Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 255←Archive 257Archive 258Archive 259Archive 260Archive 261→Archive 265

Encyclopedia of Ukraine

The encyclopedia is biased Ukrainian and outdated.
The encyclopedia does not inform about current research about Western Ukrainian mass crimes.Xx236 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Bias is not a valid objection to a source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Songmeanings.com

Is this source permissible in this article of a living person? An IP keeps adding info concerning Muse's lyrical inspiration citing above said website as a source? Some feedback would be much appreciated. Robvanvee 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No, looks very forumy and user created content.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
AGree. It's not a reliable source. No fact-checking or editorial review board. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
So what should the course of action be? Could an admin protect the page perhaps? Robvanvee 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Keeps? they have done it once, I have left them a message.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Ahh I see, started an SPI.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Skyknowledge.com by Ian James a reliable source for linguistics?

I ran into this when an editor made this edit. It's used in 6 other articles.[1] Doug Weller talk 11:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

if this is [[2]] it might pass as the opinions of an expert in the field. The problem is I cannot confirm it is, so at this time say "just another blog".Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Secondary sources can not find the lines on the page no. given Sukaphaa arrival to Assam

Hello, Some I.P. Users manipulating the Sukaphaa page with poor secondary sourced content and giving different views of authors, this will lead to a decrease in the value of real pieces of information by hiding with controversies and views of different authors. I couldn't find the lines given by the user on the Reference Page Nos. Can the admins please help to stop this type of disruptive edits? --Sairg (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What sources are you objecting to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources given by the user
  1. Mahanta,S. Assam Buranji.D.H.A.S.,1945, p.5

A review of Buranjis, p.76

  1. Wade, J.P. An Account of Assam, 1800, p. 78.

Phukan, K. Assam Buranji, 1906, p.7.

  1. Sadaramin Assam Buranji',1930, p.11. Sairg (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If there are differing accounts we inform the reader about them. Are you saying these are not reliable?Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
User's edits can't be found according to the source pages, also user is giving too many controversial sources which are hiding real pieces of information. You can check yourself on Sukaphaa page. Sairg (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Ahh you are saying the sources do not support the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the sources do not support the claims + full of controversies source with different authors claims not perfect for Wikipedia Sairg (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
If a source does not support the statement it is being used for it can be removed (this is not really an RS it is a wp:v issue). I have not idea what you mean by the second comment. If I take you to mean that Wikipedia should not give too many differing opinions, sorry that is not the case. It may be the case based upon the degree to which a view is mainstream (as opposed to fringe). But all (all) significant and relevant views should be included in an article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Replaceable free source

This is a site whose mission is "to build up the church by making classic Christian literature widely available and promoting its use for edification and study". I would suggest that where the works in question are available from neutral free sources such as Gutenberg, then the neutral source would be preferred. Yes? Guy (Help!) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not a source - but an archiving resource of possible sources. I'm not sure Gutenberg should be preferred - are there concerns that the archive here changes the archived manuscripts? Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Its mission is proselytising, that's a problem. They may well nto change the source but there is a wrapper around it that serves their purpose not ours. Exactly the same content is available on Gutenberg, which has no such baggage Guy (Help!) 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
What evidence is there that their mission is proselytizing? I do not see that on their about page.
The same content is not available on Gutenberg, it does not contain the XML formatting that they have added. I see no reason to replace it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The literal quote I included. It's from their default landing page. Guy (Help!) 02:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Building-up the church is not the same as proselytizing. That's like saying "improving bicycle performance for their owners" is the same as "encouraging everyone to ride bicycles". They're not even remotely the same activity. It's a valuable source and there is no need to remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
"Building up the church by making classic Christian literature widely available and promoting its use for edification and study" is proselytizing by definition. To use your example, they'd have to have said that their mission was to increase the efficiency of church bureaucracy and make it more convenient for followers to attend service, or something of the sort. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So you're equating "to convert or attempt to convert as a proselyte; recruit" with making classic literature available in formats that are not available at Gutenberg. No. That's simply not going to fly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
...making classic literature available in formats that are not available at Gutenberg That is categorically not what their mission statement says. Not even in the same ballpark. The only similarity what you just said has to their mission statement is that they both reference literature. Do I really need to walk you through a parsing of that sentence? Do I have to show you why "classic Christian literature" is a very different thing than "classic literature"?
You know, I only linked the last part, but the "build up the church" part is pretty obviously referring to proselytizing, as well. I mean, how do you think one builds up a church? By putting a lighter chain on it and fitting it with lower-friction gears? Maybe stick a few baseball cards between the spokes? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just as a note: Gutenberg offers a far broader range of formats than ccel.org does. "Added XML formatting", in fact, is an alteration to the original text and therefore a reason we should never use ccel.org for convenience links. Formatting is something like eg. "offers plain text, epub, or PDF, without changing the content", as Gutenberg does. Even if that added XML formatting seems innocuous, it ultimately reflects ccel.org's interpretations and therefore disqualifies them from use as a convenience link. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know what the XML format contains. I suspect that you don't either. So feel free to offer an explanation of how it makes an interpretation of the text. Without proof, its' opinion. I have seen two types of formatting in cases like this. One is mark-up to apply formatting that was in the original but cannot be represented in plain text. This would be formatting such as changing type characteristics. The second, and this is done with texts in foreign languages, are links to a concordance to help understand what the root words would have been. If, however the XML formatting attempted to add additional content, such as headings not in the original text or glosses, that would not be acceptable. So again: how does the XML alter the text or is that an assumption? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

So is there any evidence the alter the documents?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Also (and almost ancillary to the above) is there any evidence they just do not add any old SP rubbish? ] What is their inclusion criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see anyone expressing concern over them altering the works they host, but rather concern about how the site presents them, and what we're linking to in addition to the work itself. As an example, see reference #8 in John Chrysostom, in which we cite the work from their archive, but link only to their homepage. Or see reference #83 at Thomas Aquinas, where we actually link directly to the work, which is right underneath a header proclaiming the site to be a Christian org. The last one isn't too much of a problem, but the first one is. We're citing a work, but linking to a site with a statement declaring their intent to proselytize right on the page we link to.
Honestly, I would always prefer secular organizations for this sort of thing, because that secularism is a strong indicator that they don't have any agenda beyond their stated goal. A secular organization may have numerous Christians in their administration (not to mention Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, etc), but a Christian organization will almost certainly have no non-Christians in their administration. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That then would be a problem with incorrect citing, not reliability. If there is no reason to doubt that they accurately copy the text then (apart from as I said issues of undue due to publishing any old rubbish) I cannot see how they are any different form Guttenburg. I am not aware that agendas or bias is a valid criteria for rejection, only accuracy is.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Just because the second example is less problematic does not make it not problematic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That an archive of religious texts is religious itself - is far from surprising. (Conversely, most scientific journals ascribe to a pro-science POV). If the archive doesn't change anything in the text itself - and there is no indication that they do - there's nothing wrong with linking to a freely available work there. If it is freely available on a better site (based on whatever quality metric) - then that's an acceptable target too. Frankly - the problem with proselytising here (if it is a problem) is greater in the cited archived books than in the archive. Icewhiz (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this source is unreliable per se, I just think that if, for example, we have the choice between this and Gutenberg, we should choose Gutenberg. If ccel.org is the only source for a work, then I'm not particularly happy about using it, but I'm not going to be opposed to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
If an archive of religious texts is religious itself, then if project Gutenberg contains those same texts, by your own definition, it is religious as well. Since Wikisource contains religious texts, it is religious as well. Since Wikipedia contains religious texts, it is religious as well. This is reductio ad absurdum and shows your argument to be false. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I started to type "What are you smoking and where can I get some? Wow." but no, I think I'll go ahead and take the time to explain just how fundamentally illogical and ignorant your comment is.
First; anyone with even the most basic education in philosophy can tell you that informal fallacies are not "false" by any stretch. They are frequently indicative of a poor position or a poor ability to argue, but simply because a person makes an informal fallacy does not make them wrong.
Second; reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's an argument. In fact, it rarely is fallacious, and whenever it is, it is only so because the argument contained a separate, actual fallacy, such as a straw man. Hint hint.
Third; my argument -even the absurd straw man you made of it- is in no way an appeal to the ridiculous. In fact, your comment in which you accuse me of that is a textbook example of exactly that argument.
Fourth; the claim that an argument is "false" because it is an informal fallacy is, itself, an informal fallacy. It's called an argumentum ad logicam. See my first point as to why.
Fifth; arguments cannot be "false" or "true". They can only be sound or fallacious. Neither state establishes the truth of the conclusion in a vacuum.
Finally; absolutely nothing I said could possibly be construed by any rational person to equate to the claim that merely hosting religious texts makes ccel.org a religious institution. Did you actually forget our exchange from just last night over ccel.org's mission statement? Your participation here is virtually indistinguishable from trolling at this point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I concede your argument isn't false, just that your thinking isn't clear and is clearly bias. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not even grammatically correct, let alone a biting insult. Next time you stoop to petty insults, try to make it worth the block you might catch for it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
My sorry grammar. My sorry you insulted feel. Watch for block due to NPA I will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Cool story, bro. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • They perform mild edits (such as adding XML tags.) While not dramatic, I would argue that this isn't something we want in a convenience link, since decisions about what to tag and how to structure the tags inevitably involve a degree of interpretation and editorializing. --Aquillion (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be a convenience link. The standards for those are lower in some respects, but a key point is that a convenience link must always be the most neutral one available: Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I think it's indisputable that Gutenberg is more neutral, so ccel should never be used for something available on Gutenberg. (Note that this is in some ways more strict than our usual WP:RS policies; usually, WP:BIASED sources are allowed, but that's because they can provide a unique resource or perspective. Convenience links are different - there is never any justification for going for a less-neutral host, so it's not allowed. ccel links with comparable Gutenberg links should be replaced on sight. --Aquillion (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Since ccel.org offers a data format not offered by Gutenberg, it's not a cut-and-dried solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • No, this is completely cut-and-dried. First, Gutenberg offers a vastly wider range of formats. Second, "material" in this case refers to the original, unedited material as originally published, since the purpose of a convenience link is simply to provide access to it - we obviously cannot cite ccel for anything it added or changed about that material, including their added XML formatting. "I prefer added XML formatting" is not a concern that the convenience link policy allows for - the only thing we use to decide between convenience links is which is more neutral and reliable. In fact, since the added XML data is their own creation (an addition to the raw, straightforward, unedited text that a convenience link is meant to present), I would argue that that is another reason not to use ccel for convenience links - their added XML might intend it to help like-minded readers find and focus on the aspects of the text that ccel.org has judged to be important, but that's precisely the sort of thing we don't want a convenience link doing. Gutenberg, which offers the original, untouched text in a much wider range of formats, should always be used instead when possible - no exceptions. --Aquillion (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll offer two examples: The Westminster Shorter Catechism http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster1 No version gutenberg in https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search/?query=Westminster+Shorter+Catechism so if someone wanted to link to the original text, ccel seems like the right place. Some of the XML mark-up is <DC.Date sub="Created">2004-07-11</DC.Date>, <version>1.0</version> and <div1 title="WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM (1674)" progress="1.41%" prev="toc" next="i.i" id="i">. I can see no alteration to the original text.

