S PICK" or "EDITORS' PICKS". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

User contributed content is treated the same as self-published, regardless where it is published. Letters to the editor and reader commentaries on news media websites for example are not reliable. Neither are opinion pieces. Seems to me that if a source is rarely used and no problems can be found with its accuracy, it's not a big problem. TFD (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Colombo Page a reliable source for events that occur in Sri Lanka? We have more than 400 citations to colombopage.com  .VR _talk 05:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

They appear to be primarily a news reprinter, and not a source themselves, per their about us page, which states "We post news from the established wire sources such as Reuters but from time to time we include news or news analyses from other sources as well. Most of the "news analyses" are one person and/or group of people�s opinion and these are NOT necessarily a news item." Which says to me that each individual reference should be checked against whether or not it is a reprint from a genuinely reliable source or not. If it is a fine source, we can optionally find the original and link that, but that would not be strictly necessary. If it is not, it should be removed as it probably falls under the sort of "NOT necessarily a news item" reprints that it also claims to have. --Jayron32 14:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Are thearkenstone.blogspot.com and medium.com/war-is-boring reliable sources for military articles? The article is Shahed 171 Simorgh, but I see that they are used elsewhere too. Pahlevun (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Also here, probably. And David_Axe#War_is_Boring may be useful. Jlevi (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

War is Boring has been cited by The Diplomat and suggested by Politico[1].Jlevi (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)David Axe seems to have published at least one scholarly book and David_Axe#War_is_Boring appears to sometimes be cited by reliable, secondary sources. At first glance, he seems to qualify under WP:RSSELF.VR _talk 15:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The book Army 101: Inside ROTC in a Time of War does not sound like a scholarly work (from the pages can be read on Google Books). It is most probably published by University of South Carolina Press only because it is a "nonfiction tale" about ROTC program at the university (Gamecock Battalion). Pahlevun (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• I think War is Boring is an RS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: I found two WikiProject discussions from 2013 and 2017 about War is Boring: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 123#Reliable source question - War is Boring and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 141#War Is Boring as RS. Pahlevun (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
• War is boring used to be an up and coming military news/analysis site run by David Axe, a few years ago it had a pretty strong reputation. In the past two years or so, however, Axe has been doing other things and the site mostly reprints content from elsewhere or reprints old stories. So it depends when.--Hippeus (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The Arkenstone has been cited by the Defense Intelligence Agency [2]. It seems to me to meet WP:SPS. Streamline8988 (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The DIA report cites the blog for information already available on Wikipedia (such as duration of conscription in Iran or subordinates of the defense ministry), which in my opinion, indicates the report's author was lazy enough to not to find a source better than a blog rather than it being reputable. The criteria for SPS inclusion is being an established subject-matter expert. Is the person who ran the blog (which is inactive since 2016), Galen Wright, an established subject-matter expert? Pahlevun (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this report a reliable source. This is used in the context of [[3]]. Andrey Fomich Novatski, the author, was the prosecutor of the local Ganja District Court of Azerbaijan. He was commissioned to create this historical report by the Azerbaijani Government under the Foriegn ministry during the time of the Armenian–Azerbaijani_War (http://www.milliarxiv.gov.az/en/fovqelade-tehqiqat-komissiyasi). The report broadly hoped to raise awareness of Armenian violence. The source is [[4]] page 116. Maidyouneed (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where to look, but in the Vera Farmiga article it states that Freddie Highmore is the godfather to one of her children. The source used [5], the article doesn't state that he is, but he mentioned it in the podcast. The question is, can podcasts be used as a source? I've looked and can't find where it says if podcasts are reliable or not. If they are not, it's easy to find other articles to replace it as a source. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 19:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Fishhead2100, that would seem to be an unvetted claim about a third party, and therefore likely prohibited by WP:BLPSPS. (Also, it's a fairly insignificant detail that doesn't necessarily add to reader understanding of the subject.) (t · c) buidhe 02:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: It's that Vera and Freddie became friends while on the series Bates Motel which is why she made him godfather. But will change the source on the Verma Farmiga article. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Android Headlines (AndroidHeadlines.com) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?

• They have an about, and list of authors.[6][7]

• Every article/post I've looked at has fine print saying "This post may contain affiliate links. See our privacy policy for more information."

• My impression of the site is it is "advert infested" with primary goal of pushing people to ads and product purchases.

• It is used in 133 articles.

• It has been discussed at Talk related to CopperheadOS, where there is an opinion claiming they, in essence, re-publish company press releases, and have retracted controversial articles/posts. I have confirmed only that a couple appearing in recent web search are now 404-not found,[8][9] (but are in archive.org). The actual reason for this is not clear. In light of other things about the site, my guess is this is less due to editorial oversight, and more likely avoiding controversy, and not standing behind what they publish, or properly publishing an update - in balance, negative reliability indicators.

My opinion is they should be considered a self-published group blog (i.e. not reliable). -- Yae4 (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

https://www.androidheadlines.com/2019/12/copperheados-updates-thriving-shut-down.html was retracted and the author of the article Daniel Golightly has confirmed it. They are more than happy to confirm it for others that contact them by email or perhaps Twitter. Regardless of whether or not the source is acceptable in general, that article in particular was retracted. I don't know what happened to the other articles. It's likely they took them down at the same time. I don't have an opinion on whether it's a problematic source as a whole since I haven't read more than the 2 articles about CopperheadOS which had serious accuracy / sourcing issues. Pitchcurve (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Android Headlines is marginally reliable at best and self-published at worst. The website simply deleted the article about the CopperheadOS situation instead of formally retracting it, which is not a positive indicator of its reliability. From my experience, editors tend to be more accepting of marginally reliable sources for niche or specialized topics, but Android in general is too popular to be considered niche. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is TuttoAndroid (tuttoandroid.net, Italian Language) a reliable source for technology-related topics, or should it be considered a self-published group blog?

I was on the fence and used it before, but the more I look, the more it seems like a spammy advert-blog. I couldn't find evidence of editorial oversight. It is only used in 5 articles, 2 of which I've been involved in editing, CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS. Tuttoandroid was brought up for Talk page discussion at CopperheadOS Talk, but more opinions would help. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding: I'd forgotten Newslinger previously said at Talk:GrapheneOS "These citations clearly aren't reliable" and included TuttoAndroid in his list of sources to remove, saying about it: "No staff list. Also appears to be a summarized translation of this Liliputing article. [10] However, somehow it was put back into GrapheneOS later. Considering consensus on Liliputing was non-reliable, TuttoAndroid.net is also looking non-reliable. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

