Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context.
Before posting, please check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions of the source. If after reviewing, you feel a new post is warranted, please be sure to include the following information, if available: Links to past discussion of the source on this board. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. For a book, include the author, title, publisher, page number, etc. For an online source, please include links. For example: [http://www.website.com/webpage.html]. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which the source is being used. For example: [[Article name]]. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source supports. Please supply a diff, or put the content inside block quotes. For example: <blockquote>text</blockquote>. Many sources are reliable for statement "X," but unreliable for statement "Y". In some cases, it can also be appropriate to start a general discussion about the likelihood that statements from a particular source are reliable or unreliable. If the discussion takes the form of a request for comment, a common format for writing the RfC question can be found here. Please be sure to include examples of editing disputes that show why you are seeking comment on the source.
While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy.
Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct. Please see dispute resolution for issues other than reliability.
If you are looking for a copy of a specific source, please ask at the resource exchange board.
Additional notes: The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It has an explanatory supplement at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, listing the outcomes of many consensus discussions at this noticeboard. The policy that most directly relates is: Verifiability. If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. If your question is about undue weight or other neutral point of view issues, please use the NPOV noticeboard. If an unreliable source is being over-used or spammed, consider the MediaWiki blacklist, where it can be added to the spam blacklist or a revert list for automated reversion of potential good-faith additions. Requests for comment for deprecation, or for blacklisting or classification as generally unreliable of sources that are widely used in articles, should be registered here using {{rfc|prop}}. As usual with RfCs, consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based argument. Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Click here to start a new discussion

List of archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374

RfC: AllSides media bias ratings

Which of the following best describes AllSides's (allsides.com) media bias ratings? This question has been discussed several times at RSN (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but participants have mostly talked passed one another and editors recently disagreed on how to interpret the consensus. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Survey: Allsides

• Option 2: I believe that broadly categorizing AllSides as either reliable or unreliable would oversimplify it. Their website consists of several different sections with different but related aims; they have drawn by far the most attention from editors for their media bias ratings, which attempt to describe the bias of websites' news reporting on a five-point scale. In making these assessments, they depend on a variety of factors; along with each rating, they include a section explaining how they reached the conclusion they did. Some of their explanations, like those for The New York Times and Fox News, are extremely thorough; others, like those for The Telegraph and The Atlantic, seem to rely heavily on surveys, which is problematic. (AllSides acknowledges this by noting that they have "low confidence" in the latter two ratings.) Their research seems reasonably well-done, they have solid editorial control, and they are frank in acknowledging their limitations. Personally, I think that we should approach AllSides on a case-by-case basis; the more exhaustive the methodology section is, the more likely the rating is to be reliable and constitute due weight. Ratings in which they have "low confidence" should probably never be used, while high confidence ratings are generally usable with attribution, though in some articles, editors may not consider them valuable enough to include. In some cases, content from the methodology section may be usable even when the bias rating itself is not, although when they are reporting what other sources have said, editors should prefer those sources. There are several other caveats that I believe editors should keep in mind when using AllSides: it does not consider opinion columns nor any television programming, it deliberately chooses not to assess the reliability of sources, and AllSides uses the concepts of left- and right-wing politics in their American sense, which does not apply very well to European politics. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. As I note in the discussion below, several media organizations that explicitly cover the source give it high marks for its bias ratings. Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which itself has a stellar reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The source's methodology is explicitly given, and the explicit statement in the confidence the source has in a particular rating should enable Wikipedia users to avoid using low-confidence ratings—this is a significantly better source than the number of media bias sites that don't state their methodology and/or don't give anything akin to a confidence interval. Overall, this has the reputation a WP:GREL source for labeling media bias; even USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks (1 2). — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Option 3. AllSides Media is basically a completely opinionated source. In my opinion, it should only be treated as a primary source.

  
  

  Should we listen to Common Sense Media (CSM) comments on them? CSM is an organization that reviews and provides ratings for media and technology with the goal of providing information on their suitability for children.1 It has also been noted by other news organisations for being an advocacy group(might be lobbyist too).23456 CSM rates them something good but The actual parents gave them half the rating.

  In addition to that, CSM also mentions, The site's rating system isn't perfect -- AllSides makes it clear that it, too, approaches coverage with some level of bias.

  AllSides Media has been using Wikipedia as it's source multiple times. I think AllSides is fine for personal learning, but I doubt it could be used in Wikipedia as a source.

  
  

  Allsides also has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor. They also have a partnership with The Epoch Times, which was deprecated in a 2019 RfC. Viral weirdo (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 Like the rest of the "media bias" aggregators, this site does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. There are reliable sources for media bias - published, peer reviewed papers. Further, reviewing the Poynter article, the methodology that AllSides uses to rate is beyond problematic - it's bad. "In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools." Just no. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In fact, the peer reviewed papers use AllSides as their data source for media bias. To say that there is a great deal of separation between peer-reviewed media bias literature and the AllSides ratings is simply not true. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You can use anything as a data source... This is a bit of a specific point but my dog once published a paper which almost entirely relied on Inspire (magazine) as a data source, that in no way means that the house publication of AQAP is a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
      • If you don't mind sharing on your dog(?)'s writings, can I ask what the data from Inspire (magazine) was used for in that study? — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 per my reasoning in the discussion section. They're a tool which may be valuable for use outside of wikipedia but as a source its a no-go and we have no use for such tools here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I agree with the assessment of Compassionate272, above. Judge it on a case by case basis… because a LOT depends on how confident they are in their own methodology and rating. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Generally unreliable. Placing ideologies on the political spectrum is inherently subjective, i.e., it depends on the position of the person placing them. Allsides groups CNN, The Nation and Jacobin as left-wing. In reality there is a large difference between CNN, which is corporate media supporting liberal capitalism, and Jacobin, which describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture." (It shows a picture of Karl Marx.) The reason anyone would believe these publications occupy the same place in the political spectrum would be if they were conspiracy theorists. TFD (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 2 I agree with most of the comments raised by Compassionate727, who previously I had a discussion with on the reliability of the source. It is indubitably subjective and should IMO certainly be evaluated case by case basis. The quality of AllSides likewise tremendously depends on its asserted quality, e.g., the high confidence ratings are definitely more reliable, but even though they clearly do not manifest Option 1 as generally reliable. For example, it lists the CSM as centrist with high confidence, vindicating that “As of May 2016, The Christian Science Monitor’s AllSides media bias rating remained the same, despite a small majority of nearly 2,500 community members disagreeing with our Center rating.” Nevertheless, currently most of the community disagrees with the rating, which the site states may lead to a re-evaluation, but this is not the case and the entry has not been updated. Besides, its low confidence entries are poor, including the Daily Telegraph one linking back to Wikipedia as a ref, which seems to be circular source IMO. As per Compassionate 727’s comments, some of its ratings are almost entirely based on Blind Bias Surveys that are attributed from people all over the spectrum with no noted expertise, which might be unreliable. As a result, to me AllSides could at best be used for rudimentary info preferably with attribution, and if other RS cover it they should be preferred over this.

Mhawk10’s comments are also insightful, but I do disagree with some aspects. Common Sense Media, an RS primarily for film and media reviews, give AllSides a favourable rating. This does not seem to make it reliable- it also awarded WP a four star rating, despite it being user-generated. Further, the source does not seem to have a reputation for accuracy, as almost all source can be found in peer-reviewed journals, including MBFC, but this does not likely warrant significant coverage. Therefore, to me this is not generally reliable even for the high confidence ratings and should be determined situationally. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• • The star-rating system you're referencing isn't a reliability scale. According to their methodology, Common Sense Media rates media based on both age appropriateness and, for digital media, learning potential. We rely on developmental criteria from some of the nation's leading authorities to determine what content is appropriate for which ages. And research on how kids learn from media and technology informs our learning ratings. Wikipedia is actually quite good for learning about new things—that is the entire purpose of having a free encyclopedia. And, CSM flags Wikipedia as Collaborative reference: Research with caution. If you read the extended description, it says that Kids must be encouraged to think critically about what they read and double check facts and sources if they are using anything for a homework assignment when viewing Wikipedia; it's not saying that WP is actually super reliable for asserting specific facts in a high school-level academic setting (or, presumably, in more serious settings). — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and I concur with your statements on WP, but you stated that CSM gave high marks, while also suggesting that it only determines learning potential, so how does that make this source reliable? The view expressed for the Poynter article is cherry picked, it states “But use them with caution” and likewise notes the similarities of AllSides and Ad Fontes, the later being generally unreliable. I am also tentative of the quality of the Deseret article, it labels as an opinion piece only and also said that “Meanwhile, the Ad Fonte Media Bias Chart—yet another respected gauge of bias”. Do you consider Ad Fontes also reliable?

Thanks for your helpful ideas and please comment below for any disagreements. Cheers and thanks. VickKiang (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

When I say "high marks", I was not referring to the star-based rating system, but to the quote that immediately followed that statement and to the section of the page titled "Is It Any Good?" more generally. I apologize for the lack of clarity there. The caution Poynter is expressing is to not use bias to determine reliability; we capture this in our guideline WP:BIASED, but that hardly seems like a mark against the bias ratings provided by this source. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful clarification, and apologies for my misunderstanding. However, I would also point out that IMO the CSM's evaluation of 'Is it any good?' on its own is not a sufficient indication of reliability and is skewed towards learning potential. There are dozens of examples, but one of them is that it cites Britannica as the "most trusted resource" and praises it extensively, notwithstanding it being only marginally reliable upon a search on WP: Perennial Sources. In comparison, would you view that source to be as top-notch as CSM suggests? Further, the claim that the experts gave AllSides high marks might be erroneous, as that interviewed expert is Mastrine, who is the owner of the unreliable Ad Fontes and likely does not reflect the general view of professionals in media research (hence her praise is likely biased). The comment of USA Today's use of this source for the fact check is invalid as it also cites MBFC. Would you consider MBFC as well as Ad Fontes (please see my previous argument on your comments made for Deseret News article, which noteworthily is merely an opinion source) reliable? As a result, from my point of view, the statement of "USA Today explicitly uses the website as a source for the political orientation of media organizations in its own fact checks" is cherry-picked as unreliable sources are frequently utilised. It is present in some peer-reviewed journals but is tangentially mentioned (i.e., your discussion noted below, and like already said media bias sites are used for sure occasionally, including MBFC for the Iffy Quotient, but is too restrained for significant use). Nevertheless, AllSides is marginally better than Ad Fontes and MBFC because of its unambiguously stated methodology, still, it lacks IMO the status of a reliable source. Thanks again for your comments and time. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. They are primarily opinion (and are mostly covered as such) but make no particular distinction between fact an option; the poynter coverage of them above specifically does not praise or even evaluate them in its article voice that I can see, and most of the usage or coverage consists of passing mentions; most of what it says is quoted from AllSides. "Raw data" types of websites are generally very hard to use because it's tricky for them to be anything other than primary for their own raw data; but we definitely couldn't use them to support statements in the article voice, and whether to cover things as their opinion is going to come down to due weight - which is often going to be lacking. Additionally, the very nature of AllSides means that their coverage of news sources is going to be indiscriminate, ie. a source having a rating there means little, as opposed to academic papers discussing their bias. There are just much better (and more specific) source available on the political outlook of sources when it is relevant, which AllSides shouldn't be weighted with and therefore isn't generally usable along; and if AllSides is the only source, it's hard to support using it because of its indiscriminate nature and blurring of reporting and opinion. This makes it difficult to see any situation where it would be an RS. --Aquillion (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 I agree with Compassionate. This should be on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes Allsides is great, using thorough fact checking methods, while other times it's a bit more of an online survey. For the Allsides ratings that are supported by other RS or appear to have undergone a good analysis they are generally reliable, but for the one's that appear to have received little attention and care, they should not be used. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 06:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Compassionate727. LondonIP (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 - agree with Aquillion’s perspective. I will add that without years of training and hands-on experience learning how to approach a topic from a NPOV, most human-based methods are likely to be biased, inadvertent or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 20:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 2: RS always depends on the WP:RSCONTEXT, what the intended use is, and this question seems too vague to do much, but I’ll offer some specifics for UK publications. As Mhawk10 and Horse Eyes mention below, The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, and Independent already have stated political affiliations in their articles, so there seems no need, but if the Allsides view of them is being mentioned by third parties then sure, that could be cited. Third party articles with mentions to Allsides would be citeable because they are stable and presumably saying something. But a WP editor going and looking up that day’s ratings would not be usable in article space. Partly because that would be OR, but mostly that any online moving rating is perhaps not going to return the same values next week so mechanically is not usable in article space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 The methodology for their ratings does not seem to be reliable to me. It's a useful tool, but I would not feel comfortable citing it on Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion: Allsides