It took a fair bit of work, but I found a work that is contained in both locations: The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis. https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1653. The first link, Read this book online: Generated HTML (with images), is actually misleading. First, there were no images in the original text so I'm not sure how they could even suppose to include any. Second, the HTML has no images, which is a relief, but as I said, misleading. It's almost as if the project doesn't actually take any care with their content. Compare that to http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation.html The XML offers headings and an index for easy navigation, but I don't see any content there that would suggest manipulation or anything other than convenience.

Perhaps you can show me an example where the marked-up text actually changes the meaning or makes it less useful for a reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Bigleaguepolitics.com a reliable source for an accusation against Rashida Tlaib?

See this. Doug Weller talk 15:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Big League Politics isn't a reliable source about anything, really valereee (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Because somebody used it once? Why don't we just add every porn site to the blacklist too since you seem to want it to be 3 GB. Connor Behan (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of a market application?

The US Food and Drug Administration recently reviewed a multi-million-page application from Phillip Morris concerning a recreational tobacco product it wants to market in the U.S. (IQOS). The market application is said to contain 25 separate research studies (I haven't actually read through and counted). The FDA reviewers looked at it and at the rest of the literature on these products. They then wrote some articles about these products. These papers were then published in a supplement to the British Medical Journal's journal Tobacco Control. My question is whether one of these papers is a secondary source according to WP:MEDRS, despite it not being categorized as a systematic review in PubMed, and whether it can be used to describe these products, especially how they function.

  1. Benowitz, Neal L.; Nardone, Natalie; Iii, Peyton Jacob; St.Helen, Gideon (1 November 2018). "IQOS: examination of Philip Morris International's claim of reduced exposure". Tobacco Control. 27 (Suppl 1): s30–s36. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054321. ISSN 0964-4563.

Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series

NOT RELIABLE
There is a weak consensus that the source is not reliable. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Is the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 17:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Two of these mentions are sourced to the Ritterkreuzträger Profiles series by UNITEC Publishing:

  • Schumann, Ralf; Westerwelle, Wolfgang (2010). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – Der Jäger von Malta [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 8 Joachim Müncheberg – The Hunter of Malta] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 706989728. ASIN B003ZNZTGY  (18 May 2014). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Joachim Müncheberg)
  • Steinecke, Gerhard [in German] (2012). Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many] (in German). UNITEC-Medienvertrieb. OCLC 802538281. ASIN B008AIT9Z6  (4 January 2013). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used at Hans Philipp)

The series was previously discussed at RSN and is currently under discussion at MILHIST. –dlthewave ☎ 17:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)


Most people who took part in discussion had no idea what is the Wehrmachtbericht and whether it was on honor or not. What K.e.coffman wrote is original research and misleading. Wehrmachtbericht was a honor. There are 1,182 individual soldiers mentioned in the Wehrmachtbericht, out of millions of soldiers who served in the German Army.
I quote from a research paper who deals with the Wehrmachtbericht and the German fighter pilots[4]:
’’To examine the effects of public recognition, we focus on mentions by name in the German Armed Forces daily bulletin (Wehrmachtbericht). This is for several reasons: Mentions were rare, and reserved for recognizing spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down. Second, mentions became known instantly over a wide area, being broadcast on the radio, published in the press, and distributed at command posts throughout German territory. Third, mentions in the daily bulletin were largely unexpected. There was no mechanical rule that entitled a pilot to being mentioned. Fourth, mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht are a fleeting form of recognition, providing the recipient with no tangible token of appreciation beyond elevating his status in the eyes of others. For all these reasons, we consider the mentions in the daily bulletin an ideal source of identifying variation for analyzing the effects of status competition.
Mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht were embedded in an elaborate system of awards and medals operated by the German armed forces.’’
My view on this is clear that for all mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht the Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag should be used and is very reliable as is used as a source for K.e.coffman favorite book The Wehrmacht By Wolfram WETTE which deals with war crimes and propaganda (see chapter 5 notes The Legends of the Wehrmacht’s “Clean Hands”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.46.144 (talk • contribs)
Comparable to Mentioned in dispatches? - Donald Albury 22:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
In some respects, Donald, I would agree. Especially in that they were named in widely distributed official government bulletin as MiD recipients were in the London Gazette. It also appears that they were in fact treated as an honour per the research paper linked above and other sources already discussed at WT:MILHIST. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
No, not comparable because the available sources do not make this connection. If such sources exist, this matter can be raised at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report or Talk:Wehrmachtbericht. At present, neither article mentions the other. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, that they were similar is BLUE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Then it should be easy to provide sources attesting to such. This can be done at Talk:Mentioned in dispatches#Question on the Wehrmacht Report, as this discussion is somewhat off-topic. The RfC is about Ritterkreuzträger Profiles from UNITEC-Medienvertrieb, not the Wehrmachtbericht itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the authors, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. The publisher has about 180 different titles on specialist military subjects including the French Air Force and Cold War military exercises as well as this series. Titles from this press (and from this series) are held by state and university libraries in Germany including the Bundeswehr University Munich, and it seems to be a publisher similar to the Bloomsbury Publishing imprint Osprey Publishing, a specialist military publisher, not academic quality but nevertheless reliable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As this research paper says[5][6]: “Mentions in the daily bulletin were amongst the highest form of recognition used by the German armed forces. A typical report would only mention major events at the different fronts, listing gains and losses of territory or individual battles. Mentions were rare. During the entire war, fewer than 1,200 men were recognized in this way (Wegmann 1982), out of 18 million German men who served. Mentions by name were introduced in April 1940. One of the first soldiers receiving this recognition was Erwin Rommel for his role in leading the German armored thrust into France in the spring of 1940. A typical example of Wehrmachtbericht mentioned in dispatches is Hans‐Joachim Marseille’s mention on June 18, 1942: First Lieutenant Marseille shot down ten enemy planes in a 24 hour period in North Africa, raising his total score of aerial victories to 101. (Wegmann 1982)”
The principal awards for valor were the Iron Crosses and the Knight’s Cross. In addition, soldiers could receive a mention in the daily bulletin. This was one of the highest forms of recognition available in the German armed forces. Like Meintioned in Dispatches wikipage it differs from country to country. In Wehrmachtbericht some soldiers were mentioned multiple times, not necessarily because of receiving the highest award for valor the Knight’s Cross, but also by spectacular accomplishments such as a particularly high number of enemy ships sunk or fighters shot down (see the example above). Then there were also units and ships who were mentioned. Wegmann, Günter, ed. 1982. “Das Oberkommando der Wehrmacht Gibt Bekannt‐‐”: Der Deutsche Wehrmachtbericht: Vollständige Ausgabe der durch Presse und Rundfunk veröffentlichten Texte. Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag had been used as a source for The Wehrmacht By Wolfram Wette and in the research paper above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiorandI (talk • contribs) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Who is the publisher, do they have a good reputation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 11:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Using sources that are beyond reproach is the best option. Misterbee1966 has already provided sources of this kind to show the report was an award. That is enough. The editors of MilHist chose to disregard those sources, despite advocating the exclusion of such mentions on the basis that reliable sources are lacking. It is a strange stance. Dapi89 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that its a good idea to re litigate the long-running RfC on the Wehrmachtbericht here, not least as it ended in a fairly clear consensus and this it isn't an appropriate venue for the re-litigation to occur. The question asked at the top of the thread is whether some German-language sources are RS. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment on author de:Gerhard Steinecke who wrote Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many]. According to his German Wiki article, Steinecke studied history in Berlin from 1965 to 1970. He was the museum director of de:Schloss Kuckuckstein and later in Nossen. In 1984, he was released out of politcal reasons (not stated which) by East Germany. Following the German reunification, he wrote a variety of books about the history of Meißen, Philipp was born in Meißen, and other history related topics, see also Literature by and about Gehard Steinicke in the German National Library catalogue. Professor Jonas Flöter, in his book Eliten-Bildung in Sachsen und Preussen: die Fürsten- und Landesschulen Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal und Pforta (1868-1933) [Elite Education in Saxony and Prussia: the Prince and Country Schools Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal and Pforta (1868-1933)], thanked Steinecke for his contribution, see pages 11, 470, 471. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Has the content of the de.wiki article been verified? It appears to be entirely unsourced. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Cheap military pulp serial with an emphasis on images. These works are popular history, directed at a certain audience. Editorial oversight is completely unclear and unlikely. If there is virtually no reference to these publications, neither critical nor endorsing, that does not speak for their reliability, but for their neglibility. --Assayer (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. "I don't see why not" is not a strong argument, particularly for a source that was added before the more stringent criteria were established. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Being so obscure, such publications do not attract attention from reliable sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:29, 28 January 2019 (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.