There are 3 non-TuttoAndroid / non-Liliputing references for the CopperheadOS Alpha release now. I'm not aware of all the past discussions or entries like this. If I knew you would have a problem with this reference I would have used the other ones from the start. As far as I know, using these as references for the Alpha release is the only time I have used these references. It now uses https://www.heise.de/security/meldung/CopperheadOS-Alternatives-System-will-Android-sicherer-machen-2827911.html (appears to be a good source) and https://www.androidworld.it/2015/09/08/copperheados-firmware-open-source-sicuro-333633/ (which at least has a staff list with editors) along with the reference to the Alpha release in the LWN article about the Beta release which similarly explains that the Alpha / earlier project was based on CyanogenMod and then it became directly based on AOSP with the Beta. I would have happily used other references if I knew that these were going to be considered a problem. I hope the current references are adequate, which I think is the case. Pitchcurve (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pitchcurve: As it says at the top of this page, "Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct." This discussion is to establish consensus on the one source, if possible, for future reference. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally unreliable. Considering the similarities between the two articles, it certainly looks like TuttoAndroid translated the Liliputing article, changed a few words around, and then claimed it as its own in https://www.tuttoandroid.net/modding/grapheneos-android-sicurezza-privacy-open-source-669777/. Liliputing was already considered a self-published blog in a 2019 RfC, so TuttoAndroid is at best also generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I've found many instances of plagiarism in the book A Reflective Guide to Gender Identity Counselling (published in 2019 by Jessica Kingsley Publishers). For example, the "Trigender" glossary entry is almost identical to an old version of the lead in our "Trigender" article, including the nonsensical final sentence. The next glossary entry, "Tucking", is copied in part from a 2016 Buzzfeed article. The "Demigender" definition is copied from nonbinary.wiki, where it is sourced to a Tumblr post. I emailed Jessica Kingsley Publishers about this months ago; they never responded and they're still selling the book. (Courtesy ping to @Mathglot:, whose work on an unrelated JKP issue reminded me of this.) Cheers, gnu57 20:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a talkpage parameter that specifically documents stuff like this so it makes clear that it is not copyvio, see Talk:Alex Thomson (sailor) for an example. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Genericusername57:, thanks for the ping, but, can I also get a link, please? I hunted around, but could not find what you were referring to. Your comment did remind me, however, to question the notability of Jessica Kingsley Publishers, so I've tagged the article and raised a discussion on the TP. I may also prod it, or recommend it for deletion after a time, if no one else does. Mathglot (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's bad that the plagiarism is there, even if it's only in a glossary. They are still an academic publisher though. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: The book also contains plagiarism outside the glossary: compare, e.g., the discussion of terms for people attracted to transgender people on pages 218-219 with an old revision of the corresponding Wikipedia article. gnu57 22:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Well is this a discussion about whether this book is reliable for the subject it deals with, gender identity counselling? Or is it about Jessica Kingsley in general? Because they have published some good academic stuff too. IMHO notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The Alex Stitt book ACT For Gender Identity: The Comprehensive Guide was also published by Jessica Kingsley Publishers. In April 2020, Literary Art Historian added material based on the ACT book to a number of articles. I noticed earlier today that you had flagged part of gender variance as directly copied from the ACT book, which reminded me of this other JKP copyright-related issue. (While I haven't noticed any copyright problems with the ACT text--it's clear that we're copying from Stitt at gender variance, rather than vice versa--I do wonder whether the Stitt material is due to include, given the apparent lack of responsible editorial oversight by the publisher.) Cheers, gnu57 22:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, right, thanks. Mathglot (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• Given how controversial gender-related issues are, I think we should make an extra effort to use sources that are highly reliable. I don't think this publisher qualifies (at least in recent years, maybe they were better in the past?) based on its history of publishing plagiarism. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this book would be used as a source in any case. It's a handbook for counselling. For an article about counselling, we would want a source saying what counselors do, not a book that tells them what to do. TFD (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I have an issue in relation to the following quote

On 12 August 2018, a Chinese state-run tabloid, Global Times, defended the crackdown in Xinjiang^[1] after a U.N. anti-discrimination committee raised concerns over China's treatment of Uyghurs. According to the Global Times, China prevented Xinjiang from becoming 'China's Syria' or 'China's Libya', and local authorities' policies saved countless lives and avoided a 'great tragedy'.^[2][3] The paper published another editorial the day after, titled "Xinjiang policies justified".^[4]

References

1. ^ "Protecting peace, stability is top of human rights agenda for Xinjiang". Global Times. 12 August 2018.
2. ^ "China newspaper defends Xinjiang Muslim crackdown". The Washington Post. Associated Press. 13 August 2018. Archived from the original on 14 August 2018.
3. ^ "China has prevented 'great tragedy' in Xinjiang, state-run paper says". Reuters. Beijing. 13 August 2018. Retrieved 17 September 2019.
4. ^ Liu, Xin (13 August 2018). "Xinjiang policies justified". Global Times. Retrieved 27 August 2018.

Global Times was recently deprecated and I accordingly removed the entire paragraph, but was reverted on the grounds that the initial article received coverage in reliable sources. (Reuters and Washington Post) So I am here asking for clarification: can the the entire paragraph still be removed even though the deprecated source received coverage in reliable sources? If the answer is that the paragraph should stay, then wouldn't it be giving the initial article UNDUE importance to keep it in as it received coverage in only two reliable sources? Flaughtin (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm guessing you mean the revert by CaradhrasAiguo at Xinjiang re-education camps? Removing the parts of the paragraph not in the WaPo/Reuters references is fine under WP:DEPRECATED. However, the part directly cited to WaPo/Reuters is not an issue of WP:DEPRECATED since the material is itself cited to reliable sources. Receiving coverage in WaPo and Reuters suggests that it's probably notable (in the journalistic sense) and WP:DUE; they’re two separate and major reliable sources. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  Amigao has removed the Global Times citation while preserving the RS citations here, which seems sensible to me. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

" The security law has also sent a chill through Hong Kong’s once freewheeling news media. RTHK, the public broadcaster, removed a political podcast from its website after the authorities warned that an interview with Nathan Law, a democracy activist now living abroad, could be in breach of the new law."

• Wu, Jin; Yu, Elaine (4 September 2020). "What You Can No Longer Say in Hong Kong". The New York Times. Retrieved 5 September 2020.

“The extension in Hong Kong of the Chinese regime’s practice of visa weaponisation, intended to intimidate foreign journalists, is extremely concerning and in total contradiction with the principle of press freedom enshrined in the Basic Law”, insists Cédric Alviani, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) East Asia bureau head, who sees in this phenomenon “another sign of the recent acceleration of press freedom's decline after the passing, two months ago, of a National Security Law imposed by Beijing”.

• "Hong Kong caught in Chinese practices of visa weaponisation against the press". Reporters without borders. 1 September 2020. Retrieved 5 September 2020.