• Coverage of Wikipedia aside Allsides does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, their opinion may be notable when mentioned by a WP:RS but they are not themselves a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: Common Sense Media gives AllSides high marks, writing that the news analysis site attempts to offer a thorough assessment of recent media coverage -- and essentially succeeds at that goal and that Generally, AllSides does a stellar job of breaking issues down. CSM also notes some limitations of the methodology (the site's analysis solely involves online reporting, not broadcast or other print coverage). Deseret News's executive editor also appears to like the site's methodology. Several experts interviewed by Poynter gives the media bias rating methodology high marks. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the links. I'm not sure how much any of them demonstrate the necessary reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I'm not sure if we should even consider any of them other than the Poynter piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

      Well, Global News describes it as a fact-checking website that is recommended by the experts they interviewed. As I note in my !vote in the discussion section above, AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor, which has a stellar reputation for its reporting. USA Today also uses the website as a source in its own fact checks (1 2) for the explicit purpose of labeling the political lean of media outlets. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Common Sense Media a paternalistic content rating agency? I don't think they're a WP:RS. Likewise CSM *used* to have a stellar reputation, they're so-so these days like with Deseret their links to a fringe religious sect have gotten more problematic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, Common Sense Media is generally reliable in the area of its reviews for entertainment sources. Its applicability to other areas has not been the subject of significant discussion, but it looks like a situational source. Christian Science Monitor is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news and, as far as I am aware, has not seen its reputation change in recent years. Is there reporting from reliable sources that suggest this? Also, Deseret News is WP:GREL on WP:RSP for news, so I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a review of an entertainment source. Something can be less than stellar and still generally reliable. CSM's commentary has been getting increasingly extreme, for instance these pieces[1][2][3][4]. As Hipal pointed out the only thing we can actually use from what you presented is Poynter and they explicitly endorse All Sides as a *tool* not as a source so that has nothing to do with our discussion here. You also seem to have misstated the consensus on Deseret "The Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news." not "news" as you said. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect to Poynter, the only caution that they give is not to use the bias charts that they are discussing as a measure of reliability (centrist news sources are not always higher quality), and state that Media bias charts with transparent, rigorous methodologies can offer insight into sources’ biases and that such charts offer well-researched appraisals on the bias of certain sources. I don't really know what to conclude from that except taht they are well-researched and useful when their methodologies are transparent and rigorous; again, that's what a WP:RS is. With respect to Deseret, I don't think that anybody in the previous discussions made a distinction between local news and its news more broadly; it's a regional newspaper that tends to focus on LDS issues and regional topics, but I think that the word "local" in RSP is simply a mis-reading of the three discussions linked that unduly restricts the scope of its reliability. With respect to CS Monitor's opinions being published, I really don't think that we should consider its WP:RSOPINION pieces to be similar to its news coverage. In fact, all of those pieces you've linked are labeled as A Christian Science perspective, which plainly indicates that the perspective pieces are written from the viewpoint of a particular religious affiliation. The use of the source I linked is to establish that AllSides has a partnership with Christian Science Monitor the magazine—I think it would be silly to paint it as if the partnership were involved in one particular type of clearly labeled religious opinion column. You've also not addressed the coverage in Global News and the WP:USEBYOTHERS by USA Today's fact-checkers. If USA Today's fact-checkers are using the source in a particular way, is that not evidence of reliability for facts? — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

When you're at the point down the rabbit hole were you're accusing someone of having made a mistaken RSP entry you should probably take a step back. USEBYOTHERS is not a trump card and alone isn't even enough, its just one piece of the puzzle and most of the pieces seem to be missing here. I would also note that for many sources AllSides separates out opinion and news in their rating, they do not do so for CSM. Also AllSides methodology is *not rigorous* its actually rather shit, if you tried to submit a paper to a polisci or media studies journal using their methodology you would be laughed out of academia. We aren't comparing them to other media bias groups (which are mostly unreliable) we're comparing them to actual reliable sources like journal articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You may think this, but a Routledge-published scholarly book notes that Allsides' use of multiple modes of analysis strengthens our overall confidence in their ratings. Hardly seems like this gets you laughed out of academia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How is that related? They aren't using their methodology and they don't even say its reliable they just say they have some level of confidence in it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

They are saying that they have enough confidence that the bias ratings are correct to use it as a variable in their analysis. In other words, they're saying that it's reliable enough for bias ratings that they have confidence using it in their analysis, with the confidence being bolstered by the multi-mode analysis that involves editorial oversight, surveying, etc. — Mhawk10 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

What does that mean for us though? We do not do analysis. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

You keep claiming that AllSides's methodology is awful, but you have neither explained why in any particular detail nor cited anyone who makes this claim. Do you have anything you can point to in support of your position? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"In the blind bias survey, which Mastrine called “one of (AllSides’) most robust bias rating methodologies,” readers from the public rate articles for political bias. Two AllSides staffers with different political biases pull articles from the news sites that are being reviewed. AllSides locates these unpaid readers through its newsletter, website, social media account and other marketing tools. The readers, who self-report their political bias after they use a bias rating test provided by the company, only see the article’s text and are not told which outlet published the piece. The data is then normalized to more closely reflect the composure of America across political groupings. AllSides also uses “editorial reviews,” where staff members look directly at a source to contribute to ratings." So just to sum up they take bad data, run it through some opaque normalization algorithm, and then might or might not disregard it based on editorial preferences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure why you consider the data "bad"; it is entirely normal for survey organizers to solicit participants through their own networks of contacts in addition to the standard "other marketing tools"; in general, participants who are solicited through direct contacts are better than ones solicited via random survey distributors because many of those people are professional survey-takers clicking random responses as quickly as possible because they are being awarded per survey. There is no reason to expect AllSides's contacts to be unusually biased; even if there was, they normalize the results so that the personal bias of, e.g., some right-wing nut who thinks that all media that disagrees with him is far-left propaganda because Ben Shapiro says so doesn't skew the results. As for their "editorial reviews," it has already been noted that AllSides considers a number of other factors, including research by scholars and organizations like Pew as well as their own editors impressions of the source after reading its articles (see the Fox News bias rating for an example of this process), which of course will (and should) affect the final rating. On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"On the whole, "I don't understand what they are doing" by itself doesn't seem like a good reason to reject a source." if someone ever makes that argument I'l be sure to let them know. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• How would this information be used by Wikipedia? Sources like this I think are useful for RSN discussions but the discussion here suggests we would want to use the ratings of this company in article space. If a RS says "Allsides said X" well fine but if we are editing an article about the WSJ we shouldn't include a sentence like, "Allsides rates the WSJ as X [cite Allsides]". Springee (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the past RSN and other discussions, I added it to my list of problematic references in Dec'19, and started actively been removing them around Sep'20. I've found a lot of discussion, but very little attempted use. Generally better sources have been favored. My impression is that where it has been attempted to be used, it is to counter reputable, historic viewpoints. --Hipal (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In articles like The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, The Irish Times, Newsmax, Jacobin (magazine), AlterNet, The Grayzone, etc. we already state the political affiliation of the source in the lead or infobox. This would serve as one reliable source among others that could be used in describing the political leans of publications. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

AllSides uses an American political spectrum, it would not be possible to use them as a source for the general leaning of outlets in other countries. You will note that for the foreign sources they do rate they only review their US coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Mhawk10, do you agree that CNN and Jacobin occupy the same position in the political spectrum or that CNN is more left-wing than The Guardian? TFD (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

CNN and Jacobin don't occupy the same political ideology; Jacobin is generally to the left of CNN's online news coverage. There is tremendous diversity of thought in the left-wing to far-left; Maoists are not politically the same as Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists are not the same as hardcore left-liberals, and are Stalinists are not the same as La France Insoumise, which are each rather different that Juche practitioners and the anarcho-syndicalists of the Regional Defense Council of Aragon. Generally, however, the left-right framework would put all of those groups on the left, even though they tend to vociferously disagree. CNN's online U.S. political coverage follows a left-liberal line, while Jacobin follows a (democratic) socialist approach. The two are not the same, but in the context of AMPOL they get thrown in on the left side of the political divide. As for the news coverage, I haven't conducted a systemic review of CNN and The Guardian, but my inclination is that the two share a common left-liberal approach in the types of stories they choose to cover; they're both fairly comparable to Vox. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I just removed this addition as a new editor's only edit. Is is safe to assume WP:ARBAP2 applies to such edits? --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Another one [5], ARBAP2 definitely applies. --Hipal (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it applies, and I agree that both of those are inappropriate uses of the source. Biases should always be attributed, and there's rarely (dare I say never?) any reason to mention them except in a dedicated context. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

References

RfC: Alexa Internet

In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles? -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Alexa Internet will be shutting down in May. We have 811 citations. They are used almost exclusively for site rankings (maybe some exceptions?). With Alexa offline the rankings are useless even misleading (maybe some exceptions?). Rather than archiving, the entire citation should be deleted along with the sentence that mentions the ranking.

A previous RfC removed Alexa rankings from infoboxes. Editors expressed concern about the accuracy and viability of site ranking generally, the reliability of Alexa, appropriateness for Wikipedia.