RfC: Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945

NOT RELIABLE
There is a weak consensus that the source is not reliable. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Is Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 a reliable source for mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht? –dlthewave ☎ 05:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A recent RfC determined that mentions in the Wehrmachtbericht WWII-era German propaganda broadcast may be included in relevant articles when a reliable source that focuses on the mentioned person or unit specifically states that the mention was an honour. Three volumes of Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 appear as sources for mentions in a number of articles:

  • Stockert, Peter (1997). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 3 [The Oak Leaves Bearers 1939–1945 Volume 3] (in German). Bad Friedrichshall, Germany: Friedrichshaller Rundblick. ISBN 978-3-932915-01-7. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (used in Theodor Weissenberger)

–dlthewave ☎ 05:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • As in the above RfC, I see no reason why not. Nothing has been produced here so far to make me question the reliability or accuracy of the content of the books themselves, the reliability of the author, or of the publishing house, and I have attempted to find criticism of the works online and came up empty. Perhaps others with better German skills can find something, and I would be happy to revise my position if such was forthcoming. Stockert's works on Oak Leaves recipients are held by state and university libraries in Germany, as well as the Bundeswehr University Munich library, and Friedrichshaller Rundblick appears to be a small publisher of historical books, with about 80 titles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Have you confirmed that the source describes the mention as an honor? This content was added before the new sourcing requirement was in place, so we cannot presume that it complies. –dlthewave ☎ 23:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Again same question as above, who are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not reliable - Editors wishing to attribute Wehrmachtbericht references to these sources have failed to demonstrate their reliability or compliance with the inclusion requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: obscure, dubious publications. I see no reason why not is not how Wikipedia establishes reliability under WP:IRS. Stockert also publishes in Pour le Merite-Verlag [de] known for is historical negationist, xenophobic and pseudo-scientific publications. Being held in university libraries is not an indicator of reliability. Etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable: obscure publication with no evidence that it receives the editorial oversight required to be considered an RS. buidhe 08:30, 28 January 2019 (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.