(t · c) buidhe 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I am seeking opinions about what I believe to be use of a tabloid to source an edit in Megxit about Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. See the discussion at Talk:Megxit#Edit sourced to a tabloid. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wabulton --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Wabulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The following sentence was removed from People's Mujahedin of Iran on the basis that it is WP:FRINGE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL:

• "Khomeini funded armed MEK operations against the Shah during the early 1970s"^[1]

Here's the subsequent Talk page discussion. Would others agree that O'hern's claim is WP:FRINGE? Or could this be included in the article with attribution? Thoughts? Thanks! :-) Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• forces-war-records.co.uk  

This website contains many pages which, on first glance, appear to contain plausible information such as the page on the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. Their about page would seem to suggest reliability. However, there are also pages like Prisoners of War of the Japanese 1939-1945. Scrolling all the way down to the bottom there is a statement Some of the material on this page was also partially derived from, followed by a long list of Wikipedia articles. Obviously that would disqualify that page as a reliable reference due to WP:CIRCULAR, but does that impact the reliability of the rest of the site? FDW777 (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment on the source: It's like an encyclopedia, its manual of style is like a mixture of Britannica and Wikipedia. Citing Wikipedia is also not a good sign, although it doesn't mean it is immediately unreliable. It also references other sources too. IMO, it could be unreliable as it is an encyclopedia. GeraldWL 14:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Tertiary sources such as encyclopedias can be reliable sources if the content is sourced from reliable secondary sources but if the content is sourced from a mix of reliable and unreliable sources such as Wikipedia it would be best to just use the reliable secondary sources themselves, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

We currently have 1,375 citations to webmd.com  , Is WebMD MEDRS compliant? I've heard mostly negative things about the website over the years, mostly about their close relationship to pharmaceutical companies.Vox NYTimes Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is considered a "MEDRS of last resort", such that its usage is strongly discouraged but not completely forbidden. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Interesting observation about the close relationship with pharmaceutical companies. Just by way of simple surfing the web over some years, I have noticed somewhat apparent relationship exists. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• I would say the problem is not their relationship to pharmaceuticalcompanies, but rathr their tendency to oversimplification and merely repeating official positions. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A question has come to the fore on the Talk-Page of Qarawat Bani Hassan, shown here, about the reliability of a 11-volume Hebrew published work entitled, "Israel Guide, A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country," published by the Keter Publishing House in Israel, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence, between the years 1978–1980. For more details, see volume 8 of this edition: Shorer, Yaakov; Grossman, David, eds. (1980). Israel Guide - The Northern Valleys, Mount Carmel and Samaria (in Hebrew). Vol. 8. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, in affiliation with the Israel Ministry of Defence. OCLC 745203905.. The chief-editor of the encyclopedia is a man by the name of Arieh Yitzhaki. Each volume speaks about a different section of the country and has its invidual editor. The title of this work has caused some confusion, as one editor thought that it may strictly be a tourist guide when, in fact, it is much more than that. The back-cover of each volume carries a short description of the entire work, which reads as follows (translated from the Hebrew):

The Israel Guide is the first useful encyclopedia of its kind in Israel. In its composition, the best researchers with a knowledge of the land in all fields have come together. The Guide reviews all the important historical, archaeological, geographical sites, nature reserves and landscapes. It also includes detailed information on traveler services and accompanies up-to-date illustrations, photographs and maps. Some of the sites included in the Guide have been adapted from the series, "From Dan to Eilat," which was published by the Chief Education Officer, IDF. (END QUOTE)

Since this work is written in Hebrew and, most likely, not found in English-speaking libraries, perhaps Wikipedians in Israel (e.g. User:Deror avi, User:Yoninah, User:Debresser, User:Netanel h, User:Gilabrand, User:Tzahy, User:IsraeliteoftheShephelah, User:Tomerarazy, User:Bolter21, User:Ynhockey, User:Shrike, User:Amoruso) can voice their opinion about the worthiness, or un-worthiness, of this 11-volume publication. See also Madrikh Yisrael - (Israel Guide); Israel Guide (on Google Books). By the way: The editor of the 2nd volume is a scholar by the name of Raphael (Rafael / Rafi) Frankel who has written extensively about sites in the Galilee. Among his other publications, one may notice this, "The Map of Achziv", as well as the following publications: 1) Frankel, Rafael; Getzov, Nimrod; Aviam, Mordechai; Degani, Avi (2001). "Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee (Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee)". Israel Antiquities Authority. 14.; 2) Frankel, Raphael; Finkelstein, I. (1983). "'The Northwest Corner of Eretz-Israel' in the Baraita 'Boundaries of Eretz-Israel'". Cathedra: For the History of Eretz Israel and Its Yishuv. 27 (27): 39–46. JSTOR 23398920.; 3) Frankel, Raphael (1979). "'Bibra' — A Forbidden Village in the Territory of Tyre". Israel Exploration Journal. 29 (3/4): 194–196.; 4) Rafael, Frankel, "Kabri, Nahal Ga‘aton Aqueduct: Final Report" (JSTOR 26601478), among others.

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated as in the 2017 RfC of the Daily Mail?

Davidbena (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey (Israel Guide)

Is there a reason other than it being Israeli for some to discredit it? It's written by scholars, right? So shouldn't it be a RS, regardless of the clunky title and funding? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. The entire encyclopedia (11 volumes) has been compiled by a consortiom of scholars, all of whom bring down the latest archaeological, historical and geographical information on places in Israel proper, up to the time of its publication. They include the precise measurements of tombs, references to these sites by the writers of classic literature, their Arabic and Hebrew names (where applicable), descriptions of synagogues once built in these places, etc., etc.02:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have a procedural objection. I feel like leaping straight to a four-option depreciation RFC is a bit premature, both per WP:RFCBEFORE and because it sort of obscures the real question that brought you here. The dispute is very specifically over whether it can be used for this claim, which at first glance seems at least slightly WP:EXCEPTIONAL or highly technical (requiring a suitably technical source) in the sense that it touches on a controversial archeological claim; the question of whether this source is valid for that specific claim is worth considering, and I don't think a general RFC about the source as a whole can meaningfully answer it. These sorts of RFCs are for sources that are constant recurring issues or ones with glaring problems; they're not what you're supposed to do when you have one extremely specific question over "can source X be used to cite statement Y." Also, RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded, which this 100% is not - you overtly dismiss the arguments you're trying to get an RFC outcome against in your summary. I'm particularly bothered that you devoted a ton of text to how notable the source is, but didn't even vaguely reference the specific claim people are debating. In any case, I'm also not convinced by your "tots not a travel guide" summary. The translated bit you quote strikes me as somewhat blithe; ultimately it emphasizes its value to travelers above all else. Obviously a guide to Israel is going to state that it is historically-accurate, since that history is a big part of why people travel to Israel, and it could be perhaps used for uncontroversial claims (the way we might use any other general encyclopedia), but for something as potentially-controversial as this we ought to be citing more academic or professional sources, not just guides that boast vaguely about using the best available research. --Aquillion (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your analysis is good and correct, for which reason that specific edit (about the site's alleged identification) has been deleted from the article. It would require a more critical review of the subject, say, by historical geographers who have weighed the matter very well, before inserting that one detail into an article.Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 to 2, geographical encyclopedia written by academic experts. The one issue here is that it is dated, being published back in 1978-80, but it is reliable for knowledge up until that time.--Hippeus (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 because it's an Israeli book written by Israelis and there's going to be some bias there with respect to contentious issues regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Archaeology and history can be very contentious in Israel. That being said there's only two responses so far and this full-on four option RfC seems kind of premature, so if there's not that much more input this shouldn't be closed and put at WP:RSP because that's typically what a four-option RfC is for. RSP is for sources that have been significantly discussed and this isn't that. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 03:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: first; the source is in Hebrew; unless you read it, it is difficult to say if it is RS or not. And even if you read Hebrew, I'll add: Secondly (according to Davidbena): there are no footnotes. Third: this is called: "Israel Guide"...and then it covers the occupied Palestinian West Bank. This, in itself, makes me ...wary of using it as a source. (Generally speaking: those who refer to the the occupied Palestinian West Bank as "Israel", are to the extreme right in Israel). Generally speaking; if there are some claims about archaeological, historical and geographical issues in any encyclopaedia; then, (if the encyclopaedia it worth anything): there will be lots of scientific reports to back it up. I suggest that we use those scientific reports (if any) instead. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