Proposal: Delete all citations and cited facts when related to Alexa site rankings. Use common sense to maintain an Alexa ranking score indefinitely if required by the text. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• OP Opine: Alexa is/was a marketing product, used by advertisers. It has largely been replaced by an entire industry that includes Nielsen, Comscore, etc.. if you want good site metric data you pay for it. The freebie stuff is questionable and keeping it updated on Wikipedia is challenging. There was nearly unanimous calls for removal in the last RfC because Alexa is "unencylopedic", a black box algorithm, many consider it an unreliable source. The last RfC was removal from Infoboxes only, this extends to all text, in light of pending shutdown. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure leaping straight to an RFC makes sense per WP:RFCBEFORE (this seems like the sort of situation where we'd want to have a proper discussion to figure out options.) But honestly I don't think we should have been directly citing Alexa numbers directly in the first place for the reasons mentioned above - they are vague about their methodology and there's plenty of reason to be skeptical of the free data they provide. The one value that they (debatably) provided was up-to-date data; now even that will be gone. The only alternative to removing them seems to be using archive links, which I definitely don't think we should do. "This site had an Alexa rating of X in June 2019" seems to me to be using specific data to the point of basically being WP:OR - ie. why that date? As time passes it will come to carry a specific meaning not in the source - though really any Alexa ratings do, because they're almost always used to imply something about the source that Alexa itself doesn't actually attest to given their vagueness about what those numbers mean. In my experience Alexa was almost always used to make an implicit argument of "this site is popular, and therefore important and noteworthy", which it shouldn't be used for given its limitations and the WP:OR risk. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

We did discuss it 1.5 years ago at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_173#RfC:_Alexa_Rankings_in_Infoboxes where there was near-unanimous RfC consensus against these links existing on Wikipedia Infoboxes, but also against the links generally. This RfC is required because the first RfC was limited to infoboxes which is an arbitrary criteria in most cases. -- GreenC 05:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• @GreenC: Thanks for raising this issue. Could you please rephrase the RfC statement as a neutral and brief question per WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. "In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles?" Your rationale can be moved anywhere below the first timestamp, preferably to the survey or discussion section. — Newslinger talk 17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• These should not be deleted, but piped through Internet Archive to preserve them, if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Of course dead links are saved automatically anyway. The question is why are we keeping these links? To know that on June 12, 2010, XYZ.com was ranked #34 by alexa.com and this statistic will never be updated again but frozen forever on Wikipedia? If there was some reason this stat was important, great, but in most cases there is no reason. It's unencyclopedic trivia, arguably inaccurate and unreliable, outdated and outmoded. If someone wants historical Alexa data for a future project, they can get it from the Wayback Machine in more complete form. -- GreenC 06:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  As ScottishFinnishRadish and GretLomborg put it below, sometimes a site's popularity at a particular point in time is encyclopedically relevant. E.g., EFF.org was once the fourth-most-linked-to website in the world, and was for several years (behind Microsoft, Netscape, and one of the pre-Google search engines). I agree with CaribDigita below that when the intent is to show current popularity, then we should use newer tools like Netcraft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Delete it. I was wondering this. Things can get replaced by Netcraft.com website indexing services (from the same era as before Amazon bought Alexa). Most old internet site rankings after a few years may not matter all that much, and Amazon could disable it if they put no-index in the header record as that purges it from Internet Archive. CaribDigita (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Fine to remove them when found, although I wouldn't go out of my way searching them out. I would keep them, however, if they are used to show the ranking at a specific notable time frame, e.g. Website A was had an Alexa rank of Graham's number, but after it's breaking of the story that Cold fusion and the EM Drive both work, it's Alexa rank rose to 7. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
• I agree with SMcCandlish: the links should be archived. I think it makes sense to remove links to Alexa if the purpose is to show current popularity, but I think I read somewhere that a source doesn't necessarily have to be accessible *now* to be usable, so if the context was popularity at some particular time the cite should stay. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Aquillion, and SMcCandlish. It is too soon, and we should WP:Preserve when possible. Huggums537 (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but no - or at least not now. Looking at the list of uses, I will say respect and PRESERVE, except as usual replace wherever a better source is available. It perhaps always whiffed a bit of OR and just a snapshot in time to state the Alexa rating or profile, but it was also widely followed and it is hard for me to see where one can replace the Site Profile information said in the article on the .bw domain. So in general I conclude replace with open writings if able but definite no to a simple ‘removed from all articles’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Delete them all, no piping to IA. There's nothing to preserve if the measuring facility itself is dead. If Alexa had bellied up in say 2004, would it be notable now in 2022 that Yahoo! was #1 at the time? Unlikely. Zaathras (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Preserve. There is plenty to preserve even though the measuring facility itself is dead - Antipater of Sidon died millenia ago, yet his list Seven Wonders of the Ancient World is highly valuable. The fact that site X used to be one of the most viewed on the Internet is an important data point. --GRuban (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Indeed

Is Indeed a reliable source? I used it once on the Hamburger University page, but the edits were removed per WP:COPYVIO because that page was copyrighted. AKK700 08:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable for what purpose? What is the text that is being cited to Indeed... It's a job-search website, so there's probably not a lot of use for it, but it always depends on what text you are citing in Wikipedia. --Jayron32 11:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would say mostly no. At best it might be a WP:PRIMARY source for what the organization says about itself, but since it exerts no editorial control it is basically WP:ABOUTSELF at best - it's not published for RS purposes. And even within that narrow window I would be cautious about most stuff there, since it's likely to be too self-serving for ABOUTSELF usage. Even basic numbers and figures from there are likely to be selected to try and be appealing to job-seekers. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Indeed is a platform that hosts self-published/user-generated content. If an Indeed page is confirmed in some way to have been published by a company, it can be treated similarly to a page on the company's own website. — Newslinger talk 06:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) Generally unreliable: User-generated content is generally reliable (exactly what Newslinger said) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Ars Technica's Eric Berger

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Ars Technica's Eric Berger on SpaceX and other space-related articles? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Added {{rfc|prop}} tag. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Reliable, but may require further investigation
• Option 3: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 4: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 5: Publishes false or fabricated information and should be deprecated

Ars Technica's Eric Berger

• Option 1: Generally reliable, like Ars Technica overall per existing consensus. Also the author of a book about the topic with positive reviews in Space.com [6] (calling Berger a "veteran" space reporter), the Financial Times [7], and the NYT [8]. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1:' On both counts: Ars Technica is a scrupulously reliable source on technology-related matters, and per the analysis above, Berger appears to be a reliable space-related journalist. Seems fine to me. As an aside, who is questioning the use of Berger's work on Ars Technica? What is their rationale for questioning it? --Jayron32 15:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Concerns from the GAR as too interested and too much of an insider? WP:BIASED is obvious, yet not a reliability issue. I'd think WP:Recentism would be the primary concern considering the nature of the reporting and what Berger's audience expects. fiveby(zero) 15:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: with a nod to WP:RECENT and always WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. @Urve: notifying. fiveby(zero) 15:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: As noted above, Ars Technica is about as good a source as we are likely to have for the "technology news" sector. As such, Mr. Berger falls under that umbrella unless and until there's some reason he doesn't--and perhaps I am missing something, but I have seen nothing to that effect. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Obviously Option 1 Ars Technica is generally reliable for technology news. Hipocrite (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RFC, since it seems like this is being asked in order to influence the result of the the GAR, where much more specific questions are raised about Berger which you didn't disclose here (despite, I can only assume, intending to turn around and use the result of an RFC here to try and influence the answer there.) More generally, I tend to get leery when people ask extremely obvious questions here with no context. At a glance, Berger has written extensively about Musk and has spent a great deal of time with him, to the point where he might be considered WP:BIASED. Ars Technica is obviously a WP:RS and there's no reason to doubt Berger's overall reliability but I would be cautious about not giving him excessive weight on this topic as a result. But those aren't reliability problems and I'm concerned that this RFC may be asking an "easy" question which will then get turned around and used as the answer to a "hard" one that wasn't asked, so to speak. --Aquillion (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't want to influence on the GAR, and I have stated multiple times elsewhere that I fully support the decision of delisting the article. ([1], [2], [3]) I do think however that I am biased and others should make the decision on whether the source is reliable or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  The issue that Aquillion is raising is not one of reliability of the source, but that the additional considerations from context in which you are likely to want to use the source are not being raised as part of the RfC. In the GAR various editors raised concern that Berger is biased towards SpaceX, not necessarily that he was unreliable. Additionally, I don't see any criticism of Ars Technica which would warrant raising a thread. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, a lot of other SpaceX and other private space corp articles use Eric Berger as a main source. In my opinion, I do feel that the Eric Berger is reliable on the area of expertise, but given my bias on the topic as well highlighted by other editors I think that having uninvolved editors making judgement would be the best idea. I have no ill-faith intents here – if Eric's unreliable, I just have tossed a good chunk of my hard work away. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1: (or bad RfC): Thanks for pinging me, Fiveby and Aquillion. Yes, my concerns about Berger's writing were more specific than reliability, but there's no doubt that he reports factual information accurately. But for content, this RfC has no bearing on what I was troubled by: Whether we can report as fact what Berger writes as aspirational. The article said: "When linked together, these facilities act as a production line, making Starship construction quicker". Berger says this is Musk's desire: "Musk wants a linear flow through the tents ...". I think Berger has an interest in reporting on the speculative parts of SpaceX's development operations. If an insider look is just reporting on aspirations for recently-devised manufacturing processes, then even if it's reliable, I fail to see why we should include it. After all, if this information is not reported in other reliable sources (ignoring the source-text incongruity), then is it due to include every new development wish? This is not a matter of reliability but editorial judgment. Urve (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC No context is given so there is no basis on which to decide. If someone thinks a particular claim is a problem then it should be discussed as RSN was used until editors got it in their heads that every dispute should become a RfC that decided a general reliability question. Springee (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that an RfC here seems very heavy-handed. Even if someone wishes to get a formal closure for a reliability discussion, an RfC is not requireed for that purpose. One can just post it at WP:ANRFC under "Other types of closing requests". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3: With regards to this specific topic the neutrality of Berger is highly questionable, if even debatable. I regularly read his content on Ars Technica, and as others have noted his technical descriptions come off as highly aspirational. It's common to see him reporting SpaceX/Musk talking points as certainties , which in reality frequently never come to pass. In summary, his reporting is faithful on an events and facts level, but highly colored by his connection to Elon Musk and SpaceX. On this particular subject I consider Berger WP:BIASED. Ebolaisariver (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: Per Jayron32, and Aquillion. Both seem to be fine, and I don't understand any of the context of the question as Aquillion pointed out. Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC Journalists are not experts and therefore the reliability of their writings depends on the publication and the nature of the claim. An article written by an anonymous journalist for the New York Times for example is reliable for news, no matter who wrote it. OTOH, a signed opinion piece by a Times editor is not, per News organizations. TFD (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Ars Technica is a generally reliable source for news, with a technology and science focus. It is operated by Condé Nast, which owns a number of other generally reliable publications, including GQ, The New Yorker (RSP entry), Pitchfork, Vogue (RSP entry), and Wired (RSP entry). Ars Technica tends to be more in-depth than most technology websites, and falls under option 1. Eric Berger's articles that are published in Ars Technica are also generally reliable (option 1), including his articles on space or SpaceX. The reliability of Berger's articles that are published in other publications would depend on the reliability of those publications, and Berger's self-published articles would be judged by the WP:SPS policy. — Newslinger talk 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• This RFC should include {{rfc|policy}} and/or {{rfc|sci}} tags. And to add to the procedural pedantry: I'm not sure why this ever needed to be an RfC; it could have been an normal discussion/question. JBchrch talk 22:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