thetruthaboutguns.com

I can't see any evidence this is a reliable source, and I propose to remove all references. Guy (Help!) 07:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Truth About Guns It's a group blog. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I propose a blanket ban on any site that purports to provide The Truth™. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oooooh, I found my favorite page on that site. It's this one. You see? They really are coming to take your guns! And replace them with goddamn katanas! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • They appear to have editors and writers that could be considered subject experts.[7] That said they should be treated like any other advocacy group I suppose similar to Hope not Hate, The Epoch Times, and Southern Poverty Law Center mentioned in WP:RSP. PackMecEng (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Saying that they have editors isn't sufficient; we need evidence that they have actual editorial policies and enforce them - and, much more importantly, some indication that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Comparing them to the three you mentioned (all of which have extensive reputations) is absurd. This is a random blog; it is absolutely clear-cut remove-on-sight unusable for statements of fact (this is obvious enough that I'm honestly startled anyone would even attempt to argue otherwise), but I would argue that it does not even pass WP:RSOPINION, which requires at least some level of reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with PackMecEng. Generally reliable for technical content with respect to firearms. A notable opinion source with respect to firearms policy (thus not in wiki voice). Springee (talk) 01:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
    • This joint is hardly like the SPLC. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Well... Just that they are listed as advocacy groups. I was wondering if anyone would notice I put them in there. PackMecEng (talk) 01:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Even if it was a joke, you severely weakened your argument by doing so. If you actually want to argue that we can use a blog of this level as a source, you need to be laser-focused, because I would argue that even arguing that this can be cited for opinions is an extreme reach. To me, it seems unequivocally unusable for statements of fact based on what people have presented here so far; attempting to compare it to sources that obviously have a much better reputation only makes that more obvious. --Aquillion (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reliable based on what? I can't find any reason to consider them RS as per WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable; it's a blog with a partisan agenda, and they engage in doxxing and harassment of their targets, so anyone who's genuinely interested in writing a serious reference work wouldn't touch a source like this with a 10-foot pole. The arguments in favor here are creative, but speak poorly for the people making them. They have editors and writers! Who like guns! What more could anyone want in a reliable source? MastCell Talk 01:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
"Your argument speaks poorly of you" is a comment about your argument, not about you. It would only be about you if it were followed by "And I believe your argument" or something to that effect. Also, having people whom you refer to as "editors" doesn't make them real editors, any more than my handle makes a certain part of my anatomy a mythical weapon wielded by the gods. Let's go to their About page and take a look at the qualifications of their editorial staff.
  • Dan Zimmerman – Managing Editor "He’s been shooting guns for the last 25 years and writing about them for the last eight or so."
  • Jeremy S. – Testing & Reviews Editor "His safes are full, his ammo shelves are sagging, and he’s coordinating much of TTAG’s gun and gear reviews while attempting to hold down a “real job” as well."
  • Kat Ainsworth – Associate Editor and Hunting Editor "Kat is a seasoned hunter and somewhat zealous tactician with a penchant for big bores."
  • Jenn Jacques – Gun Rights Editor "Jenn is an active and ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, an outspoken concealed carry advocate, avid outdoorswoman and if you can’t find her on a lake fishing, in the woods hunting, or running like a mad woman on any number of Badger State nature trails, she’s prolly at the gun range."
In all truth, one of their writers, Logan Metesh, looks like he might be a credible source. But that credibility would depend heavily upon the publisher. I don't think this website has anything like the sort of editorial expertise and oversight we generally expect when we say a source has editors. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I think that it's very likely that any technical information about guns found on this site would be accurate and possibly even subject to fact-checking prior to publication. But the truth is, we can't really get a handle on just how likely that is. So in my day-to-day life, I'd take their word that -for example- the factory firing pin on an original Marlin Glenfield model 25 has a face of 0.2cm2, I don't feel comfortable citing them for that when writing a WP article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Still a shit way to make an argument. It's okay because I'm talking about his argument, not calling him shit. I could still see it as useful for review information on things I suppose. Something like according to so and so they liked or disliked whatever for whatever reason. PackMecEng (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not. If you unpack the meaning, it's functionally synonymous with "I know you are better than your argument makes you appear to be." If anything, it's a compliment. One cannot possibly engage in reasoned debate without criticizing one's opponents' arguments, as criticizing your opponents arguments is what debate is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree to disagree? I was not very appreciative of it. But anyhow, I could see it used in the manner I described, for reviews of products. What do you think? PackMecEng (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Argh, I edit conflicted while adding a response to that very question. Yes, I think it's fine for attributed statements. I don't know if they're notable enough to include such statements in other articles (I've been a gun nut for going on 30 years now, and this is the first I've heard of them for whatever that's worth), but I'm not convinced they aren't, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Kind of the same here(wont say number of years but around there). I had not really heard of them before now either but who knows. That is why I was curious if there was a source for the doxing or harassment. PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to that, myself. MastCell, got a source for that? It might even be worth adding to their article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, it was already in the article. PackMecEng, see here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yup I see it now, someone left a comment with her address on a post there and they did not take it down.[8] Pretty messed up, and its still up. WTF PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Do any RS treat them as a go to for facts?Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Only found a couple mentions with stuff like newsmax.[9] They seem to be linked a decent bit by stores and manufactures.[10][11][12][13][14] USA today apparently lets them post there as well for opinions on gun control.[15][16] A mixed bag all around. PackMecEng (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. If that is representative of it's use, then it shouldn't be used as anything other than a source of opinions, which probably means it shouldn't be used at all given the subject matter. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
So no then they are not really being uses as a source for facts, but for opinions. Not sure then they are overly useful as a source, better to use the people who quote them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Question, do you think it would be a problem to use TTAG for non-controversial facts? Such as, "X was publicly released for sale in 199x", "The Colt Model X was released with a 5" barrel and later in a 3" version", "The S&W Model Y is no longer legal for sale in California because of ___ feature/because it is no longer on the state's list of pistols for sale"? I would think at least the first two statements would be reasonable as statements of non-controversial facts. The last one might be more problematic. I think it would be a non-controversial claim that a particular pistol is/isn't on the CA approved for sale list. Why might be considered a controversial claim and perhaps would need either a stronger source for wiki voice or attribution. Springee (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I think those links answer my question about notability above in the affirmative. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Those are exactly the sort of claims that I think we should have no issue with sourcing to TTAG. I'm not even sure it should have an "unreliable source" tag in such a case. Springee (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure those sorts of claims can be sourced elsewhere. And the problem isn't one of accuracy, but of reliability. We simply don't have enough evidence that we can trust TTAG to do fact checking, even on the technical stuff. Those claims may very well be true, but an organization which is essentially a shared blog is very likely to publish common misconceptions or simple errors on a regular basis. I agree with Feminist. Tag them as unreliable, and then either find better sources or trust in our fellow editors to do it for us. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If those claims are true (and I absolutely would not trust that they are if this is the only source), we can cite them to an actual WP:RS; but citing a blog with no reputation adds absolutely nothing and hurts the reputation of Wikipedia as a whole. You could put "I, as an editor, affirm this to be true" in the ref tag and cite it to four tildes and it would be just as valuable as a cite to this blog. It should be removed on sight without hesitation and replaced with a fact tag if you think whatever was cited to them happened to be accurate. My general standard for remote-on-sight / "fails WP:RSOPINION" is "does this citation provide anything beyond 'citing' something to four tildes?" In this case I don't think it does. They have no reputation, so the only thing accomplished by citing them is to make it harder to notice that a statement functionally has no citations. --Aquillion (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove on sight levels of not reliable. Does not pass WP:RSOPINION. No reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, no evidence of serious editorial controls. A blog without those things falls under WP:UGC / WP:RSSELF and is not usable as a source even for statements of opinion - citing a blog like this is equivalent to citing a Reddit post or YouTube video and should never be done. In cases where their opinion is worth citing, we should be able to find a reliable source that quotes them; but throwing your opinion up on your blog doesn't make it pass WP:RSOPINION, no more than posting it on Reddit or Twitter. I'm baffled by the arguments above that this could ever be used for statements of fact; this is one of the more clear-cut remove-on-sight sources I've seen here recently. Realistically, a blog with no reputation should only be cited as a primary source in situations where it is unambiguously the focus of the sentence being cited, and even that should always be accompanied by a secondary source. The idea that the authors posting the blog could qualify as subject matter experts is similarly absurd; that is an extremely high bar - Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, and there's no evidence of that here. These feel more like they fall under the SPS warning that anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field, which specifically warns us not to trust puffery from sites like these. Especially considering that their 'expertise' seems to be that they tell us they've been using guns for a while - really? This isn't a usable source for anything but its own article, at best. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
The website Mediabiasfactcheck doesn't support the idea that this is just an opinion blog that should be removed on sight. [[17]]. Strong factual reporting:
The Truth About Guns also has a section dedicated to facts about guns. While we found this well sourced to mostly credible information and institutions, it is very apparent that the aim is to only present info that favors guns and rejects gun control. Although the information is evidence based, it is misleading because they only choose to present one side of this story. We rate this source factual in reporting, but right biased based on its rejection of gun control and somewhat cherry picked information
That supports the view that they are reliable for technical or non controversial facts but biased when reporting to controversies or issues of him rights/gun control. Springee (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
We also need to remember that sources are NOT required to be impartial. The fact that a source presents only one side of an issue does NOT make it unreliable (as long as what it does present is accurate). We can use other sources to support the other side(s) of the issue. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mediabiasfactcheck is itself just some random person's personal website; it has no weight whatsoever in these discussions. (And even if it did, all it cares about is "bias", which isn't what we care about. Our question is "how much of a reputation does this site have?" and "do they have strong editorial controls that keep it from being just the rando musings of someone with a blog?" Neither of those things seem to qualify this as a viable source.) Again, what matters is a broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, coupled with strong editorial controls - something that lends weight to the things the source publishes by putting their journalistic reputation behind the things they publish. None of this exists here - it's just a random blog. There's no reputation, and therefore nothing behind their blogposts but the opinions of the people writing them. Nothing wrong with a blog, but it doesn't pass WP:RS and shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia in any context. If some fact about guns is true and noteworthy, it should be easy to find it in another source; if the only person to mention it is some random blog, then we shouldn't have it in an article in the first place. --Aquillion (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
You've suggested delete on sight. You haven't made an reasonable case for that. Sorry, I haven't suggested that we trust them for commercial statements. I've said they are reliable for non-controversial statements. External, RS have cured them and at least one rating site said they are general reliable. Seems reasonable to me. I think you would need to show evidence that we should remove on site. Not every RS needs to meet the standards we expect for say controversial, academic topics. Springee (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:RS is something that a source has to positively satisfy, not something you can demand that I prove in the negative. Nothing you have presented has remotely suggested that this blog has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy; the best you could come up with was another personal website opining that they were unbiased. In fact, by my reading you have not even attempted to present any argument that would show that this source satisfies any part of WP:RS - your position seems entirely based on the fact that you personally feel that this blog is 'notable', with no usable evidence provided. Based on that, I feel validated in my assessment that they fail WP:RS badly enough to remove-on-sight, and will continue to remove them instantly any place where I see them, as I would with comparably low-tier citations - they seem to me on par with citing a reddit post or a random YouTube video. Since they have no reputation, citing them serves no purpose beyond discouraging people from finding actually usable sources (since people who see the citation tag in passing without checking its contents will not necessarily realize it is a cite to a random blog); replacing citations to them with fact tags, outside of the very rare situation where they're cited as the primary source in a situation where their blog itself is the topic of discussion, would almost invariably improve an article. --Aquillion (talk) 01:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
First, they say they have an editorial staff. What more do you want. I can only read your objections and your claim that you would remove on site (which would be nothing more than poor editing on your part) as the clear case of "I don't like it". First, I've presented a new rating website that said accurate but biased. You want to dismiss that site but have offered no reason why we should believe you vs that site. What if their writers and their articles are cited by other RS? Would that be good enough for you? How about these examples: NPR [[18]], USA Today - article by TTAG editor [[19]], The Slate [[20]], St Louis Today [[21]], Texas Public Radio [[22]], The Huffington Post [[23]], Texas Monthly [[24]], NBC News [[25]], The Daily Beast [[26]], The Guardian [[27]], CBS DFW [[28]], and Ammonland and Shooting Sports News many times. But I guess you would dismiss that last one as well since, like TTAG, it is actually written by people who are involved with the subject (biased and knowledgeable). I think it is clear the opinions of the site's editors and their association with the site are noted by outside RSs. It is clear those sources see the editors as experts in the field and editors who can offer a particular POV when discussing the politics associated with guns. That should settle this question. Springee (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
When all those links were added, I thought that we could finally resolve this.
Looks like they are reliable for their own opinion and have successfully gained attention from a publicity stunt. If there's something in all those links that demonstrates anything beyond that, please clearly point it out and why.
An additional concern is that the website is rather misleading in how they present themselves. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it's slightly more than that. They are certainly reliable for their own opinions and their opinion has been seen as notable by independent RSs. Also, I don't think anyone has shown that they shouldn't be considered reliable for non-controversial claims. Some feel that if the claim isn't controversial it should be readily sourced to some other RS. That may be true but such claims shouldn't have to be. Thus if they are the only source that says the Model 101-c weighs 2.3lb and that isn't a controversial claim (say similar models have similar weights) we should accept it as reliable. However, when dealing with a controversial claim, say "Senator X's is deliberately obfuscating the problems with his gun control plan", "The long term objective of the Governor's plan is confiscation" we would need some other source to establish DUE for that opinion. I would tend to error on the side of needed an external RS to cite such claims before agreeing that WEIGHT has been established (NPR in an article about the governor's new gun plan cited TTAG for example). If DUE weight is established it could not be presented in Wiki voice. I think this should address the concerns of those who are wary of the site while still allowing it's use in restricted/non-controversial cases. Springee (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Our RS policy applies regardless of whether the content is controversial or not. As others have pointed out, the burden to establish reliability rests on those wishing to use the source; I have yet to see any sign of editorial control or fact-checking on this self-published blog site. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that policy says we should consider the the nature of the claim when considering the reliably of the source. So if the claim isn't controversial and the source has something level of standing in the area we should accept it. We've shown that external RSs have used TTAG as a reference for typical opinions. We also have a rating site and a second firearms site that reference TTAG. That established the site as reliabe for non controversial claims. Springee (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that a few places quoting a blog for its opinion is enough to satisfy even WP:RSOPINION, but it certainly is not enough to justify citing them for statements of fact. I think it's pretty clear you've failed to satisfy WP:BURDEN here. Either way, looking over this discussion, I'm seeing a rough consensus that it's not really a usable source for (at a bare minimum) statements of fact - I know I'm harsher about what passes WP:RSOPINION than most people, but at the very least this isn't a source we can cite for facts. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to discourage and deprecate the use of Rateyourmusic and Last.fm as sources on Wikipedia. There consensus against discouraging and deprecating the use of Discogs as a source on Wikipedia. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Should the user-generated music databases Rateyourmusic, Discogs, and Last.fm be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