While there are no footnotes, as most encyclopedias do not contain footnotes, there are still inline citations, while at the end of each volume there is a Bibliography list used by the contributing academic scholars. By the way, the information presented in the book is vital to archaeological, historical and geographical enthusiasts, but I, personally, would not use these volumes for discussing issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as there may be a conflict of interest. However, as far as pure archaeological finds are concerned, or, for that matter, historical references to these sites are concerned, the encyclopedia is a godsend. Wikipedia policy allows us to cite foreign sources when they are deemed reliable and verifiable, but also makes it clear that, in any cases of doubt, it is incumbent upon the contributing editor to provide a literal translation of the book's excerpt whenever called-upon to do so.Davidbena (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

This is more a question as to this source. I personally in the past have avoided not only in WP but in my normal work, as because while the "data" is visible, the sourcing for it is behind paywall, and when I have been lucky to find corroborating data I generally find discrepancies, or generally the clear original source of the data, so the site is just skimming others' work and tossing a paywall on top. Technically doesn't violation any immediate policies and I'm not asking for a full blown deprecation or the like, just what others' opinion is on this site. (If we want to poll for RS/P, we can). --Masem (t) 13:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a bit like Worldometer. Except less transparent. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, This journal sounds and looks ok to me but there are suggestions otherwise; p73 on summary of legislation, in Offending religious feelings:

Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, "Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years".[6] During this evolution of the legal wording, the provision has moved from penalizing blasphemy to protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs.[6]

The Legal Culture. The Journal of Ordo Iuris Institute for Legal Culture [pl; fr; hr]; other views sought - thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Ordo Iuris is an advocacy group known for right wing culture warring, not for legal expertise.[15][16][17][18]

Declaring the Polish law offending religious feelings to be "protection of the right to respect for one's religion and beliefs", is at best an opinionated assertion, not a fact. (In the US, and any country without a blasphemy law, there is no such "right"). In order to conclude that the blasphemy law has become less severe over time, we would need a much stronger source that also considered case law, number of people prosecuted, etc. (t · c) buidhe 11:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"During this evolution of the legal wording"... i.e., the words of the legislation: "whosoever blasphemies God"→"Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons", Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS requires "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is up to the person citing the material, if challenged, to show that the source indeed has such a reputation. It is not enough to state, "sounds and looks ok to me"—that's a WP:ILIKEIT argument. (t · c) buidhe 12:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not This is the organ of a militant Roman Catholic political campaign group, leaning towards extremism. It should not be cited for anything other than its own beliefs, and for those a better source can be found. GPinkerton (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Ordo Iuris has links to the Traditionalist Catholic organization Tradition, Family and Property. (Traditionalist Catholicism is in itself a fringe position). Also, Ordo Iuris is known for supporting complete abortion bans of the sort which led to the death of Savita Halappanavar. This is a fringe position which most Catholics don't agree with; only 6 percent of Polish women and 7 percent of men support additional abortion restrictions.[19] That all affects the due weight or lack thereof. (t · c) buidhe 13:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Whereas "Freedom House" which is critical of this law and provides a spin translation of it even you say is misleading and all the other sources you use are totally legit in all respects; ah the tolerant left, tolerant of everything apart from views with which they disagree, which they will wikilawyer to the utmost to exclude, while defending as you have on the dyk nomination template the use of WP:Biased sources that push their case; how about a teensy, weensy, bit of balance? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the particular article in question is written by one Janusz Roszkiewicz, [20] etc, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• No. Clearly fringe in context. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have added the word "Catholic" at the beginning, then there would have been no need for anyone to read any further... Can I just tease out a little the consequences of this stance. That, due to the fact that this organization apparently doesn't publicly rejoice in the slaughter, without their consent, of innocent beings likely deemed by the same advocates of their slaughter protected legal persons for inheritance purposes, an article published by the same in a "Polish catholic journal of law" on the, Polish law, invoked to protect, Polish Catholics, from diurnal "insult" to their beliefs, purposeful or otherwise (please explain otherwise the frisson of the Rainbow Madonna and the choice of this canvas), an article assessed on its own merits, by a seemingly prominent doctor of law, is not only "fringe" but to be no platformed and deemed entirely unsuitable for inclusion alongside the twenty-one hand-picked sources that criticize this law, for fear of admitting for one instant the remotest semblance of an alternative point of view? How about simply

Article 196 as quoted above from the 1997 Penal Code is effectively a restatement of Article 198 in the 1969 Penal Code, derived in turn from Article 5 of the 1949 Decree on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion, according to which imprisonment could be for up to five years.[6] This was a significant amendment to Article 172 of the 1932 Criminal Code, according to which, "Whosoever blasphemies God in public is subject to the penalty of imprisonment for up to 5 years".[6]

ie, without the summary, but sourced to the same, perhaps even just until some much more leftwing source for the same is found? Or is this source and this high-up government legal scholar so "fringe" that even this is absolutely beyond the pale? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Maculosae tegmine lyncis, if you want to be taken seriously then I would suggest that the comment due to the fact that this organization apparently doesn't publicly rejoice in the slaughter, without their consent, of innocent beings has doomed your efforts. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not about me, it is about the source, can the source appear alongside the others for the limited blockquote above? Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Maculosae tegmine lyncis, no. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, this is an extremist organization not reliable for the time of day.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are twitter tweets a reliable source for the following statements at Alex Morse?

On August 12, Business Insider journalist Grace Panetta wrote in a series of tweets that she had been one of the first reporters the College Democrats had tried to shop their allegations to in April 2020 and that the names in the chat logs The Intercept had acquired were the same as those who had written her and Politico with "vague, unspecified allegations."^[1]

On August 14, Wisconsin College Democrats filed an ethics complaint through the national College Democrats of America against the College Democrats of Massachusetts and triggered a formal investigation into those involved.^[2]

Fortliberty (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says that self published sources are NEVER acceptable for claims about third party living people. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not. This is a reasonably exceptional claim about third parties that would require proper sourcing. WP:BLPSPS is for stuff like uncontroversial biographical details, not dramatic claims like these. And more generally it's silly to suggest that this is about herself - the intent of putting this in the article would be to make a statement about Morse and about the story in question, not about Panetta (who isn't even mentioned otherwise.) "I saw X happen" is not a WP:BLPSPS claim. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a self-published source making negative claims about BLPs. Unless the College Democrats are all dead this is pretty clear-cut. Chess (talk) (please use ((ping|Chess)) on reply) 03:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, tweets only should be used for mundane non-attack content and even then very sparingly. Wait for someone to publish.--Bob not snob (talk) 08:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Are these four historians ([22][23][24][25][26]) reliable for the allegation that US DEA agent Kiki Camarena was likely tortured and killed with complicity of the CIA in 1985? Their work is disputed [27] at Kiki Camarena. The historians argue that Camarena may have discovered that the Contra affair, funding anticommunist guerrillas in Nicaragua, was financed by Mexican drug money with CIA support. Some investigative journalists have concluded the same thing [28], and in February the US Justice Department reopened a case on the matter [29][30].