  Added {{rfc|sci}}. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines RfC category is usually intended for changes to policy/guideline pages. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 I'd like to offer a different perspective than just parroting that Ars Technica on a whole has been found to be reliable. I've been working specifically with Eric Berger's reporting on Space Launch System, and I've found him to be extremely reliable (alongside e.g. Philip Sloss and Jeff Foust). While finding and checking citations, I've on many occasions compared direct NASA sources to his reporting, and found his summaries to be fair, due, and accurate. Even in the case of controversial issues, such as discussed here and here, looking back with the perspective of two more years of history, his reporting was vindicated and the opposing sources were proven to be too optimistic. So, from my experience on specifically that topic over the course of multiple years, I would say that specifically Eric Berger's reporting for Ars Technica on the topic of spaceflight is generally reliable. On the other hand, I would have to say that per WP:SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications., I do have to disclaim that Eric Berger's Twitter (or other personal social media, separate from Ars Technica) should not be treated as a reliable self-published expert source. On numerous occasions he has tweeted unverified rumors and speculation, presumably too unverifiable to put into an actual Ars Technica article, that was later proven wrong. Leijurv (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1: for Eric Berger. For ArsTechnica, and especially some of its writers who do not cover tech issues, awful and very unreliable and tendentious. You will observe quite a few above also say Ars is good for tech reporting. But for all the Ars reposts from other Condé Nast pubs and some of its in-house writers... Ars is agitprop-level. But Berger tends to stick to tech issues and he himself should be relied upon.XavierItzm (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources: Past vs Present

I would like to know if a lot of the sources that are considered reliable in the past, are now unreliable. For example, do news sources that have a history of objective fact-reporting now publish what their viewers want to see rather than the objective truth. I feel like the only news source that does this is the Wall Street Journal since many sources such as CNN and Fox News that were once considered a trustworthy source are now publish what their audience wants to see like anti-Trump or pro-Trump stories rather than report facts. I would like to know from editors: are there any reliable news sources that people can still turn to to get a clear picture of a event? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

All sources are biased so multiple checks advised.Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that all sources are biased, but the question is how do we measure whether a source does its best to publish the facts rather than try to put a liberal or conservative spin on everything? In other words, how do we measure reliability when sources are totally biased? Interstellarity (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Green at RSP is reliable for facts, biased or not. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

NPR is listed as green, but I think it's one of those sources that used to be reliable until after 2020 when the US news sites became more partisan than they were back then. Interstellarity (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Most Western sources that are green should be treated as reliable but editors should make sure to consider that articles they publish may tend to go into op-ed without actually stating they are op-ed, so where there are clearly claims of opinion being made those should be treated as attributed claims. --Masem (t) 15:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What is your evidence that NPR should be counted as unreliable after 2020? I have seen no noticeable change in the past 2 years, and I recall no such prior discussion here at Wikipedia which brought any such evidence that they should be considered as such. --Jayron32 14:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, the Daily Mail is considered to have been reliable in the past. A similar situation exists with Newsweek, which RSP judges to be semi-unreliable after 2013. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

cahighways.org

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be mixed opinions about the reliability of cahighways.org. A while back I made an edit to the page California State Route 104, and I sourced it with cahighways.org, thinking it was reliable (which I still pretty much think). However, I recently stumbled upon an old RfD which stated cahighways is not reliable. However, that's only one editor, but I'm now wondering if it's generally reliable for california highways related topics or not. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 18:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a trivia type site and their own disclaimer states as much and that it's probably not RS. Anything that you'd source there, should be able to be sourced to an actual RS and if it can't, then it shouldn't be included in the article. Their disclaimer: Note: This is a hobbyist website. The California Highways Site is not affilated with or sponsored by Caltrans, the California Department of Transportation, although I truly appreciate the support that Caltrans staff have provided me in doing research, and the kind words they have sent me regarding the information on this site. If you have questions concerning operation of the state highways, or that are of a legal or regulatory nature, please contact Caltrans directly at http://www.dot.ca.gov/. I'll be glad to answer any question I can, but this is a hobbyist site. If you are looking for the current status of a particular state route, try the Caltrans Highway Status page. The California Highway Patrol also maintains a Traffic Incident Page. If you have a maintenance problem to report, use the Caltrans Maintenance Report Form. CUPIDICAE💕 18:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

According to their Sources and credits page, they appear to be generally reliable for fact checking. Huggums537 (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say that if you can source it from here and another reliable source, then use both sources to compliment each other. Huggums537 (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We should not be citing hobby blogs, ever, unless they are well established SMEs, especially when it can be sourced to somewhere better. CUPIDICAE💕 19:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no evidence of it being a hobby "blog", and think it is a misrepresentation of the site. Just because they say they are a hobbyist website is meaningless. Youtube, The Internet Archive, and many more sites we depend on could be called hobbyist sites, but that is irrelevant to the fact something on them could be reliable for sourcing or not. Huggums537 (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You see no evidence of it even though the owner literally states as much in their giant disclaimer?? CUPIDICAE💕 20:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It says it's a hobbyist website, not a hobbyist blog. Seems like a big difference to me. interstatefive  (talk) - just another roadgeek 20:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A hobbyist website and hobbyist blog are more or less the same and the idea that it's inherently reliable because they don't say blog is silly. You asked for a reason, and if the content can be sourced to an actual RS, that needs to be used. If it can't, it shouldn't be in an article. Seems pretty simple to me. WP:UGC and WP:SPS applies. CUPIDICAE💕 20:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You asked for a reason, and if the content can be sourced to an actual RS, that needs to be used. If it can't, it shouldn't be in an article. Seems pretty simple to me. It's more complicated than that. There are tons of content that can be in an article without any sourcing per WP:SKYBLUE. Huggums537 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No. You're quite the comedian. WP:V supersedes silly essays. It's a policy and a core tenet of Wikipedia. WP:SKYBLUE isn't. Maybe your comedy special should be called "Huggums, King of Bad Takes" CUPIDICAE💕 23:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but WP:When to cite is an explanatory supplement to WP:V, and the section Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed has lots of examples of when content doesn't need a source. So, who is laughing now? Huggums537 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As the average person is not familiar with the US Highway system, much less California's, this does not apply. So yes, citations from reliable sources are required.Slywriter (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't apply here. I was only pointing out the implied meaning when you say any content that can't be sourced to an RS shouldn't be in an article, is that any unsourced material should not be in an article, but that just simply isn't true, and it is a very unfortunate common misconception about sourcing. Huggums537 (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a long-running SPS. The About page makes it clear that they're not a subject matter expert. They're not widely cited by other reliable sources, either. Woodroar (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah to both of you for quoting SPS and UGC. It is just more meaningless misrepresentation as I said above. I could easily do the same thing with the Internet Archive by saying it is both UGC, and an aggregator of unreliable sources, but we still use it for reliable sourcing anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you just here to argue and whine or do you actually have a point? Because you seem to be missing it. The idea that IA is inherently a hobbyist site is also patently ridiculous. Especially because IA often archives - get this, established reliable sources! Remarkable, really. CUPIDICAE💕 21:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

They also allow users to archive any page on the internet, and have whole sections dedicated to games that you can play, and video, music, or book media users can upload, download, or consume. If that can't be contorted into a "hobbyist" site in the same ridiculous manner you are contorting this reliable source into a "hobbyist" site, then you are a hypocrite because this site also refers to - get this, established reliable sources! Huggums537 (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And the vast majority of content archived by IA can not be used as a reliable source. The webpages contained within IA stand or fall on their own merits.Slywriter (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That is exactly my point. IA doesn't do any fact checking, and is an aggregator of unreliable sources. Heck, this site is more reliable than IA! It should stand or fall on its own merits, and it does appear to do fact checking, and cites reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

IA isn't reliable. The archives of reliable sources are. There is a broad and deep consensus that archive.org isn't altering the data in it's archives. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no evidence this site is altering anything either; so what exactly is the problem here? Huggums537 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Because they're is no reason to assume it is reliable, same as anyone else's random website. I could make a website and publish whatever I wanted, wouldn't make it reliable. See WP:RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Except my reason to assume they are reliable is here where it says, This information is derived from the following references, as well as additional research in newspaper articles, California Transportation Commission minutes, and other public documents That's not them claiming to be an expert on anything, it's them saying they fact checked from reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in RS guidance requires sources to be "subject matter experts" or else we would never be able to use any journalistic sources whatsoever. Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, someone should give you an award for most points missed while also gaslighting and simultaneously being dead wrong. 👏 Bravo. CUPIDICAE💕 21:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've already awarded myself with this honor on my own userpage, but thank you for offering for someone to bestow it upon me anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SPS. Woodroar (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing in SPS suggesting being a subject matter expert is a requirement, and it further states that, if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. which the stuff in this source has been. Huggums537 (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why on earth would we use someone who doesn't know about a topic self publishing as a reliable source? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The important part of WP:SPS is this: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. By the site maintainer's own admission, and as verified by editors here, he's not an expert. That's fine and I mean no criticism by it, but that means the site isn't usable as a source on Wikipedia. Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Another important part of that is: whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. and also, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources Not only has most of his work been previously published by the reliable sources posted on the credits page, but his work has been published by other reliable sources as well as indicated by the backlinks to that domain. To assume the site is inherently unreliable just because they mention the word "hobbyist" on a disclaimer page intended to limit liability, not explain who or what they are about is especially silly when anyone can see the man has been doing this for over 20 years whether he claims to be an expert or not. The copyright on the website is 1998-2020, and the ICANN registration data goes back to 2000. Plus, there is a claim the site was hosted by Pacificne way back in 1996, which I'm sure could be verified if I went through the trouble. So, the dude has been doing it almost since the internet was a thing, and to quote your own rhetoric "By the site maintainer's own admission", he's been doing this since he was a child; If you hadn't figured it out by the name of the site, I'm really into highways. This started when I was a map collector as a child. I'd say that pretty much qualifies him as an expert whether he's trying to protect himself in a liability notice, and wants to claim it, or not. Being humble, and protecting yourself from liability doesn't disqualify someone from having extensive knowledge about a subject, the suggestion that it somehow does is what is remarkably silly to me. Huggums537 (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link from his site nearly 22 years ago that also confirms the claim about hosting I mentioned earlier... If that isn't reliable, then I don't know wtf is. Huggums537 (talk) 05:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the policy, so let me break it down:

• whose work: this would need to be the maintainer of the site, not the sources he uses. You do not become an expert because you are using expert sources. Expertise is not inherited.
• previously been published by reliable, independent publications: again, this would be the maintainer of the site being published in reliable, independent publications. This isn't backlinks, this is other sources identified as reliable incorporating or commenting on the work of the maintainer.
• someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources this is an admonition against using a self-published source in most cases, on the theory that if the information is actually reliable or important, a non self-published source will have reported it.