None of these should be cited as sources, but discogs.com is a reasonable external link. --Michig (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, sorta, as it's debatable whether we really should be linking to Discogs. My opinion is that links to RYM and Lastfm should be banned on all articles (with some reasonable exceptions), and that links to Discogs should simply display a warning as such. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
No user generated content should not be RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I imagine that might be difficult to implement on a technical level. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The ideal solution would be to implement a regex-based filter rule, as documented at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules format. If this isn't practical for some reason, we could add these domains to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList as an alternative. — Newslinger talk 11:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I did think that regex could be possibly used for this, but how exactly would it determine what a reference is? Usage of ref tags? How would we avoid false positives? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
​User:XLinkBot uses <ref> tags for this, and it works quite well. It would be difficult to parse wikicode with regex, so User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList might be the best solution. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for Discogs, which is, per Michig and Newslinger, a useful external link; it's not clear that we have a problem with Discogs that needs to be solved with warnings (let alone banning). Treating it equivalently to IMDB (user-generated and so unsuitable for formal citation, but high-quality and so valuable in other capacities) is advisable. Support for RYM and Last.FM, neither of which contribute much in the way of valuable content. Chubbles (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for RYM and Last.fm and Oppose for Discogs per Chubbles. feminist (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support none of these are trustworthy publications to begin with given their user-generated content and we shouldn't let them be used more than they already have been. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support except for Discogs per Chubbles. Jc86035 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A blanket ban on these sources is counter-productive. A photo of the work, such as at discogs, can be used to show track listings for a particular pressing and is better than just stating it exists via its liner notes. Rateyourmusic and last.fm are generally useless though, but you put them into the same basket. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2019 (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.

RfC: Notable Names Database

CONSENSUS IN FAVOR
There is consensus to discourage and deprecate the use of the Notable Names Database as a source on Wikipedia. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Should the Notable Names Database be added to the sourcing edit filter to strongly discourage and deprecate its use as a source on Wikipedia? wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes. This might be stale according to WP:RSP but I am convinced that this should be deprecated; I'd like to point to a comment here from exactly ten years ago by DreamGuy: As far as I am concerned, that one should be in our black hole list (emphasis mine), seemingly predicting the deprecation of the source. As for the arguments, there is no evidence that NNDB does any fact-checking of its content. It is full of gossip like suicide attempts, drug use and criminal records, and it is connected to notorious gossipers [29] [30].
    I don't know what Jack Schofield meant with this article in The Guardian [31], but it kind of shows ironically that this is not a good website and should be avoided. It also mentions its feature to generate "lists" of people with various attributes, e.g. lists of alumni, which I do not want to see used on Wikipedia. NNDB also has a feature to generate "maps" of people's connections, a well-known tactic by conspiracy theorists.
    This website is like IMDb but much, much worse. There are many Wikipedia biographies (I think thousands) that cite this website and I believe that an edit filter would help new users to avoid this website. While there may not be much evidence of fabricating facts, this source has almost zero WP:USEBYOTHERS and it has an unknown way of getting its information [32] [33]. Note that I'm citing blogs because no serious reliable source bothers to talk about this website, even though I've found a handful of articles in Adweek, Los Angeles Times etc.
    I would not oppose adding this source to the spam blacklist as well. This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. There's also a forum thread about the reliability of NNDB [34], which unsurprisingly does not find any evidence of reliability or a measure of accuracy. wumbolo ^^^ 20:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. NNDB (RSP entry) is a tertiary source, and some of the sources it draws its information are questionable. From a cursory search, it looks like most of the biographies on the website cite Wikipedia as a source (e.g. Mark Hamill, Patti Smith, Jesus Christ), which makes NNDB an unacceptable circular source. This was previously brought up in a 2007 discussion. NNDB also frequently references IMDb (RSP entry), which mostly incorporates user-generated content. Altogether, NNDB is not usable as a source because it's based on sources that would not be acceptable in Wikipedia. The fact that NNDB is used to support claims in numerous biographies of living persons (uses of nndb.com HTTPS links HTTP links) leads me to support its deprecation. — Newslinger talk 01:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes because there is actual evidence of harmful use of NNDB as a source. feminist (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Editors may use the site to identify info on a Bio page but they absolutely must collaborate that with a known RS ad use those RS for the citations. --Masem (t) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak yes only because by nature it focuses on people, otherwise I would have preferred it to remain discouraged but not deprecated. @Wumbolo: This website has a Wikidata property, but I don't know if it is relevant here. (NNDB people ID P1263) It's not relevant; Wikidata is using it for authority control. They also have a property for Quora. @Feminist: What harm are you talking about? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    The main problem is that this source is mainly used on BLPs, which generally require more stringent sourcing standards. feminist (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. It is too weak a tertiary source, and its lack of fact-checking (editorial controal) basically makes it a form of WP:UGC, rather like IMDb except with serious BLP issues that push it across the line.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Conditional Yes - If the statements made by the other editors are correct, it should be deprecated. I haven't researched the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes there has been prior consensus it's a subpar reference, and the WP:CIRCULAR issues are also quite concerning if they use Wikipedia as a source. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:26, 10 February 2019 (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.

Andean Lives von Gregorio Condori Mamani, Paul H. Gelles

Greetings,

is a reliable source to explain the mythological importance of Coropuna volcano as an abode of the dead? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it seesm to be talking about one person, not a general legend. This thus fails wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Should The Verge be considered unreliable for topics involving computer hardware?

See TechSpot article, Gamers Nexus video, and Reddit /r/pcmasterrace thread. Tl;dr: The Verge published a video and article on how to build a computer that contained numerous factual errors and poor practices. Instead of listening to criticism, The Verge instead tried to shut down anyone critical of the video by abusing YouTube's copyright claim system. Yes, most sources have made mistakes at some point, but a refusal to acknowledge criticism and errors is not conduct I expect from a reliable source. I'd note that this video was released after the RfC on the reliability of The Verge was concluded. In light of such a fiasco, we should probably reassess The Verge's reliability at least on the subject of computer hardware, if not other topics. feminist (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It certainly raises doubts, not sure a one off is enough.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
To be honest, if it were not for them trying to take down reasonable criticism, I would not have raised them here. But their attitude is abhorrent and certainly does not instill trust. feminist (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Being abhorrent does not make them not an RS, the fact they are trying to take down these videos may be different. The question is are they suppressing the story, or just the use of their copyrighted material? This is rather more complex then continuing to report a proven false story, or refusing to withdraw an accusation. They may genuinely have a copyright complaint here. As I said this does not install confidence in me, but all news media make mistakes, the issue is how often.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
And they did take down the YouTube video with the errors, did they not? So yeah, misguided, sure. Streisandian? Definitely. Worthy of being considered non-reliable? I don't think so. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The Verge did not have a genuine copyright complaint: the video in question that was taken down after the complaint was restored by YouTube after its creator appealed the decision. It's fair use of The Verge's material, and the copyright complaint was frivolous. (The Gamers Nexus video I linked above explains it pretty well) Out of curiosity I watched that video (warning: potentially offensive content), and I agree: the Verge journalist had no idea what he was talking about, and such a video/article being published is evidence of inadequate fact checking, and hence unreliability. feminist (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I'd also note that The Verge did not take down the article (and it still calls an I/O shield a "back brace")... the more I read, the worse this gets. feminist (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Just don't use this particular article as a source on building a computer. Feel free to cover this in the article on the Verge, though. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with AQFK. This single incident doesn't render them unreliable, it just means they royally screwed up once and handled the fallout very poorly. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
If that's actually how it went down, that's certainly not good, but like others have said, a single incident usually isn't enough to call an entire source into question, not unless there's some reason to think it's part of a larger pattern or some systemic issue. I'm also concerned that the sources discussing this seem, at first glance, to be lower-quality than the Verge itself. It's pretty easy for drama to be blown out of proportion or for incidents to be reported in an inflammatory fashion (and without complete context) on places like Reddit or on smaller blog-like news sites like the other two. Before saying that this has seriously impacted the Verge's reputation, I'd want to see how it's covered in higher-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: Ars Technica article covering the issue. Ars Technica is generally considered higher quality than The Verge for science/technology news. feminist (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but that source treats it as waaaay less significant than the ones you linked above. After suffering a few days of ridicule, The Verge pulled the video offline. The Internet moved on, and for about four months everyone forgot about the whole controversy. That isn't remotely the sort of thing that would call an entire source into question. And, later on, "The Verge's editorial structure was involved zero percent in the decision to issue a strike," Sottek said in a direct message. "Vox Media's legal team did this independently and informed us of it after the fact." The fact that they quickly took the video down matters. The fact that it happened four months ago (and the YouTube strikes happened only recently) matters a great deal, too. Your argument above implies that they responded to criticism by trying to silence it instead of addressing the issue (which would potentially be a viable argument regarding reliability, albeit a weak one when based on just one incident), but the actual timeline doesn't fit that and makes this look like more generic heavy-handed brand protection by the parent company instead - a lawyer trawling YouTube for unfriendly videos and flagging them, knowing that the YouTube strike system is unfriendly towards fair use. I'm not happy about that, but it's not an WP:RS issue, especially in light of the fact that from an WP:RS perspective they did the really important thing (retracting the video in question) four months ago. This is exactly the reason why I said it's better to go by higher-quality sources than by frothy angry Reddit posts or more obscure sites. Major sites have reputations to uphold, whereas the smaller ones you linked above have less to risk and more to gain by fanning outrage. Based on the Ars Technica coverage, this is a nonissue - if we depreciated every source that had a quickly-retracted mistake, bad article, or the like, or if "behaves like a terrible corporation" was an WP:RS issue, then we wouldn't have any sources left. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You conveniently left out the part about them disabling comments and ratings on that YouTube video, before deleting it. If that's not silencing the issue, I don't know what is. And I'm not sure how calling Reddit posts "frothy angry" is conductive to this issue. If you are asserting that smaller publications are fanning outrage for their personal gain, I can tell you that it's not about outrage, it's about actual safety concerns for people who may follow the instructions from the Verge video. feminist (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What's the scenario where we would cite a how-to video on Wikipedia? There's a pretty substantial difference between reporting on or reviewing hardware and giving people instructions on how to install it, and there's no particular reason to think that a video by their reviews writer, would be subject to the same level of editorial control as their more substantive news coverage. Nblund talk 02:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    I just checked that link, and wow. After that PC build video fiasco, The Verge is still relying on that writer for computer hardware reviews. [35] Worse, he is still relying on that PC build as his test system. It shows that The Verge hasn't really learnt from their mistakes. Just because The Verge is a high-profile publication doesn't make them reliable for any topic they cover. I'd trust The Verge for reviews of mobile phones, but after their continued incompetence, not for computer hardware. feminist (talk) 07:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with others above, I don't see how one bad how-to video would completely invalidate them on everything else. We can certainly keep our eyes peeled in case they screw other things up, in which case this could be revisited, but every RS of any size has screwed up at some point (just flipping through our articles on WaPo, NYT and The Guardian, all of them have screwed up royally enough that it's been given enough weight by other sources that the articles have entire subsections devoted to several of the screw-ups). -sche (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That computer assembly video was widely panned for good reason, and if The Verge ever publishes more instructional content related to computer hardware, I would be skeptical of its correctness. However, I don't think the video is sufficient to cast doubt on The Verge's non-instructional content regarding computer hardware. There are many competent computer users who don't know how to properly handle the internal parts of a desktop computer. Reviews and news coverage related to computer hardware are certainly within The Verge's scope of competence, and I think the consensus at the 2018 RfC is still applicable. — Newslinger talk 13:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. All users are invited to express their views and to add new topics for discussion. Individual WikiProjects may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