Note that I earlier brought this issue to this noticeboard here [31], garnering these responses [32] [33]. There are additional newspaper articles on the topic: [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41].

I've launched an RfC, where I hope you'll comment on whether these historians can be used as reliable sources for the attributed claim that the CIA participated in Camarena's torture. -Darouet (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC) Edited per request of Buidhe. -Darouet (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, while you're welcome to leave a pointer to a discussion elsewhere, such notices should be neutral to avoid WP:CANVASSING: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." I suggest you revise your message to be a brief and neutral pointer. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Buidhe: I've edited my post [42]. Does this look better now? I knew my RfC was required to be neutral, but I didn't realize my post here needed to take no position on the issue either. -Darouet (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Academic

• Bartley, Russell H., and Sylvia Erickson Bartley. Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía. University of Wisconsin Pres, 2015 [43].
• Pansters, Wil G. "Drug trafficking, the informal order, and caciques. Reflections on the crime-governance nexus in Mexico." Global Crime 19.3-4 (2018): 315-338 [44].
• Marshall J. CIA Assets and the Rise of the Guadalajara Connection. Crime, Law and Social Change. 1991 Jul 1;16(1):85-96 [45].
• Freije, Vanessa. "Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía." (2016): 766-768 [46].
• Pansters, Wil G. "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War." (2017): 143-156 [47].

Newspaper articles

• Tucson Sentinel, "Blood on the Corn. Bowden: How the CIA may have tortured one of America's own," by Charles Bowden & Molly Molloy, April 7th 2015.
• Processo, "A Camarena lo ejecutó la CIA, no Caro Quintero, by Luis Chaparrro and Jesus Esquivel, 12 October 2013.
• LA Weekly, "How a dogged L.A. DEA agent unraveled the CIA'S alleged role in the murder of Kiki Camarena," by Jason McGahan, 1 July 2020.
• El Pais, "“The CIA helped kill DEA agent Enrique ‘Kiki’ Camarena,” say witnesses," by Juan Diego Quesada, 15 October 2013.
• Fox News, "US intelligence assets in Mexico reportedly tied to murdered DEA agent," by William La Jeunesse and Lee Ross, 10 October 2013.

Reopened Justice Department Investigation

• Fox News, "US probing claims that CIA operative, DEA official betrayal led to murder of agent: report", by Greg Norman, 28 February 2020.
• USA Today, "Killed by a cartel. Betrayed by his own? US reexamines murder of federal agent featured in ‘Narcos,' by Brad Heath, 28 February, 2020.

A user recently added a paragraph cited to culturalanalysis.net   at Existential risk of artificial general intelligence (diff). The statement attempts to describe research implying that AGIs are inherently amoral. Is it a reliable source? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

After a brief look at the headlines, a few articles and the site's rather empty about page, this doesn't look like much more than an opinion site to me. I wouldn't recommend citing it, especially not if more reputable sources exist. Worthy of note is that all articles I've seen are by the same author named "MK", and that one article cites RT. Glades12 (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A while ago, QuackWatch was declared to be self-published, thus effectively excluding one of the most prominent critics of quackery from biographies of quacks and charlatans. I noticed today that QuackWatch is now listed as a project of the Center for Inquiry. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I never quite bought the self-published label, given [ https://quackwatch.org/advisors/advbd/ ] and [ https://quackwatch.org/about/faq2/#peer ], but that was the consensus. I think that we should now consider quackwatch to be published by CFI. and should assume that CFI has editorial control over anything that they control and publish. Also see: [48] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That does not change the reliability of all his publications pre-February 26, 2020. Honestly I would think going forward it would be less reliable since it is controlled by an advocacy organization. Though to be fair I see nothing in the statement released by CfI indicating they would have any editorial control or oversight added to quackwatch. Interesting though. PackMecEng (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

They were always reliable (to the point of being cited by NGOs and government health departments). The only issue was that some people considered thems elf-published. They are now both reliable and published untder the banner of a larger group. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

QuackWatch itself still seems to be operated by Stephen Barrett according to the statement on the top of the page. I see nothing about being published under CfI. PackMecEng (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Also when I said reliability pre-February I was referring to the consensus that they are a self published source and how we treat them in that context. PackMecEng (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If it is edited by the same person who writes it is an SPS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

SPS - agree with Slatersteven - Quackwatch, which is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D.,.... first sentence on the homepage - lots about Dr. Barrett - yucky web design. BTW, CFI has no influence - their url is https://centerforinquiry.org/ whereas quackwatch is still hosted on https://quackwatch.org/. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is why our definition of "SPS" based on "writer = owner of site" is not really a good reason why SPSs are bad things. The definition currently at RFC that gets to the point is that a self-published source is generally one that is published without an editorial review, which this new ownership by the Center of Inquiry doesn't appear to change anything for QW; Barrett is still the one that seems to be able to post without necessarily having to have fact checks (though he does voluntarily have some pieces do so). In terms of why QW was considered a SPS from the past RFC, I don't see this changing anything based on *that* RFC. --Masem (t) 19:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• To be clear, the close was more nuanced than that (see here). The key points were:

1. Articles written by Stephen Barrett are self-published, but that he is generally a subject matter expert on pseudoscience and can therefore be cited under that subject to the usual WP:SPS restrictions;

2. Articles by people other than Barrett are not self-published and can be used like any other WP:RS, and,

3. Quackwatch is generally considered an WP:RS, notwithstanding the issue with Barrett's articles (so, anything published there that was not written by Barrett can be used as an RS for statements of fact, including controversial statements about third parties.)

It's important to be clear about what was decided back then or we'll have people half-remembering this discussion and saying "oh I guess it can't be used anywhere." Also some of the people above seem to be arguing against using it at all, which is not what the RFC said at all (it specifically found the site to be generally-reliable, with a narrow asterisk applying only to things written by Barrett specifically; and even in that case he was found to be a subject-matter expert, meaning that he can be cited provided it isn't specifically about someone who falls under WP:BLP. "Barrett says this treatment doesn't work" is fine; "Barrett says this person is a quack" is not. (But we can cite anyone else published back Quackwatch saying that that person is a quack, just not Barrett.) I gather that some people above might object to this, but it's definitely how the WP:RFC was closed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct, articles written by Barrett should not be used for statements about a BLP and articles on quackwatch written by others might be acceptable. Though I would note that what 95%+ of the articles on quackwatch are written by Barrett? PackMecEng (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It's still user-generated content and therefore fails reliable sources. TFD (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, what evidence do you have for that claim? Don't conflate peer review for user-generated. Those are very different processes. -- Valjean (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

TFD, I see a comment from you below, but it doesn't address my question. -- Valjean (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Quackwatch, which is sourced to their website in 2007 says they have no salaried employees and the current website does not list any. The website says that stories are checked by at least one expert, but news stories are not checked. And I assume these experts are scientists who evaluate the accuracy of scientific claims. But that's only part of the story. Also important are the identities and backgrounds of the quacks, the size of their operation, how much money they took in, what legal issues they faced, who aided them, whether the publications they advertised with were at fault.