When establishing whether you can use a self-published source, you have to determine if the publisher is an expert. In this case, that's the site maintainer. Ask yourself these questions:

1. Has the maintainer or his website been discussed in reliable sources on the matter of highways, or even better highways in California?
2. Has the maintainer published on the topic of highways or California highways in a reliable source, separate from cahighways.org?

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then they might be an expert and therefore the website is usable as a source. A good example from the railroading world is Thomas Taber, who self-published a three-volume history of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad. This book was reviewed in numerous publications and is stocked in libraries. Numerous reliable sources cite Taber when discussing the Lackawanna, it would be unthinkable not to. Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ironically, that "Free Backlink checker" confirmed what a Google search already told me: only a handful of reliable sources link to cahighways.org. Yes, plenty of sites link there, which you would expect for a site that's 25 years old. But they're mostly (a) sketchy news sites and hobbyist sources that don't know anything about source analysis and (b) affiliate scam sites that algorithmically harvest content. By and large, reputable sites are not linking to or sourcing cahighways.org. Woodroar (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

But yet, reputable sites do in fact link there. Disqualifying the reputable sites who are linking there simply because a bunch of sketchy sites decided to join them is nothing but a bunch of poppycock. Huggums537 (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't respond earlier because Praxidicae was so clear and correct that I didn't think additional input would be needed. Turns out that's wrong. It's an unreliable SPS, as the hobbyist does not appear to be a subject matter expert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Not only do they not appear to be an SME, they explain as much themselves. CUPIDICAE💕 22:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This thread should probably be preserved for posterity as exhibit one in a series on 'bad arguments for using a source'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflict) I was writing this at the same time Alex was closing, so the reply tool did not work because of the conflict with the close template, and I now have to rewrite the comment I was working on. My reply was to Mackenson, to address the fact that we are pretending that we don't allow sources from people who might not be "published experts", but demonstrate they have extensive knowledge about a subject. Also, we are pretending that his sources are not needed because he is just "inheriting" his expertise from the experts, but simply is not true. This guy has access to the archives of the expert sources that you, and I do not have because he has garnered their respect after more than two decades of a working relationship with them: I also thank Mel Aros, Program Coordinator for the California County Route Marker Program in Sacramento, who had to go to files archived off a mainframe computer in 1984 to get me a listing of all the routes in the program. So, this idea of skipping this source, and going right to the "experts" doesn't make any sense because this guy has information you just can't get from them, (but he can). You can feel free to close this comment as well, and I won't comment any more on the topic, but I felt like it wasn't fair that a technical glitch was preventing me from having my say when I had my comment all written out, and then it got lost from an edit conflict. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I wish I had seen this thread when it was open since I have dealt with this issue when writing multiple FAs on the topic including California State Route 78, Interstate 8, etc. I certainly provide an external link to cahighways.org as a valuable resource and I certainly have used them as a starting point of what years or terms to enter into the search box. But sadly I would also have to agree that they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source, notably the part where other reliable sources (think news media) refer back to them. That all being said - I think that we can get comparable or better information if we go to the newspaper archives themselves - see User:Rschen7754/How I write good road articles for some pointers. In fact, we can even get details that aren't in cahighways.org or Gribblenation or any of the other road sites. --Rschen7754 20:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to comment on this topic anymore, but I did want to jump on here quick and thank you for adding the link to your essay because I have some sources saved up in my sandbox for a road article I've been thinking about writing, and I think your essay will help me out. I also have some historical ideas I would like to write about as well. However, my first article is still in draft because of harsh critics like those in this discussion who have called this man's work of 25 years "junk", and my fear is that if they don't support my work either, then I will reason to myself that it just isn't worth it to invest all the effort just to have people dump on you. So, I'm 99% certain I will abandon my Wikipedia article writing career and just stick to gnomish tasks if the environment is not going to be a supportive one. In my view, I feel like they are intentionally misunderstanding, and misrepresenting things to try to make this guy look bad for no apparent reason, but none of what they said about him is true. They said he's never been published, but I provided factual evidence he's been Wp:published on the web for more than 22 years. Then they said no reliable source has ever written about him, but then I provided the backlinks from reliable sources to prove that is not true, so they said those are just backlinks, but what do they think backlinks are? Blank pages with links on them? No. They are articles written about this guy by reliable sources with links to what he's published. So then they said he wasn't an expert, and made it out like he was just somebody who had a website scraping data from reliable sources, but then I approved he had a close working relationship with these reliable sources for more than 22 years. Anybody who has a close working relationship with Warren Buffett for 22 years is going to become such an expert on investing that they are going to increase their personal net worth 10 or 100 fold, and I would take any investing advice that they gave me as the gospel. no matter how many times they humbly tell me they are no Warren Buffett. [I wouldn't give a rats behind if they had "I'm no Warren Buffett tattooed on their forehead.] I certainly [still] would not shun them the way these people have done here. Huggums537 (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Huggums537: when editors say someone has never been "published", they generally mean by third party agencies with a good reputation for decent and significant editorial control over what they decide to publish. This doesn't include someone self publishing their own material, especially not someone self publishing on the web as anyone with a small amount of cash and technical know how can do that. I posted on usenet probably as far back as 1996, definitely sometime between 1996-1998. I suspect in some archives somewhere, you'll also find a Geocities page of mine from 1998 or earlier. (Maybe Angelfire or Tripod, but I think only Geocities.) I've had maybe two or so other very minor websites. However I've definitely never been published by any stretch of the imagination and the fact I didn't maintain these websites is nothing to do with that.

I'd also note that I see no reason to think Mel Aros, or anyone else, is only willing to communicate with the maintainer of cahighways.org. And even if that really is the case, the information obtained is either published on cahighways or somewhere else, or it's irrelevant to us. If it's published on cahighways or somewhere else, then there's no reason why an expert cannot obtain the information from cahighways or wherever it's published and use it in what they publish. The fact the information was originally from cahighways or wherever doesn't mean it's okay for us to get the info directly from cahighways. The whole point of relying on reliable secondary sources or at least experts is that we trust them to decide whether the information from cahighways or wherever is reliable, accurate and complete. And from that whether to republish the information, supplement it or ignore it. And to a lesser extent, we also rely on them to decide whether the information is significant.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't wanting to go into this any more since I feel I was being ganged up on, but when editors say someone has never been "published", they generally mean by third party agencies with a good reputation for decent and significant editorial control over what they decide to publish., and I usually remain skeptical about "what other editors say", and rely on my own common sense judgement about what policy and guidance says for a couple reasons; one being that I know not all editors everywhere agree, and if I were to ask the same question at another venue outside this little group of regulars on this particular board, I might get a different perspective altogether. Another more important reason is that when other editors consistently tell me things that any thinking person can prove to themselves doesn't make any sense, then the credibility about what they tell me is significantly reduced.

For example, (and I'm sorry you happen to have been the one to step in the line of fire for this) when I link to guidance that I trust (which is really just an informational page, but I still trust it more than other users), and then an experienced editor tells me they posted on usenet, had a Geocites page, and a couple websites, but vehemently denies they have ever been published, then I have to ask myself if this user really knows the difference between what it means to be published, and what it means to be reliable, and then I have to ask myself if there is anything fair or trustworthy at all about the comparison this user is drawing between his very unreliable self published works, and the self published works on cahighways.org. Even though you claim the fact you didn't maintain these sites has nothing to do with it, I say poppycock. This man had motivation to maintain this site for so long because it is not junk, it has value, whereas you had no such motivation to maintain anything probably because most of Geocities is junk, but I bet even Geocities has something to offer of value as a source for some unknown, and interesting purpose considering the scope of just how large it was. Heck, I bet one of you search wizards would be able to find sources to it on some of our articles right now.

Some more examples of things that I have been told by other editors that make no sense at all are Mackenson asking me Has the maintainer published on the topic of highways or California highways in a reliable source, separate from cahighways.org? and yourself telling me that self published experts must be published by "third party agencies", when editors say someone has never been "published", they generally mean by third party agencies with a good reputation for decent and significant editorial control over what they decide to publish. So, exactly how does any of this make any sense, or exactly how is it supposed to work with what the policy actually says? I quote: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. please focus intensely on that first part. Exactly how are we being allowed to use a self published expert source if the expert is being required to be published by a "third party" reliable source? It's kind of like saying, you could always use a self published expert, but nah! just kidding, ya really can't, cause they have to be, shall we say, a little more than just self published (We don't like to use the phrase NOTSELFPUB around here). According to what Mackenson has asked me, it appears self published experts are required to publish themselves in multiple publications, but this is not true, and even if it were true I think maybe he has published himself in other reliable publications, but I'm not sure about that.

More nonsense to me is that I was told that lots and lots of sites are linking to cahighways.org, and that only a handful of them are reliable, while the vast majority of them are trash as if this somehow matters. Any thinking person can go to any of the green reliable sources links on the perennial sources page, and find out there are trillions of trash sites that link to the reliable sources posted there, so that means exactly nothing as to whether a site is reliable or not.