United States support for ISIS

A lot of RS questions here... the article has been sent to AFD, but there is debate as to whether deletion or merging is the better option. Needs some analysis of sources to help resolve the debate. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

PressTV

At United States support for ISIS, is this article by Iranian state media PressTV a reliable source for this prose:

According to US defense intelligence agency’s investigation "Washington’s ties with the Takfiris, They really are one and the same". The state senator nominated to plan for transferring CIA arms thought some countries in order to supply all rebels, "including specifically ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda." he declared "We do it indirectly because it’s unlawful to do it directly" and "extremely violent organizations are the agents that take our weapons and then distribute them to ISIS (Daesh) and al-Qaeda."

The referenced state senator is Dick Black, a Republican member of the Senate of Virginia. Diff of the addition to the article. Courtesy ping Saff V. Thank you in advance for your thoughts everyone. Leviv ich 17:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Press TV is a state propaganda outlet, akin to RT (TV network), operating in a country with tight controls/oppression of the press (see RSF Iran) - it is generally unreliable, except for the views of the Iranian government or attributed statements to an interviewee. The prose above isn't clearly attributed to Dick Black - if it were - PressTV is probably reliable enough for an attributed statement to an interviewee. Black is probably UNDUE - but that's a NPOV/n issue. Icewhiz (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No way is PressTV remotely reliable. I would not even trust them to do attributed interviews reliably. Blueboar (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Being a state senator conveys no special insight into the actions of the CIA. Though since he represents the 13th Senate District of Virginia, perhaps he could drive over to Langley and count the cars going in and out of the parking lot. His opinion on US policy in the Middle East is no more relevant than that of anyone you meet on the street, and the fact that this article even exists (especially with the deliberately misleading headline) reflects very poorly on PressTV. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable. State-run propaganda in a state with abysmal press freedom rating, with a penchant for conspiracy theories. Alsee (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not reliable Though maybe used as primary source taking into consideration WP:DUE of course --Shrike (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Abtirsi

Is this source http://www.abtirsi.com/list.php?abtirsiLang=1 okay to use to judge the timelines of a particular polity/state. 92.0.193.25 (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be a personal site and not one by a recognized academic authority. Sorry, no, it's not any more useful for that than asking random people on the street. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Bakbakan International

At the article First Battle of Bud Dajo A reference heavily used is Swish of the Kris written by Vic Hurley, but it appears to be republished on a website (archived here) owned by Bakbakan International. Can we trust that this is a faithful reproduction of the original source? Is Bakbakan, as the republisher, a reliable source creator?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Booklet about Unitarian women

Hi. A friend is interested in writing biographies about some of the women who are profiled in the following booklet: “Concise Portraits of Canadian Unitarian and Universalist Women” (May 2004, republished May, 2006) is a booklet prepared by the Uppity Women’s study group of the Universalist Unitarian Church of Halifax, lead by Mary Lu MacDonald and Irene Baros-Johnson. Profile of eminent women leaders (12 in the first edition; 16 in the second) remind us of how many other women have served with distinction as ministers, minister’s wives, chaplains, lay leaders in our respective congregations and the wider community. The book is available from Mary Lu MacDonald [36] Could this booklet be considered a reliable source for establishing notability? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Reads like it might be an SPS with some COI.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Not for notability, and any article created should not be primarily based on this primary source. Use only for statements that are unlikely to be challenged. feminist (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it's not usable for notability. All else aside, WP:BIO requires that the source be independent of the subject; I don't think a Unitarian Universalist-published pamphlet is sufficiently independent for bios of women who are primarily notable through the church itself. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dravidian ethno-linguistic group in ancient Assam, India