I also am wary of using investigative journalism as a source unless it gets picked up by other publications because of weight. If Dr. X is a notable respected physician with an article sourced to mainstream media, I don't want to see an accusation from Quackwatch that mainstream media has ignored. If mainstream media pick up on the accusation, they will allow Dr. X to reply and determine whether the accusation is true and how serious it is.

Also, I don't see anything in the recent newsletter that could be used as a source for articles. It's all links to primary sources: FDA warning letters, ads by quacks, peer-reviewed articles, letters by experts.[49] While these primary sources may be reliable sources, there is no need to cite the newsletter itself.

Incidentally, declaring a publication self-published does not exclude its use. It means that each article must be assessed for reliability. Generally it can be used if written by an expert in his or her field.

Can you provide an example of where you would use the site as a source?

TFD (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

"there is no need to cite the newsletter itself." Has someone proposed using the "newsletter itself" as a source? Not a good idea. It's good for RS which can be used. -- Valjean (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of where you would use the site as a source? TFD (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Another question has come to the fore on Talk:China–United States trade war and which discussion can be accessed here. The question put forward by a contributing editor is whether or not we are permitted to cite a reference taken from the media outlets CGTN America or CGTN, both Chinese media outlets, without infringing upon Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources whenever they show an American scholar, such as the likes of Stephen S. Roach, a senior fellow at Yale University's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, who speaks out and gives his professional opinion about the economic situation facing America and who clearly does not speak on behalf of the Communist party of China or the Peoples Republic of China, but takes a different approach to the subject of the US-China trade war and US trade deficit with China. By the way, he opines that the US trade deficit with China is the direct result of America's lack of domestic savings, rather than a by-product of unfair trading practices. Of course, IP theft is a different matter altogether. Can we still use Stephen Roach's assessment even though it comes to us under the auspices of this Chinese state-run media outlet? There is currently a majority of editors who wish to make use of Stephen Roach's quotes and citations.Davidbena (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Davidbena: There is currently an RfC about the reliability of CGTN above under the section "RFC: China Global Television Network". If CGTN is considered unreliable or deprecated, its articles/content would generally only be usable either under WP:ABOUTSELF or where there is consensus on a specific case.
  In this case: Roach, a subject-matter expert saying something while appearing on CGTN would be quotable to Roach himself and its reliability would derive from Roach himself. Attributing something to him while he was on CGTN wouldn’t be so different from the use of a self-published source. It’s him giving a statement, not CGTN itself. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the above, Roach's work published in scholarly publications would be superior to a statement to media. If he really hasn't published any relevant scholarly research, I would question how DUE his opinion is. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:MarkH21 - that doesn't make any sense to me. It's an interview that Roach is doing with CGTN, so it's the reliability would not derive from Roach (at the very least, it would not derive solely from Roach.) I can't see how your argument would make Roach's interview with CGTN any different than if he gave an interview with say, the Daily Stormer, PressTV, Pravda or KCNA. If the only thing that mattered was the notability (or reliability as you put it) of the people that the news sources interviewed, then we might as well just do away entirely with WP:RS and WP:V . Flaughtin (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Still, Flaughtin, the words cited are those of a well-known and respected American economist. That is what is important here. His words speak for themselves. There is no manipulation. Moreover, the use of a citation taken from this highly respected American economist has absolutely nothing to do with infringing upon WP:RS, but rather would still support the criteria for Reliable sources, based purely upon the person's notability and good academic standing.Davidbena (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not about the notability of the person, it's about the reliability of the source. The source is CGTN, not Roach. If the source was Roach then it would be self-published. (at the very least, the source could not be CGTN) User:buidhe can you help with this? Unless there is confusion on my part, I really cannot see how the other user cannot understand something as simple as this. Flaughtin (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Flaughtin, I'm not sure you're interpreting this situation correctly. Put it a different way, if Trump says something and the NYT quotes him, to whom should it be attributed—Trump or the NYT? Is the factual accuracy/RSness of the statement the same as the NYT's reporting, or does it have the same credibility as Trump? (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Buidhe Well you see there's your problem. Firstly you're comparing NYT to CGTN which is like comparing consensual sex to rape - the comparison doesn't work because they are totally different types despite being the same kind of thing. And secondly you don't specify the conditions under which NYT is quoting him (is the NYT quoting Trump as part an interview he is giving them?) So I go back to one of the main points I've been making: what's stopping us from using Roach if he gets quoted in (an interview with) the Daily Stormer, Stormfront, PressTV, Pravda or KCNA? Flaughtin (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I would say it does not matter the credibility of the outlet as long as it meets the minimum standard for accurately reporting direct quotes and/or there is video footage. In an interview, the person who takes responsibility for the accuracy of statements is the one being interviewed. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

What our friend Flaughtin is failing to grasp here is that the guidelines listed under WP:PUS (Potentially unreliable sources) do not say that we cannot use at all the above source, while even those that are listed there as potentially unreliable sources, we are advised "to treat carefully," not necessarily avoid them altogether. How much more here where the source is not listed as PUS. Our friend flagged this as being a breach of the Wikipedia policy, when, in actuality, it is not.Davidbena (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• The page:

C (programming language) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• The claim:

"As of September 2020^[update], C is the most popular programming language."

• The source:

"TIOBE Index for September 2020". Archived from the original on 2020-09-10.

• Wikipedia page for the source:

TIOBE index (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Relevant Wikipedia how-to guide:

Wikipedia:Search engine test

Why I think that the source is not reliable for the claim:

Outside of the obvious problem of equating search engine results with popularity, there is a common misconception that the only "computers" the average person owns are desktop PCs, laptops, and smart phones, and that the only "computer languages" are the ones that run on those platforms.

Actually, those are a tiny percentage of the total number of computers. Most people have computers inside their microwave oven, dishwasher, washing machine, digital watch, toaster, thermostat, air conditioner, radio, many toys, TV, TV remote, etc. A new car typically has at least 20 or 30 computers in it. Mine has one in each wheel that controls the antilock brakes, another inside each valve stem that wireless reports tire pressure, one in each taillight housing that controls the brake lights and turn signals, and so on.

Even your desktop PC has built into it other, smaller computers. There is one inside your keyboard, another inside your mouse, one inside your disk drive, another inside your power supply, one in your router, several in your monitor, and so on.

Most of these small computers are programmed in assembly language, with a smaller number (but still bigger than any desktop PC language) programmed in embedded C or ARM Thumb. Assembly language is still by far the most popular language by number of computers that run it.