Also, there are more examples than just the Mel Aros one, but I will say this, with all of my hardheadness about this matter, I do understand what you are saying about; The whole point of relying on reliable secondary sources or at least experts is that we trust them to decide whether the information from cahighways or wherever is reliable, accurate and complete. It's just that my common sense tells me this person can be trusted to decide that just as well as any "proven" expert, but I would probably trust this person before I would trust some of those other "reliable" secondary sources as you all would call them. The faith you all have in reliable secondary sources is quite scary to me, and part of what I call the Wikipedified mind, but that is all off topic. Huggums537 (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to everyone about the long rant. I just feel like there is a big difference between what the Wikipedia literature tells me about what it means to be published, and what other editors are saying it means. Also, I feel like the mindset of the users I've interacted with here are not really policy based, but more based on their own ideas about the way they think things should be, such as the fact that what they have really been telling me is that self published experts are not allowed, and policy does not say this at all. That is not what they have directly said, but their circular logic dictates this by virtue of the fact they demand that a self published expert first prove they are an expert by using evidence of them not being self published. In other words, they say you can use a self published expert as long as they are not in fact self published. If you want the policy to say "no self published experts allowed", then make it say that, but stop using circular logic to circumvent what you don't like. My interpretation of the policy focuses on very small phrases that have big important meanings, such as ...may be considered... and Exercise caution.... These kinds of phrases tell a very different story than the circular logic "no self published experts allowed" story I've been hearing. They say that at some point we as editors must exercise our own best common sense judgement as to whether a source is trustworthy or not. If you want me not to do the ranting, then make the policy say what you want it to say, and I will stfu, and go away, but don't block the discussion with a false valuation about the admittedly overwhelming consensus being "policy based", and a little note about wasting time, because I think it is very well worth the time to bring up such contradictions in the policy as well as in the way editors are thinking in relation to that policy, especially if it will have any impact whatsoever on how we view reliable sources. Huggums537 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

https://liveuamap.com/

Does https://liveuamap.com/ look like a reliable source (with respect to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Borova,_Kharkiv_Oblast&diff=1083427704&oldid=1078437148&diffmode=source this edit)? I do not think so, but I think it is best to ask before reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't seem reliable to use as a source for a statement like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's an aggregator. The reliability will depend on the reliability of their source. This is their source in that instance, which is seemingly the Telegram channel for Suspilne, and specifically their Kharkiv division, though I wasn't immediately able to find a link between their official site or social media and this specific Telegram account. Although 100,000 people follow it. --Chillabit (talk) 20:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I will revert. Ymblanter (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I found a link to their social media accounts from the telegram website: https://t.me/s/suspilnekharkiv both facebook and youtube seem to link back to their official sites if that means anything to anybody (which I'm sure it doesn't, but hey). Huggums537 (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Dispute over citation

Can everyone please provide opinion with YES or NO on the reliability of the source and author mentioned below? Here is the citation that there is currently dispute on page Battle of Samana. I find the source reliable due to the reliability of publisher and author but the other user doesn't agree with the reliability of the author. So that is why I am here to get 3rd opinion. The book in question has also been reviewed by World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues Vol. 3, No. 4 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1999), pp. 123-125 (3 pages) [9]. Here is some information on the author:[10]. Here is another link about author [11] "By the late 1960s, Patwant had begun writing a series of books that reflected his wide-ranging interests in power, politics, culture and history",
Here is some more on author [12], "Patwant Singh's books and articles on India, international affairs, the environment, and the arts have been published in India, Europe, and North America. He has broadcast frequently on television and radio in many countries, and has travelled and lectured all over the world, often as the guest of governments. From 1957 to 1988, he was editor and publisher of the international magazine Design."

References

FYI

 – adding {{reflist-talk}} Umimmak (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment At first glance, I'd say it's not reliable since the author is not a historian. That said, a cursory search (by someone who doesn't know anything about the subject) turned up a couple of RS that could potentially make the problematic source irrelevant.

Ali Husain , who by false promises had lured Guru Gobind Singh to evaculate Anandpur , also belonged to Samana . The entire peasantry of the neighbourhood was now up in arms , and Banda's following had risen to several thousands . Banda fell upon the town on November 26 , 1709.

Undaunted , Banda , making his way through Kaithal ( 27 miles from Delhi in Rohtak district ) overran with a force of 30,000 strong , Samana , sub-division of Sirhind and the home town of Jalal Khan . The peasantry joined hands with the Sikhs and did not hesitate to wreak vengeance upon their expropriating landlords.

Hope that helps. M.Bitton (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Category:Depreciated sources on Wikipedia at WP:CFD

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_19#Category:Depreciated_sources_on_Wikipedia for the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Request Sanity Check

This edit [13], removed cited content, I'd carefully checked it was confirmed by the additional cite I added. The edit summary was Once again source doesn't back up what is being claimed here.. The editor in question continues to claim that the edit isn't sourced from the sources given: A) BBC and B) The Guardian.

The content:

“ Its record as the largest ship sunk since the end of the Second World War was only eclipsed by the sinking of the Russian cruiser Moskva on 14 April 2022. ”

From the Guardian:

“ The missile cruiser Moskva is the most significant naval vessel to be sunk since Argentina’s General Belgrano in 1982. Photograph: Russian Defence Ministry/EPA ”

“ It is the most significant naval vessel to be sunk since the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano was torpedoed by a British submarine, HMS Conqueror, in 1982. ”

The source does back up the claim, verbatim, so I don't see this as a legitimate edit summary. The other editor isn't discussing, merely asserting it isn't cited. Requesting independent review. WCM_email 07:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Doesn't "largest" mean something different from "most significant"? In the latter case, it's an assessment which seems odd to give in wikivoice; should be attributed. However "largest" (since WW2) from the BBC source seems fine to state as fact, but would be not be appropriate in the Belgrano article. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, this probably isn't the best venue, WP:DRN would be better if the talk page has gone off the rails, which it hasn't yet. However, from what I can tell, the BBC source does not mention the General Belgrano, while the Guardian source says it is the most significant loss since the GB, not necessarily the largest. In short, this is WP:SYNTH, tying the sources together to make them say something that neither do. No source I could find ties the General Belgrano to the Moskva in the way you are trying to say; regardless, I do think inclusion of this would be WP:UNDUE as it is kinda an irrelevant factoid, but that is for a discussion elsewhere. Curbon7 (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

• According to this article on The War Zone (magazine), Moscva had a displacement of 11,500 tons, while the question of General Belgrano's tonnage is more complex since:

Fully equipped, the Argentine cruiser displaced 13,645 tons, which would put it ahead of the Moskva, although some accounts state that the Argentine warship was running with a smaller displacement than the Russian cruiser, at least at the time that it was sunk.

So barring some authoritative sourcing on the subject, I would suggest that we should not claim that Moscva was larger than General Belgrano (or vice versa) in wikipedia's voice. Lets just leave the comparison out as WP:UNDUE or attribute the, possibly contradictory, claims to the respective sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

ARA General Belgrano:

Displacement 9,575 tons (empty) 12,242 (full load)

Length 608.3 ft (185.4 m)

Beam 61.8 ft (18.8 m)

Draft 19.5 ft (5.9 m)

Moskva:

Displacement 12,490 tons

Length 186.4 m (611 ft 7 in)

Beam 20.8 m (68 ft 3 in)

Draught 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)

You always have to be careful comparing ships and I'll acknowledge I was perhaps over reliant on journalists doing their job properly. I'd noticed over the weekend several sources comparing the two sinkings, many of which made a comment it was bigger than Belgrano. I appreciate all the input and will now think further on whether or not to follow WP:DRN or let it drop. WCM_email 17:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Speaking of trusting journalists to do their job properly... I believe that the 12,490 tonnage for Moskva listed by BBC, is a WP:CIRCULAR reference lifted from the wikipedia article Russian cruiser Moskva. The number in the wikipedia article was, in turn, the result of a 7-year old vandalism, wherein in IP changed the tonnage from 11,490 to 12,490 without any source or explanation (I could believe that the tonnage changed in post-construction remodeling, but surely not by "1-digit"). The 11,490 tonnage is consistent with the one in the War Zone article and matches the numbers at Slava-class cruiser, which I was able to verify in Jane's Fighting Ships (2009-10 edition; page 666, I kid you not). Abecedare (talk)

Nice job, its amazing how sometimes those vandalism edits can slip through the net. WCM_email 07:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Scilly Today - Reliable Source?

Hello,

There’s been a bit of drama on the Five Islands Academy article, I suggest you check it out, however, as part all this, I would like to ask: Would the now-inactive local news website Scilly Today be a reliable source, specifically when dealing with potentially controversial statements about BLPs? The specific citations used in the article are:[14],[15],[16]. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

HenryTemplo, The source seems fine in my opinion, as it appears factual and seems to have had editorial oversight. For BLPs with local sources, you have to be somewhat careful, as they may have more of a personal slant that regional or national sources wouldn't, but in this case, it seems fine as it is just repeating what other people are saying. More concerning is the fact that the editor changing the information in the article is literally Mr. Bryce himself. Curbon7 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for you response and input, it’s appreciated!

I would worry still though about the impact of a personal slant, having experience of the extremely close knit community that is the Isles of Scilly, but your certainly right in your overall assessment.

Regarding the CoI, is there an appropriate place for me to bring this case to? I’m not to sure how to deal with this myself.

Thanks again for your help! HenryTemplo (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

[17] [18] I was able to find a couple of national sources that cover this to some extent. Regarding the COI, he's been made aware of WP:COI and our guidelines surrounding that. As this is an SPA only made to edit about himself, if he persists editing about himself, it may not end well for his account. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Brilliant,Thankyou! I’ll see what I can regarding all this. HenryTemplo (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

San Diego Reader

The San Diego Reader, according to its own WP page, is an "alternative press" source. The WP page has many problems with sourcing/tone. One place the Reader was used as a source is at Draft:Remigio Pereira, which cites this article: [19]. The article contains several blatantly false statements, including that the lyrics of O Canada were changed to say "We're all brothers and sisters, all lives matter to the Great". Therefore, I believe the Reader is an unreliable source. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That article looks like a completely fictional, comedy piece to me Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That article is in their SD on the QT section which is for satirical articles. --SVTCobra 00:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is labeled satire. It’s not useable as a source for facts about the real world, but the fact that they also publish satire doesn’t impugn their editorial reputation for when they actually publish news. Are there any issues with the facts in pieces that are not labeled satire? — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Just because it is marked as alternative news doesn't mean it is unreliable. The majority of our sources (that come from news outlets) are probably non-mainstream outlets. That article is also clearly marked as satire. Their actual articles seem more or less ok. Some are better than others (this one is mediocre, but this one is quite good), but overall it seems ok. Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The Mediocre piece is referred to is a "column" at the bottom, which makes me wonder the extent to which opinion is labeled. It's clearly under the "news" section of the website despite being labeled a column, so I'm a bit uneasy about the lack of an apparent firewall between the news and editorial sides of the paper. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge University source?

https://archive.org/details/the-new-cambridge-history-of-india-vol.-1-part-7/The%20New%20Cambridge%20History%20of%20India%2C%20Vol.%201%2C%20Part%203/page/256/mode/2up?view=theater

Article- Siege of Sirhind

Need feedback on page 257 starting from sentence- "All were prepared to fight for their new faith" to the sentence- "Only lahore, delhi and a few afghan towns held out". The book is a Cambridge University book published in 1993. Its editors are Gordon Johnson, Director of South Asian studies at Cambridge University, CA Bally, a professor of Modern Indian History at Cambridge University and John F Richards, a historian at Duke university. Disputed on the basis of citation 8 being a quote from Khafi Khan and his book Muntakhab ul Lubab which is subject to academic contention - though his work is widely used in numerous university peer reviewed books including Audrey Truschke's Stanford university book- Aurangzeb: The Man and the Myth, Muzaffar Alam's Oxford university published book- The Crisis of Empire in Mughal North India: Awadh and Punjab, 1707-48 , as you can see its widely used in Hari Ram Gupta's book https://apnaorg.com/books/english/history-of-sikhs-v2/history-of-sikhs-v2.pdf (see from pg 10 onwards) and even many, many dozens of times in Ganda Singh's book and Khsuwant Singh's Princeton University published book "History of the Sikhs Volume 1". If we go by the disputing editor's stance that Khafi Khan's work cannot be used even in a peer reviewed university books it would mean a large amount of Mughal India and the succeeding 25 years after must be removed from Wikipedia at least, as his work is widely, widely used by modern historians for research on Mughal India and afterwards. Secondly its also unclear as to how much of the page is derived from just a single quote of Khafi Khan, without a dobut most of it is independent analysis from the writers themselves. Thirdly, the use of Khafi Khan's work is through Secondary Sources not as a primary source- WP:RSPRIMARY, university scholars have examined his work and found apt of what to include in their research. Cambridge University is a peer reviewed academic source and it certainly would've researched and found Khan's work appropriate enough to include although it's unclear just how much of the page is derived from just Khan alone.