The statement is The Dravidian people (Bania, Kaivarta/Kaibarta people) are part of ancient Assam, India and The principal migrants in Assam have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman and Aryans. The relevant sources are Talk:Assamese_people#References and the contradicting source is Talk:Assamese_people#References_by_Chaipau. The recent discussions are Talk:Assamese_people#Dravidian_element_in_Assamese_people and Talk:Assamese_people#RfC - Are_Dravidians_a_component_of_the_Assamese_people?. My question is how Wikipedia deals with this situation @Aquillion,feminist,MPS1992,Ronz,MPants_at_work and others.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of POV pushing at those talk page discussions, so it is a little hard to parse what the exact reliability question is ... The debate appears to center on whether we should accept certain linguistic studies (or not). Is this an accurate restatement of what we are being asked to examine? If so, it would probably help to examine them one at a time. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems like a cultural battle, the kind that often goes to ArbCom.
Please provide a ton more detail. Are you saying that there are multiple sources with different opinions, and you're unsure which may be reliable/unreliable? --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Blueboar and Ronz, thank you both for prompt replies. Concisely the disputed statement is the principal migrants in ancient Assam have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman and Aryans. The sources as mentioned above includes Dravidian people in said migration chronology, one excludes it. My question is how to use citations in Wikipedia when there is disagreement among sources ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Does the source just exclude it in the list, or say they never did it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Bhaskarbhagawati - When we ask for “sources”, we are referring to the books and academic papers that are cited to support the statement in question. In order for us to determine reliability, you need to tell us which books and academic papers are being cited, and what these books and papers say about the history of Dravidian people in Assam. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven the source Mohd. Taher wrote a chapter named 'Assam: An Introduction' in 'Geography of Assam (2001)' by Abani K. Bhagabati, Bimal Kumar Kar, Ashok K. Bora, where he not covered Dravidian people.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Then I would say it does not dispute the others, not saying something is not the same as disagreeing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I would agree... omitting is not the same as disagreeing. Next source? Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven thanks, Blueboar sorry for delayed reply, i am reproducing all the sources involved below:
  • Taher, M (2001). Assam: An Introduction", in Bhagawati, A K, Geography of Assam. Rajesh Publications, New Delhi. p. 12. The first group of migrants to settle in this part of the country is perhaps the Austro-Asiatic language speaking people who came here from South-East Asia a few millennia before Christ. The second group of migrants came to Assam from the north, north-east and east. They are mostly the Tibeto-Burman language speaking people. From about the fifth century before Christ, there started a trickle of migration of the people speaking Indo-Aryan language from the Gangetic plain.
  • Baruah, Roy Choudhury, Amlan, S. B. (1999). Assam state gazetteer - Volume 1. Editor-in-Chief, District Gazetteers, Govt. of Assam. Thus the antiquity of human civilization in Assam has been established beyond doubt by the discovery of stone celts used by the neolithic people in various part of it. These neoliths as well as linguistic and morphological evidences prove that the ancient inhabitants of Assam were of the Austric stock and not of the Dravidian as it was once supposed to be. The next wave of migration to this country brought the Dravidians, whose history is at least as old as the Austro- Asiatics. They were cultured people belonging to the Chalcoiithic age, who, in the remote past, inhabited Northern India supplanting the Austric races. The Aryans adopted many elements of Dravidian culture and religion, including the cult of linga and yoni. The antiquity Of this cult in Assam is proved by the temple of goddess Kamakhya. The Dravidians got so mixed up with the Mongoloids, who came to the Brahmaputra Valley a little later after them that as a result of their inter-fusion, a new type called Mongoloid-Dravidian originated. The Mongoloids belonging to the Tibeto-Burman family of the Indo-Chinese group, who now predominate the indigenous population of Assam, migrated to this country from their original home in western China.
  • Kunda, Bijan Kumar (2007). Politics in the Brahmaputra Valley, since the Assam Accord. Om Publications, Assam, India. p. 72. Before embarking on the discussion on demographic change during the post colonial phase it may be mentioned here that different races of mankind - Austric, Mongolian,Dravidian and Aryan had migrated into the region - particularly in the Brahmaputra Valley since the ancient time which made Assam a multi-racial region.
  • Kalita, Bharat (2006). Martial Traditions of North East India (edited by Sristidhar Dutta, Byomakesh Tripathy). Concept Publishing Company. p. 228. Assam or in broader term present North east frontier region of India has been a museum of anthropology due to presence of multiple races of various ethnic stocks. Besides Austric, Dravidian, Aryan and Mongoloid, there emerged scores of sub-races both in the hilly tracts and Brahmaputra and Surama valleys. Intermixing of blood between the main stocks perhaps resulted this multiplicity of sub-races developing into a political and territorial sectioning of the area.
  • Mali, Dharani Dhar (1989). Economic problems & planning in Assam. Omsons Publications. p. 44. Since time immemorial Assam has been the meeting Ground of diverse ethnic and cultural streams. The principal migrants have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman, the Mongoloid and Aryans.
  • Barua, Dasa, Harendranath, Yogesa (1992). Reflections on Assam, 1944-1983: a collection of writings. Harendranath Barua Memorial Society. p. 72. The Assamese language is like the population of Assam proper a mixed product of diverse elements of different languages — Austric, Mongolian, Dravidian and Aryan etc.
  • Deka, K. (1978). Assamese Society During the Early British Period (in North East India: A Sociological Study). Concept Publishing Company. p. 27. Assam, the frontier outpost of Indian civilisation, is the meeting ground of peoples of different origin who have entered into the province at different periods of history. These people of various races, namely the Austrics, the Dravidians, the Aryans- and the Tibeto-Burmans, after being confronted with each other, have gradually transformed themselves into a plural society with a composite culture. Though, the Aryanisation of the land of the remote past developed a society fundamentally based on Aryan ideas, the other non-Arya tribes, who existed there and who came since, were readily absorbed or got themselves assimilated in this general pattern of the social structure.
  • Barua, Hem (1956). The Red River and the Blue Hill. Lawyer's Book Stall. p. 42. This, in a nutshell, is the history of races and peoples that makes the ethnological map of the country and weaves its distinct pattern; Assam is a virgin soil for the Verrier Elwins. The principal races of peoples that have migrated into it are : the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burmans, the Mongoloids and the Aryans. The earliest wave of people to migrate into it, as morphological and linguistic evidences pointed out by philologists like Dr. B. Kakati show, is supposed to be is supposed to be the Austro-Asiatics. These were the principal races of people in the distant most loom of history that built a culture of their own, and dominated a major portion of south-east Asia as Cambodia, the Nicobar Islands, Upper Burma,- and some parts of Australia. In India, races of these people are found to some extent in Chota Nagpur and the Khasi and Jaintia Hills of Assam,  as pointed out by scholars like Dr. B. Kakati.'
  • Barua, Hem (1956). The Red River and the Blue Hill. Lawyer's Book Stall. p. 44. The history of the Dravidians here is supposed to be as old as that of the Austro-Asiatics, if not older. The Dravidians, according to the Early History of Kamarupa, “were a cultured people belonging to the Chalcolithic Age, who in the remote past inhabited the whole of northern India supplanting the Austric races”. It might be that the Dravidians were the principal group of people in this country before the civilisation of the Mahabharata time spread ; yet it is taken on authentic grounds that the Aryan civilisation spread into Assam even in the pre- Mahabharata Age. In support of this, it can be pointed out from the Ramayana that Amurtliaraja, son of an Aryan king Kusa by name, who ruled in Madhyadesa, migrated into this land with some of his Aryan followers, and founded the kingdom of Pragjyotishpura. This shows that Assam came within the pale of Aryan civilisation at a very early time. Kamarupa or Pragjyotisha was recognised as a centre of Brahmanical (Sakta) and Buddhist tantricsm by the Aryans at a very early date ; it was probably done sometime during the second half of the first millenium A.D. The Dravidians might be regarded as the next group of people in relation to the Austro-Asiatics, in point of time, to migrate and dwell in this land. There are ethnologists who suppose that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities here are the remote survivors of this great race of people. There is a belief that the early Dravidian stock got so mixed up with the early Indo-Chinese people here that it inevitably led to a chiselling of the edges of both the races.
  • Assam, Land and People. Janasanyog. 1989. p. 44. The principal migrants have beeen the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burmans, the Mongoloids, and the Aryans. The Austro-Asiatics who constituted the earliest wave initially dwelt in the Brahmaputra valley but were later made by subsequent waves to find alternative homes in the hills. The Khasis and Jaintias of present Meghalaya are said to be their modern descendants. The Dravidians came next and ethnologists conjecture that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities of modern Assam are their modern descendants.
  • Goswami, Kali Prasad (1998). Kāmākhyā Temple: Past and Present. APH Publishing. p. 39. The Dravidians might be regarded as the next group of people in relation to the Austro-Asiatics, in point of time to migrate and dwell in this land. There are ethnologists who suppose that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities here are the remote survivors of this great race of people.
  • Bhushan, Chandra (2005). Assam: Its Heritage and Culture. Gyan Publishing House. p. 77. To call Assam a museum of variety of caste and tribes would not be a overstatement. History is a witness to immigration of numerous caste and tribes into the region. The Austrians, Dravid, Tibetan-Burmese, Mongols and Aryans came from many directions and seamlessly blended into one. The Austrians were the first to inhabitant the Brahmaputra valley, but after a while, were driven into the hills by invaders. It is said that Khasi and Jayantia living in Meghalaya belong to the same Austrian community. Subsequently people of Dravid community known as 'Kaibarta' and 'Bania' in modern Assam arrived and the Mongols followed them.
  • Sharma, Deba Brat (1995). Changing Cultural Mosaic of a Village in Assam. Punthi-Pustak, Kamrup. p. 55. Several inscriptions and early literature make references to the 'Kaivartas' and they are considered as one of the early non-Aryan inhabitants of Assam. It is believed that they were of Dravidian origin.
  • Gajrani, S. (2004). The People (A section in Assam chapter in History, Religion and Culture of India, Volume 6). Gyan Publishing House. p. 91.The population of Assam consists of many heterogeneous elements. Since time immemorial has been the meeting ground of diverse ethnic & cultural streams-the principle migrants have been the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burman, the Mongoloid and Aryans.
Does above mentioned citations are reliable to use, how we can use them in current context.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, they can be used to say the first line, not the second, I see nothing about them being principle migrants.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven thank you, you mean we can include Dravidian people in the population of ancient Assam. How can we present the migration chronology based on above citations, does we need to drop the list or omit Dravidian people from it.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: The dispute is that these sources use "Dravidian" as a racial term, which is not admissible. The independent editor @Richard Keatinge: was the opinion as well 882171368. Chaipau (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello Chaipau, thanks for participating, issue you are raising was already discussed in talk link above.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Bhaskarbhagawati, there is some misrepresentations here, which I am trying to point out.

  • @Slatersteven: the list given in Taher is a comprehensive list and it excludes Dravidians. The list is given in the table here: [37] (The current state is in a state of disrepair). Taher lists 11 major "waves" of ingress which are listed in the table. So not including Dravidians in this list is rejecting the Dravidians.
  • The most comprehensive examination of the Dravidian question appears in the work of P C Choudhury "History of the People Of Assam", where he rejects many claims of the Dravidian elements (e.g, that the Kamakhya Temple was Dravidian origin, as claimed by K L Baruah; that the Koch had Dravidian "blood", as claimed by Risley; that the Nagas had Dravidian blood, as discussed by Hutton). Choudhury's critique is not modern though, since his claim of an Alpine race is today not considered seriously.
  • Most of the references provided by user:Bhaskarbhagawati mention cursorily without an examination of the issue. The claim in that these references, though reliable on other issues, is not reliable on the claim of Dravidian element in Assam.