Consider this analogy: the internet is full of webpages that talk about making your own clothes by sewing, knitting, crocheting, etc. There are far fewer webpages that talk about large, industrial machines that make most clothes. Does that mean that handmade clothes are more popular than store-bought clothes? Likewise with webpages about home woodworking vs. webpages about large furniture factories and webpages about printing one page on a laser printer vs. webpages about printing a million pages on an offset press. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think "popularity" here refers to popularity among programmers / the programming community, and not necessarily to industry popularity. The statement should probably be amended to match its reference. The TIOBE index itself states on its website that "It is important to note that the TIOBE index is not about the best programming language or the language in which most lines of code have been written." TucanHolmes (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. "popularity" is ambiguous. Language #1 has a bunch of people who have used it, but only for personal use. Language B is used as a core part of Windows, Linux, Android and Mac, but only has a handful of programmers using it. Language #3 is used in embedded systems, but the programmers learn it in college and not on a bunch of hobbist websites. Language #4 is used by almost nobody, but is talked about on a lot of webpages because it sucks so bad. Language #5 is used a lot, but is so easy to use that there aren't a lot of discussions about how to use it. Language #6 has single well-read high-quality wiki and discussion group, so gets talked about on other webpages a lot less. Language #7 is discussed on many web pages that nobody reads. So which is "most popular"? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There has been a lot of talk lately about which programming language is best. The following should clear up any confusion.^{[Citation Needed]}

The best programming language is, of course, the BEST programming language. BEST is a programming language that I developed to answer the frequently asked question "Which programming language is best?" once and for all.

BEST is an RFC2795^[6.66...]-and-RFC2324^[Q]-compliant Befunge-93^[2] pseudocompiler written in x87 Malborge^[3][7] with library calls to routines written in Microsoft^[4] Visual BogusFORTH++^[5] (!Xóõ edition)^[9] that invoke various functions written in[6] Silbo Gomero^{π} Reverse Polish Whitespace^[1] (for clarity). It requires the GLaDOS operating system or RUM emulator.

I hope this helps...

References:

• [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150623025348/http://compsoc.dur.ac.uk/whitespace/
• [2] https://catseye.tc/article/Languages.md#befunge-93
• [3] http://www.lscheffer.com/malbolge_spec.html
• [5] http://www.tlc-systems.com/babbage.htm
• [4] http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
• [6] http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/
• [6.66...] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324
• [7] http://www.lscheffer.com/malbolge.shtml
• [7] http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1597729+0+archive/2001/freebsd-ports/20010617.freebsd-ports
• [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/!Xóõ
• ]~[ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
• [Q] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txt
• {π} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no uses in article space because I removed them. There are however uses in draft space, and they will continue to be added there and in article space unless something is done. Which won't be by me any more. FDW777 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This should have been requested to be submitted to the edit filter or Xlinkbot directly, rather than with a rfc. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wartime in Baseball, which can be found here[51], is often used as a source for what happened to baseball players who had to serve during World War II. An example is Morrie Martin where it is the source for Martin being badly wounded at the Battle of the Bulge.

Wartime appears to be a personal website with just one writer involved....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@WilliamJE:, WP:SPS includes an exception for sites maintained by a "recognized expert". Bedingfield has published at least two books on the subject (ISBN 978-0786444540 and ISBN 978-0738503219). Baseball in WWII Europe has been reviewed by scholarly journals and has been cited by other scholars in journal articles and other writing. I believe that meets the SPS "expert" standard. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This is regarding the publisher Sarup & Sons   which is cited at around 800 WP articles. The particular book in question is:

• Gupta, R. K.; Bakshi, S. R., eds. (2008). Rajasthan Through the Ages. Volume 4: Jaipur Rulers and Administration (1st ed.). New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. ISBN 978-81-7625-841-8.

I have compared this book's first 70 pages with Jadunath Sarkar's following book: A History of Jaipur, c. 1503-1938 (1984). And every page of Sarkar's book (which is available to me in Google Books preview) is copy-pasted by this book. Here are the details:

I) Page nos. 1–37 copy-pasted from page nos. 75–111 of the Sarkar's book

ii) Page nos. 42–70 copy-pasted from page nos. 118–144 of Sarkar's book

The only difference is that the chapter titles are different. And there is no attribution to Sarkar anywhere. I haven't checked the remaining pages yet, but they also seem copy-pasted. The Sarkar's book is copyrighted till 2047 – see User talk:Diannaa:Query about the copyright status of a book. So this is a case of clear copyright violation, and we should not even provide its link in an external-links section or in a citation, per WP:COPYVIOEL. Anyway, is such blatant copyright violator (Sarup & Sons) considered reliable for anything on this project? - NitinMlk (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk, I would say that if the publisher cannot be trusted to filter out such obvious copyvio than it is the equivalent of predatory journal and should not be cited. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I agree with you. BTW, I will also crosscheck few other books of this publisher, although copy-pasting hundreds of copyrighted pages in a single book is as bad as it gets. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 2

• Now I have crosschecked the first 200 pages of the publisher's next volume and it is also directly copy-pasted from two copyrighted books. The book in question this time is the following:

• Gupta, R. K.; Bakshi, S. R., eds. (2008). Rajasthan Through the Ages. Volume 5: Marwar and British Administration (1st ed.). New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. ISBN 978-81-7625-841-8.

Here are the details of copyvios:

i) Everything from the first line of the chapter no. 1 till the end of chapter no. 2 of the above book (i.e., page nos. 1–41) is copy-pasted from the page nos. 46–90 of the following book:

• Day, Upendra Nath (1978). Mewar Under Maharana Kumbha, 1433 A.D.-1468 A.D. Rajesh Publications. OCLC 4983676.

ii) Similarly, chapter no. 3 (page nos. 42–63) is copy-pasted from page nos. 128–149 of the above book of Upendra Nath Day.

iii) The chapter nos. 4–6 (page nos. 64–172) are copy-pasted from the page nos. 1–123 of the following book:

• Paliwal, D. L. (1971). Mewar and the British, 1857-1921 A.D.: A History of the Relations of the Mewar State with the British Government of India from 1857 to 1921 A.D. Bafna Prakashan. OCLC 540852.

iv) And page nos. 173-200 are copy-pasted from the page nos. 91–124 of the aforementioned Upendra Nath Day's book.

So this publisher seems like a prolific copyright violator. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This is pretty weak evidence. It's by the same authors so they are the ones who are prolific copyright violators, not the publishers. Publishers don't normally check the books. I would contact Saurp and Sons directly via email with the evidence you have gathered and see what their response is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, such blatant copy-paste examples cannot be termed as 'weak evidence' in any sense. And if this publisher is publishing without checking then it's a big problem. But thanks for taking the initiative. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@NitinMlk: You have not demonstrated that Sarup and Sons is a prolific copyright infringer, only that the authors of the book series are. The books plagiarised are old and obscure enough that they are likely not on the Turnitin or equivalent database the publisher might be using. The onus is on the book authors to make sure that there is no plagiarism or factual errors, not the publishers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, let's wait for more inputs from other editors. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

• Hemiauchenia, I think you're forgetting that there is no assumption that any source is reliable for given information; the onus is on those citing it to justify why it's reliable. Just being a publisher that publishes books, does not make it reliable, and in this case we have some evidence that it's not reliable. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 3

• The previous two examples shown by me were from the same series and at least two of the books plagiarised by them are apparently obscure. So I have crosschecked a different book now and that one plagiarises the work of a notable scholar. The book in question is the following:

• Parashar, Parmanand (1996). Nationalism: Its Theory and Principles in India. New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. pp. 1–92. ISBN 978-81-85431-64-2. OCLC 49762188.