Not knowing anything about this topic, it seems to be a reliable source. Having a citation to a contentious work is not a good enough reason to make a source unreliable. Of course, if the content that this source supports is contentious - in the sense of other sources contradicting it - then WP:DUE should be used to determine the appropriate weight given to each position. Alaexis_¿question? 05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• To save other editors some clicks, Kamhiri has come here after having the addition of a passage from the CUP volume reverted by MehmoodS with the message 'I would suggest taking the source to WP:RS as the reliability is about Khafi Khan. Historians used the source for specific study and have also considered it exaggeration.' The passage reverted explicitly attributed the claim about the massacre to the source.

This reversion and the message is out of order for two reasons (i) simply eliminating reliable sources distorts our coverage and is not in keeping with our neutrality policies and (ii) while it's OK under the circumstances for Kamhirir to come here given that revert message, coming to RS/N directly is not generally the right thing to do; instead per WP:BRD editors should try to resolve disagreements on the talk page before bringing in outside editors.

MehmoodS claims "Historians [have] considered it exaggeration": this may well be, but the right thing to do is provide sources documenting those reservations, not simply suppress reliably sourced claims. — Charles Stewart (talk)

Chalst - All this information have already been shared and cited on the page Siege of Sirhind, under Aftermath section. The dispute is about Khafi Khan and about a specific quote by him that says "Sikhs massacred the inhabitants who did not readily convert to Sikhism and destroyed the city buildings." Khafi Khan was a writer who served the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb and his source has been widely studied by various modern historians for specific information but have also considered most of the work from Muntakhab-al Lubab, as fictitious and exaggeration. Like here, scholars Ganda Singh, Kirpal Singh Narang and Thornton have said that the book by Khafi Khan "contains terrible details of atrocious deeds and the writer is not be entrusted upon such a point. Very fruitful imagination seems to have been at work to ascribe every kind of cruelty". Here is the quote from the book by historian Ganda Singh, [20]. Dr. Narang on page 71 says that "there is sufficient evidence of the exaggeration by Latif, corroborated from Khafi Khan". Whereas Ganda Singh says that "such statements are blindly repeated by later writers like Latif" page 85 [21]. Also historian Khushwant Singh specifically states in his book on page 106 that, "Either from conviction, or fear or profit [or combination of all three), Hindu and Muslim peasants accepted conversion to Sikh faith" [22]. And all these quotes from modern historians and references have been included on the page Siege of Sirhind such as "He further castigates the writers of the Siyar-ul-Mutakherin and Muntakhib-ul-Lubab for exaggerating Sikh atrocities". Even historian like Hari Ram Gupta haven't used such quotes. The book new Cambridge history of India was written between 1922 and 1937 and states on page xiv that "We do no expect The new Cambridge history of India to be last word on the subject but an essential voice in the continuing discussion.....aim of the book is to encourage further scholarly work on Mughal period. We do not know enough." MehmoodS (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The New Cambridge History book that was provided was published in 1992/1993, not in the 1920s or 1930s as you are claiming. Please check the first few pages of the book in the link above, it also clearly states the editors of the book and they're all current or recent university professors [23], [24]. Also see [25]. Further Khan's work is widely cited and used in every single reliable secondary source I've seen so far regarding the 1700s in India. Remember our job is to review secondary sources, not primary sources. I'm not sure what you mean by Hari Ram Gupta didn't cite Khan, Khan's work is widely used in his book, the same with Ganda Singh's book, and Khushwant Singh's book as well. Just look at the citations on the bottom of the pages. Reviewing primary sources within reliable secondary sources is going to open a giant can of worms, and scholars can examine and determine what parts of someone's work to include in their research, if the primary source wasn't reliable they would not use it or choose the most accurate narrative. See [26]- The Cambridge History of India was published between 1922 and 1937, the New Cambridge History of India was published starting from the late 1980s and as you can see from the link, Part 1 of Volume 1 was published 1988. As per Cambridge university's site: "Although the original Cambridge History of India, published between 1922 and 1937, did much to formulate a chronology for Indian history and describe the administrative structures of government in India, it has inevitably been overtaken by the mass of new research published over the last sixty years. Designed to take full account of recent scholarship and changing conceptions of South India's historical development, The New Cambridge History of India is published as a series of short, self-contained volumes, each dealing with a separate themewithin an overall four-part structure." -- [27]. MehmoodS, please retract your claim that the New Cambridge History of India was published in the 1920s or 1930s, when it was published in 1992/1993. Kamhiri (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

publishing date isn't the issue here as i was looking at the initial published date. It was more about the statement made in introduction of the book. There is no denying that the source was widely studied by modern historians but for "specific study" and you cannot deny the claims that the modern historians have also made regarding it. And such statements about exaggeration of the incidents are on the page itself. Citation at the bottom of the page is showing that the author consulted in writing the new work, whether they were directly referenced or not. This is based on the idea that the books contributed to the author's understanding of the topic, even if they weren't directly used. Even historian like Ganda Singh have used them but then also refuted the statements by Khafi Khan. MehmoodS (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:MehmoodS, so what's the problem here? You can simply qualify the statement in question "Sikhs massacred the inhabitants who did not readily convert to Sikhism and destroyed the city buildings." with something like "According to a contemporary historian Khafi Khan whose reports have been questioned by modern historians." Alaexis_¿question? 09:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

MehmoodS, please also provide proof that historians consider MOST of ul Lubab ficitious? It's a contentious work sure but a lot of the book has been verified and used within academic research and peer reviewed sources. Kamhiri (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly contentious. Further,

even eminent historian Ram Sharan Sharma charged him with plagiarism ( in Bibliography of Mughal India). And I have already mentioned the purpose of study by academicians for such contemporary sources. MehmoodS (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis that is an option but then there is already a statement under the Aftermath section "Historian Ganda Singh also writes that allegations of desecrations of mosques are unfounded since the mausoleum of Shaikh Ahmad Mujaddid Alif Sani, which was the most magnificent buildings in the town, was left untouched after the battle. He further castigates the writer (Khafi Khan) of the Muntakhib-ul-Lubab for exaggerating Sikh atrocities". Do you suggest adding "According to a contemporary historian Khafi Khan whose reports have been questioned by modern historians.." above the earlier statement as it would sequentially align with the statement later by modern historians such as Ganda Singh, Dr. Narang and Thornton, about its exaggeration? But then, wouldn't that just be repeating what has already been mentioned?MehmoodS (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm qualified to opine here as I know next to nothing about it and I have no idea if it's some or most modern historians who question his accounts. Alaexis_¿question? 11:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I suggest avoiding that kind of side-taking in the way you describe sources if you can at all help it, per WP:IMPARTIAL. Instead I'd recommend something along the lines of "Khafi Khan asserted ..., however this claim is disputed in more recent work, e.g., ...", where you cite more recent work that explicitly contradicts Khan. Let the sources do the talking. If you have the luxury, put the best source or two in the main text and provide further links in a footnote. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment on the source: the volume in question is The Mughal Empire, authored by John F. Richards and published in 1993. This is a major publication by an eminent historian. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Certainly that makes sense as well. I will gohead and add as suggested and hopefully that ends the dispute. MehmoodS (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:EW on a "Further reading" item

Myself and @Hajrakhala disagree on this [28] item in the "Further reading" section at Ghalib. It's an article on the article subject from İslâm Ansiklopedisi.

I think it fits the FR section hand in glove. Hajrakhala considers it spam, "inappropriate for an encyclopedia" and "promotional material" per templates at my talkpage. Previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_189#User:IAmAtHome.

Opinions, Wikipedians? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard issue, it seems to be more of an WP:EL/N issue. However looking at it I question why someone would go there to read that article? What does it add that the Wikipedia article doesn't already have, or shouldn't have with a bit of editing? As far as I can tell that link adds nothing we don't already have, and if it does it's minimal and can easily be added. As a result it shouldn't be there and fails WP:ELNO#1. Canterbury Tail talk 14:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TBH I haven't put the articles side by side and compared them (also, I have to use auto translation I don't fully trust). My assumption is that it has stuff the WP-article doesn't, like some of the bibliography or whatnot. If not, your argument has merit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It can't contain much we don't already have, and that info should just be integrated into the Wikipedia article per the WP:EL guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk 15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We make different assumptions. It happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail: Thanks for your interventions, just few hours after the reversion of User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång additions of that low quality link / spam, again User:IAmAtHome added that link. Based on their Aggressive additions of single website links again and again in different Islam related article I think it is violations of Wikipedia:Spam policies. Hajrakhala (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, that [29] solves the problem with the Further reading section. Looks ok to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It is clearly gaming the system possibly by group of editors editing for the same cause. It is quite interesting to note that on WP:Coin, Gråbergs Gråa Sång came forward to defend IAmAtHome by baseless arguments, by denying or trying to neutralize the spam. Canterbury Tail you are humbly requested to block the spammers here per your own discretions. Thanks. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I ain't blocking anyone. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Now you're into WP:ASPERSIONS. But since [30] now is used as a source, this noticeboard clearly fits. And it fills the replaced cn quite well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Waiting for the administrator to deal with this now.

Note: please do not try to neutralize this discussion again as it will be of no use, because administrator is involved now. They have good grasp on Wikipedia:Policies and are prolific to identify the coordinated edits or spam. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what you mean by "neutralize this discussion", but it may not be worth our time going into that. Admins will do what they will do. From where I'm sitting, the problem I started this thread about has been solved. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail: It is clearly gaming a system by aggressively inserting that link in different manners with same advantage to the external link. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It could be perceived that way, however the target site has been determined by this noticeboard in the past to be a reliable site. It's being used to reference a piece of information that has been tagged for almost 10 years as needing a citation. This seems reasonable. If it had been used to reference a piece of non-controversial information that wasn't tagged then you may have had a point, but as it is I don't see an issue. Reliable source being used to cite something tagged by another user for a long time as needing a citation. I'm completely against it as an External Link, but apparently it does have a use as a reference, so seems perfectly valid to me. So I suggest at this point you drop the stick. Canterbury Tail talk 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

One thing though, it should be moved out of the bibliography and into the references section as an expansion of reference #11 as it's being used as a reference. We shouldn't have links that are used as references elsewhere in the article. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail: Being administrator here, What you think about those repeated additions, some even was just link drop discussed here. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And my point still holds here because the Further Reading section was just changed to Bibilography with external links additions and it is not used as typical reference in the article still. Hajrakhala (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay this will be my last post on this.

1. Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång for bringing this to a board for discussion instead of continuing to revert, much appreciated
2. Since the link is being used as a reference for #11 now, the link should be added to the reference citation and removed from the Further Reading as it cannot appear in multiple places in the article. I know it's an external link version of a book reference, but the book reference can just be replaced straight out with the website instead since it's just the online version of the book. Having a reference to the book, then a link to an online version elsewhere does kinda look like gaming to make it prominent.
3. The source appears reliable, has been determined to be so on this noticeboard previously, so nothing more to discuss there
4. Hajrakhala you can discuss spamming and COI on another noticeboard, please don't drag that in here. Drop the stick here, but if you wish to raise it as a possible COI or spamming, you can do so on COIN or ANI, it's not relevant to this noticeboard's discussion. Canterbury Tail talk 20:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

   Canterbury Tail: So shall we know when that link will be removed from there? Hajrakhala (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

   Tweaked ref #11. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently we are not done:[31]. I reinserted the url and author name here: [32]. Why the refname was removed I don't understand. If the text is available by url, we should use it, since it's helpful to readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with a convenience link if one is available, and it is available here so it makes looking up the reference easier. I don't see an issue with including the weblink as long as its part of the reference and not in another section. Canterbury Tail talk 21:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason for removal was that, editor had added the false link to the book. Hajrakhala (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I cited the website and added a link to the website:[33]. What in this diff is false? And why are you removing author's name and refname? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Nopes, it was Cite Book, not cite web, so the book contains information relevant to Ghalib at its 158 page, see citation properly. You have dropped the link from a website article content copied and pasted on website by someone whom you have mentioned as the original author in the cite book, and after checking it I found both were different}}.Hajrakhala (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I used cite web, since I cited web. Cite book is fine too, the weblink gives this info: This article was included in the 13th volume of the TDV Encyclopedia of Islam, which was published in Istanbul in 1996, on pages 328-329. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And we're back to spam: [34]. @Canterbury Tail, care to do/say something admin-y? I'm off for today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That is clearly not a spam link, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång is clearly not a linkspammer. I also note that you are over the 3RR, Hajrakhala. If you keep this up I would not be surprised if you were the one to end up being blocked. MrOllie (talk) 22:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hajrakhala you were told to drop the stick, you appear to have a real thing against this link. It's been agreed in this very board that the link is fine, if you don't cut it out you WILL likely be blocked. And this edit is very much out of line. It's an online version of an encyclopaedia, clearly labelled as such and determined to be a valid source by this board, it is not Gråbergs blog. Right now you're edit warring and just being outright disruptive, I suggest you walk away from that article completely and if you continue referring to links to an online encyclopaedia version of a book as someone's blog or spam you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: By the addition of wrong source info, this edit was also very much out of line according to original pdf file of source which mentions author, volume & pages. (In reply of:it is not Gråbergs blog.....) Not mine too. Thanks. IAmAtHome (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail, we continue:[35], despite [36]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

R.B Singh a reliable author in contex of Chauhan Rajput History ?

Hello, Is R.B Singh work on Chauhan dynasty a reliable work ?? No problem with age of the book but the author is clearly exagerating its last major ruler's kingdom's expansion as can be seen on Prithviraj Chauhan article page and it's subsequent talk page. Other scholarly work like Dr. Dashratha Sharma book on Chauhan dynasty do not mentions such exaggerated accounts regarding his territory. Should we quote Singh in such contentious/controversial edits ? Packer&Tracker «Talk» 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is no different from a self-published source, because it does not have a reputable publisher. Such material, likely lacks the fact checking that reputable publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The book is was published by Nawal Kishore Press; it's not OUP, but I don't think that's a disreputable publisher. I am concerned a bit about the age, and the fact that I haven't been able to identify who R.B. Singh was - if recent scholarship by an established academic is available, I'd suggest using that over a book that's nearly 60 years old. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Dr. R.B. Singh, M.A., Ph.D. was a historian in Deptt of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at Gorakhpur University. Regarding age there is hardly any comprehensive work done on Chahamana history except by Dr R.B. Singh and Dr Dashratha Sharma. And both are almost of same period. There has not been any questions raised on the work's reliability. This user is who is questioning the source actually a couple or days before was describing R.B. Singh better authority on this subject than other modern works, see here [37], later when his point of contention i.e. territory controlled by Prithviraj Chauhan was challenged by this very source, he started describing this source as poor. See here [38].Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem here seems to be that two editors, neither of whom seems particularly knowledgeable about medieval north India, seem to be duking it out nonstop on a page and have brought their discontents here. If we pronounce the source to be unacceptable, and it well might (or be dated), they'll fight over some other book. I've told one of them to lay off the controversial pages and cut their teeth on simple, less traversed, ones but they immediately deleted my posts (and I take this opportunity to inform the other as well), but they are not likely to listen. Nonstop bickering is what they are doing. The solution is not determining the worth of the source, but topic banning both from that page, and probably medieval India. I know that is not on the manifest of this ship, but that's my take. I say that as someone in my 16th year on WP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree both editors are too aggressive and editing bordering on WP:EDITWAR without having much knowledge in this, I already explained on Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan, how one user is continuously editing territory related lines without having knowledge of where Tehri Garhwal, Gwalior state and Bahawalpur state were, despite being warned multiple times. And he has been blocked for 31 hours, just a few days ago, he has also been blocked from editing a particular page because of his disruptive editing. I too believe both these accounts should be topic banned for disruptive editing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sajaypal007: I am not He again. You claimed that I have been contiously editing territory line although I hardly edited that part after getting reverted. I do have knowledge where these territories are but apart from Pro-Rajput vloggers like R.B Singh could not found any academic source refering that he controlled those domains especially Pakistan, Uttrakhand, Gujarat etc region not even a hardcore nationalist scholar like R.C Majumdar. Since my knowledge about medieval times is continously mocked here; although I do not want to brag about me here but I had research published in a peer reviewed journal. So, definately I have some knowledge of that era and don't want that article sinking into the morass of POV and unreliable historic claims. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 08:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I did not delete your post for any serious reasons but just for cleaning up my talk page which I did couple of days back as well. In any case that conversation is there in history of my talk page.

• You called for my head and even raised echos for topic banning me, Can you please point out where I edited wrongly on any history related article or without a scholarly/academic work ? I agree though that I got bit confused in current naming of states as it differs significantly with the time the author work was published (1960's)
• On Wikipedia, having disagreement is nothing new and same is going on that article talk page. We won't argue over any other book and to clarify my only issue here is regarding territorial parts which Singh probably exaggerated a bit (leads me to doubt his scholarship a bit) nothing else. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 16:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Famous Face Wiki - https://famousfacewiki.com/

Hi everybody. I was wondering whether Famous Face Wiki is considered a reliable source. Fisforfenia (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on the name of the site, no. I can't find an about-page, and based on a quick look I wouldn't use this anywhere near a WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to the name, this doesn't appear to be a wiki; however, it appears to fall under that same criteria in WP:SPS as a self-published source that seemingly has zero editorial integrity. All of the articles are written by "Editorial staff", which does not spark confidence in reliability. So yeah, completely unreliable. Curbon7 (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website as a source for BLP's

The Ultimate New Zealand Soccer Website is a source that is self-published by Jeremy Ruane and used primarily for statistics on articles about New Zealand soccer players, including BLP's. I am bringing it here as there is a question about whether it is a suitable source for this purpose under WP:BLPSPS.

@NZFC, Nfitz, Joseph2302, ClubOranje, SuperJew, and NealeWellington: pinging editors who have contributed to discussions on this source. BilledMammal (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

When in doubt, always refer to what other sources do or say about the site and its creator? Is it used or cited by known reliable sources? Is the site run by a noted expert in the field? Also, do we know where the site gets its information from? If so, perhaps we can use those sources instead? --Jayron32 16:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

From an overview, it almost certainly shouldn't be used for biographical facts, but it seems fine for stats and results. However, shouldn't these stats and results already exist elsewhere, negating the need of this source? Curbon7 (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

That said, the New Zealand national encyclopedia directly uses that website as a source ([39]) (these pages: [40] [41]), so that actually gives some credit to a potential overall reliability. The site also has received multiple awards ([42]) and appears to be considered reliable source for stats. Ruane also has been described by the official New Zealand Football association as a "football historian" and has worked closely with them ([43]). Honestly, I would argue this is completely reliable SPS. Curbon7 (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

However, do note that per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources should not be used for BLPs, as they don't have editorial oversight (but this site seems to be fine for historical or non-BLP topics); circling back to my original point, I don't think it'd be a biggie to use for stats, but shouldn't these stats exist elsewhere? Curbon7 (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I will say I think and know from experience that the website is reliable and more than just a "blog". As mention above, he is quoted by New Zealand Football as the association's official football historian and has basically taken over from Barry Smith. Is linked to Te Ara - The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand which is run by New Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage. He is noted or quoted in major newspapers Jeremy Ruane, a New Zealand women's football journalist and Ultimate NZ Soccer website editor and renowned Kiwi football historian Jeremy Ruane for his work. He is part of the RSSSF stats website, and they quite often link people back to Ultimate NZ Soccer as well [44], [45], [46], [47]. You will see from the website itself he isn't the only one contributing to it though has done most of the work and that he has previous experience as a football journalist in New Zealand. As for where he is getting the information from, previously it has all been researched, the latest stuff he is getting directly from COMET (COMET is what NZ Football use for player registrations, matches, referees, clubs etc [48]).— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To answer Curbon7 question, unfortunately there really isn't another website for the stats. The old New Zealand Football website used to have the All Whites stats on them but as Project Football links they used to combine international with non-official games so the stats weren't reliable as such. Now, the latest version of the website doesn't even bother. Soccerway has a lot of the latest stuff but only for the last couple of years, it doesn't cover much more than that. Before that, there is a book An Association with Soccer: The NZFA Celebrates Its First 100 Years" that covers all the history of NZ football and older player stats but that only goes from 1981 to 1991. So there had been a gap after that, also the book didn't cover the women's game which only Ultimate NZ Soccer has done. This website not only covers these gaps but has put them all in one easy to read version, with a number of break-downs by player, club, team line-ups and competitions. It would be pretty devastating to a number of Wikipedia New Zealand Football articles if this was lost as a reference.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think such a website, with mundane and verifiable stats, is what we were concerned about when we set a policy of not using self-published sources in biographies of living people. And if we restrict the use of this website, surely we also have to restrict the use of team websites that are used to establish shirt numbers, ages, and heights of professional athletes. That Wikipedia has no firm rules (WP:5P5) is a pillar of Wikipedia - and this site (and sites like Man Utd First Team Squad & Player Profiles) should be the exceptions that prove the rule. Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)