I have checked its page nos. 1–92 and all of them are copy-pasted from the page nos. 1–74 of Anthony Birch's following book:

• Birch, Anthony H. (1989). Nationalism and National Integration. London: Unwin Hyman. pp. 1–74. ISBN 978-0-04-320180-0. OCLC 18684137.

- NitinMlk (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 4

• Previous books were of history and polity, so this time I checked tourism-related books. And the very first book I found at Google Books is fully copy-pasted from two different books. The book in question is:

• Sharma, K.K. (2004). Tourism and Regional Development (1st ed.). Sarup & Sons. ISBN 978-81-7625-529-5.

i) Its page nos. 1–32 are copy-pasted from page nos. 244–294 of the following book:

• Shaw, Gareth; Williams, Allan M. (2002). Critical Issues in Tourism: A Geographical Perspective (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing. p. 244–294. ISBN 978-0-631-22413-6.

ii) The rest of the book (i.e. page nos. 33–287) is copy-pasted from the following book (pp. 33–135 copy-pasted from 160–248; pp. 136–287 copy-pasted from pp. 30–159):

• Hall, C. Michael; Page, Stephen J. (2002). The Geography of Tourism and Recreation: Environment, Place and Space (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 30–248. ISBN 978-0-415-25080-1.

Pinging Buidhe & Hemiauchenia so that they can have a look at the book no. 3 & 4. BTW, I was a bit busy in real life for the last few days, but I am sure I will find more such examples in the coming days. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That's enough to convince me we should not be using this as a source. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, your initial assessment was quite accurate. Today I glanced over five books and three of them seem like clear copyvios, although I could properly crosscheck just one of them (see book no. 5 below). - NitinMlk (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 5

• This time I checked a psychology book and it is also copy-pasted from a copyrighted book. The book in question is:

• Asch, M. (2005). An Introduction to Educational Psychology (1st ed.). Sarup & Sons. pp. 1–204. ISBN 978-81-7625-541-7.

I have cross-checked its first 204 pages and all of them are directly copy-pasted from the page nos. 5–168 of the following book:

• Stones, Edgar; Anderson, Darrell (1972). Educational Objectives and the Teaching of Educational Psychology. Methuen Publishing. pp. 5–168. ISBN 978-0-416-61130-4.

The reprint version of the Stones's book is available for limited preview: [52]. So it can also be used for crosschecking purpose. Note that the rest of the book also seems copy-pasted, but 200-odd pages are enough to show copyvio. - NitinMlk (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• • What should be done? Would you suggest a RfC to deprecate it, or some other action? (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

buidhe, an RfC to deprecate seems appropriate. They copy/paste whole book or at least its hundreds of pages at a time and provide full preview at Google Books in many cases, which in turn is in violation of WP:COPYVIOEL. The latest example below (book no. 6) is just one of many such examples.

It would be great if you could open such RfC, as I am unfamiliar with RfCs. But before doing that we should have enough number of such examples. So, how many examples of blatant copyvios seem enough to convince the community? Till now I have provided examples which involve copyvio of well over 1,000 pages and I can provide more such examples, if required. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Book no. 6

• Here is another book which is totally copy-pasted from two copyrighted books:

• Sharma, Bela Rani (2007). A Handbook of Curriculum Reforms and Teaching Methods (1st ed.). Sarup & Sons. ISBN 978-81-7625-803-6. OCLC 294940990.

i) Its page nos. 1–111 and page nos. 324–448 are copied from page nos. 1–100 and page nos. 101–217 respectively of the following book:

• Diamond, Robert M. (1989). Designing and Improving Courses and Curricula in Higher Education: A Systematic Approach (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers. pp. 1–217. ISBN 978-1-55542-129-8.

ii) Rest of the book, i.e. page nos. 112–323, is copied from page nos. 1–137 of the following book:

• Kliebard, Herbert M. (2002). Changing Course: American Curriculum Reform in the 20th Century. Teachers College Press. p. 1–137. ISBN 978-0-8077-4221-1.

The only difference is that few of the chapter titles are shortened a bit. Note that, leaving behind notes and index, the Kliebard's book has just 137 pages. So basically Sarup & Sons is providing his whole book for preview at Google Books. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I am working on the Wikipedia article for the music project, Enigma. Should The Enigma Archives be used as a reliable source?

Pick an option below and explain your reasoning.

• Option 1 - Yes, this is a reliable source.
• Option 2 - Maybe, this is a questionable source.
• Option 3 - No, this is an unreliable source.

- Lazman321 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3: it's a thorough, extensive fansite that contains a lot of unverifiable original research. I might use it as a starting point, as some of the information does state where it was obtained, but would look for those sources or independent corroboration to cite in an article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• First created in 1993, the document is updated regularly (last updated April 2002) and has been checked by Michael Cretu and seen to be correct. [53]. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

  Emir of Wikipedia, in the Letter from Michael Cretuactual FAQ, it says Michael didn't read the FAQ but looked over it and said he thinks most of it is OK. I don't think one member of the band "looking it over" makes it a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please change the link from the disambiguation page Enigma to Enigma (German band). Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
• I don't think an RfC is necessary for this, but if you don't think the source is reliable, you can just remove it. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • This isn't an actual RfC nor does it need to be. Just treat it as a normal question about a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Dr2Rao (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I have been topic banned from articles related to India and Pakistan (see my talk page) and want to avoid any further sanctions. I want to edit the article on Kafir, so please let me know if this is a reliable source? What about this, this, this or this?—Dr2Rao (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Of those, the Oxford English Dictionary is the best source. This looks like a journal publication so it is also reliable, just keep in mind that it was published 61 years ago. The Dictionary of Spiritual Terms says its published by World Wisdom and edited by Dr. Joseph Lombard, Assistant Professor of Classical Islam at Brandeis University, so it might be reliable.

The op-ed in The Friday Times would be WP:RSEDITORIAL so it would have to be used with attribution. I don't think this source is reliable at all.VR _talk 14:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask you a question? Do you think a convicted terrorist supporter (serving life) is a reliable source? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 14:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is that about? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Abu Hamza al-Masri. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Actually, that's could be a little harsh, as your Q prompted me to look more carefully at this and I got triggered by the quote at the top. still unsuitable though, imho. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 15:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vice regent and Roxy the dog.—Dr2Rao (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you get topic-banned, it's a bad idea to move on to closely related topics. You were banned from articles about India and Pakistan because you were unable to edit objectively about Muslims. So you move on to articles about Muslim theology and Muslim immigration to Europe. Unless you change your approach, it could lead to a wider ban. TFD (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)