Chaipau (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi MPants at work, sorry to ping you at the time of starting this thread, i thought your inputs will be helpful. Anyway thanks to you.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven the list given in Taher is a comprehensive list and it excludes Dravidians. The list is given in the table here: https: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=People_of_Assam&oldid=96459468#Colonial_and_Post-Independence (The current state is in a state of disrepair). thanks for your contribution some time back based on Mohd. Taher again. Taher lists 11 major "waves" of ingress which are listed in the table. So not including Dravidians in this list is rejecting the Dravidians.we already discussed Mohd. Taher as isolated source and its treatment in our current discussion above.The most comprehensive examination of the Dravidian question appears in the work of P C Choudhury "https: //archive.org/details/HistoryOfThePeopleOfAssam History of the People Of Assam", where he rejects many claims of the Dravidian elements (e.g, that the Kamakhya Temple was Dravidian origin, as claimed by K L Baruah; we already covered Kamakhya temple in our talk page discussion.that the Koch had Dravidian "blood", as claimed by Risley; that the Nagas had Dravidian blood, as discussed by Hutton). Choudhury's critique is not modern though, since his claim of an Alpine race is today not considered seriously. you brought whole lot of random things, which are not in scope of above sources. Most of the references provided by user:Bhaskarbhagawati mention cursorily without an examination of the issue. The claim in that these references, though reliable on other issues, is not reliable on the claim of Dravidian element in Assam.How can they both reliable and unreliable on same time, in our earlier discussion as linked above, i requested you for sources, which you did not responded.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that disregarding a reliable source just because an editor feels like they "use 'Dravidian' as a racial term" is a clear violation of WP:NOR. It is not our place to fact-check reliable sources, just to report what they say. Furthermore, is there even any evidence (cite specific RS please, not just yes or no answer) that the people referred to by these sources as "racially" Dravidian are actually a different group of people than the people referred to by other sources as "ethno-linguistically" Dravidian? Or is is just the fact that they term them a "race" rather than an "ethno-linguistic group"? Because our understanding of race may have changed over the years, but that doesn't mean that they are referring to different groups of people. They may have been mistaken about biological race, but still correct about which groups of people were involved in migrations. Also note that WP:3O does not determine binding resolutions, it simply offers a non-binding third opinion on debates that exist exclusively between two editors, and would be superseded by a consensus decision here or elsewhere. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

UnequivocalAmbivalence thanks, your are helpful, we are now in a position to settle the issue through your and other volunteers comments as above.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. The question was whether these sources are reliable for the claims of significant Dravidian influence in ancient Assam. I suggest that they raise two main issues.
First, they make no mention of serious linguistic or historical or archaeological analysis to support this claim. Indeed, they all seem to be using the confused and outdated concept of a Dravidian "race", mixing genetic and linguistic concepts, and I suspect that they merely repeat long-held assumptions (reasonable enough as assumptions and at the time) that "Dravidians" formed the basal population of the whole of India.
Second, they make no mention of serious genetic analysis to support the idea of a major early contribution from the ancient south Indian population. Indeed, they pre-date the availability of relevant genetic analyses.
Thus, I do not find them reliable for the specific and unqualified claim that "Dravidians" formed a major part of the population of ancient Assam. (It seems to be uncontested that Dravidian words are a significant element in modern Assamese, and that Dravidian-speaking people have moved into Assam in significant numbers in the last few centuries. This may form the basis for a consensus text in due course.)
I hope this helps. I don't propose to comment further on the subject. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
If you don't wish to answer I understand, but a question does come to mind. Considering the current wording (With Dravidian included in parentheses where it was removed prior to this debate) is "They are a physically diverse group formed after centuries of assimilation of Austroasiatic, (Dravidian,) Indo-Aryan, Tibeto-Burman and Tai populations." is the sourcing for the other groups in that sentence markedly stronger than the sourcing for Dravidians? As far as I can tell the sources proffered above are quite comparable to many of the sources used for other information in that article, in particular the sourcing for that specific sentence (Fragmented Memories: Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India By Yasmin Saikia) does not seem to me to be somehow more authoritative. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I would also add I find it odd that there is such a debate about sourced and cited information in an article that contains a large amount of material that has remained uncited for quite a long time. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I was limiting my comments to the specific question and sources about Dravidians. (I only arrived here in response to a request for a third opinion.) But no, that source isn't obviously better for other ethno-linguistic groups, and it continues the confusion between genetics and linguistics. To broaden the response, I would suggest rewriting the section rather than arguing about this one detail. I would hope to see a brief account, referring to evidence, of the modern linguistic and genetic communities of Assam, together with comments, again based on what evidence may be available, on the dates when these communities arrived in the region. I suggest that this would be more informative and would avoid making inappropriately-definite comments in Wikipedia's voice. It might also help to cool down culturally-sensitive points. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@UnequivocalAmbivalence: The "Austro-Asiatic, Tibeto-Burman, Indo-Aryan and Tai" are linguistic groups---languages that are found in Assam (or nearby) today (Khasi people). There is genetic evidence that Austro-Asiatic people have provided genetic material to the entire indigenous population of Northeast. There are evidence of the Tibeto-Burman languages and ethno-linguistic groups (Bodo people, Dimasa people) etc.
All the sources Bhaskarbhagawati has provided are regarding other subjects, and makes cursory mention of Dravidians. Note:
  • Taher, M (2001) This is the only reliable source. It addresses immigration directly and provides a comprehensive list of 11 "waves". This list does not include Dravidians.
  • Baruah, Roy Choudhury, Amlan, S. B. (1999) is a government document, where the claim that the Dravidian is the second group is not referenced.
  • Kunda, Bijan Kumar (2007) writes about the Assam Accord and makes cursory reference to the Dravidians.
  • Kalita, Bharat (2006) too just makes a cursory reference.
  • Mali, Dharani Dhar (1989). Economic problems & planning in Assam. is a document on economics. It is probably reliable for economics, but not for this purpose.
  • Barua, Dasa, Harendranath, Yogesa (1992) Is a memorial piece, that again makes cursory reference.
  • Deka, K. (1978) Again makes a cursory reference.
  • Barua, Hem (1956) Hem Barua's work too makes a cursory mention.
  • Goswami, Kali Prasad (1998) is a work on the Kamakhya temple. It cites nameless "ethnologists" to support Dravidian elements.
Etc. None of these works have critically examined these evidence. This might look voluminous, but this list is the result of a google search and the resultant false positives. The only reliable source which addresses this issue directly and not cursorily in the context of other subjects is Taher.
Chaipau (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Keatinge: I agree with you, good idea. The right place for that is People of Assam. Unfortunately, that article is in a state of disrepair curently. That is the place where each group can be individually discussed. I shall make an attempt there. Chaipau (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
You say "Taher, M (2001)" is the "only reliable source", and that it has a "comprehensive list" of immigration. Firstly, I see nothing about this source that would indicate it is any more reliable about this subject than the other sources. "Assam: An Introduction" by Taher, M is merely a preface chapter to a book about geography, and the quoted section says things like "The first group of migrants to settle in this part of the country is perhaps....The second group of migrants came to Assam from the north, north-east and east. They are mostly...." This does not seem like the source claims this list is comprehensive, it doesn't seem any less cursory of a reference than any of the other sources, and you cannot use the fact that a source doesn't mention them to say that they weren't there. That is original research. You cannot say "There were no Dravidians because this source doesn't mention them", the source has to actually say they weren't there if you want to counter other reliable sources. And you say "There are evidence of the Tibeto-Burman languages" but Richard Keatinge said "It seems to be uncontested that Dravidian words are a significant element in modern Assamese" so how is that different? How is the sourcing for the other claims being made any more reliable than these, other than that you personally have deemed only the source that (sort of) agrees with you to be the sole reliable source? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@UnequivocalAmbivalence: That particular reference (Taher) is not the primary source, but a review of the state of knowledge at that point. It was an invited article for the collection of articles in the book, and enjoys broad academic consensus on the subject. The perhaps is in academic-anese, keeping open the possibility that there could be other people before the Austro-asiatic. One possibility is the original hunter-gatherers that populated the Indian subcontinent in the out-of-Africa scenario, on the way to Australia. So Taher is justified in using perhaps there.
The problem in using "Dravidian" is further compounded by the fact there exists no "Dravidian" race today. Dravidian people are a linguistic group today. The Dravidian languages had already formed a substratum to Vedic Sanskrit, so the Dravidian linguistic elements present in Assamese today are most likely due to presence of Indo-Aryan languages in Assam. You may now object to my use of "most likely", which I have used to keep the question open. But I can say for certain that in the period of consideration, no direct Dravidian linguistic evidence has been seen. In fact it is possible that Austro-Asiatic influenced Dravidian languages in peninsular India.
OTOH, as far as peoples is concerned, the concept of race has been totally eclipsed by new genetic findings. People no longer use the term "Dravidian" to talk of the people of South India, but "Ancestral South Indian who are Iranian agriculturalists, Indian hunter-gatherers (" while ASI was formed out of "Indus_Periphery-related groups" who moved south and mixed with hunter-gatherers." So, here are the major objections to using the term "Dravidian" in the above sentence:
  • All the sources cited above (except Taher) make cursory references to Dravidian.
  • Taher, who represents the academic consensus, does not include Dravidian.
  • The Dravidian hypothesis has been challenged by authors like P C Choudhury very extensively. (I shall collect them and put them below)
  • Dravidian is no longer used "racially" or anthropoligically. The correct genetic terminology is "Ancestral South Indian". The presence of this group in Assam/Northeast India is still not known.
  • No direct Dravidian language in Assam has been demonstrated in the period under consideration (between Austro-asiatic and Tibeto-Burman ingress).
Chaipau (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Richard_Keatinge thanks for your comments above and in article talk, first you need to understand this issue is not culturally sensitive, it is commonly used in Assam, including by government agencies. The sources talks about Dravidian people when they formed part of northern Indian population (not south). The only source Chaipau based his notion is Mohd. Taher, who has no background as historian. The usage of perhaps as pointed out by UnequivocalAmbivalence explains his speculation. The academic consensus is what majority sources says above, which is used academically. We also discussed how race can also be used for "a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc" in earlier talk discussions.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, "race" has been used to mean "a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc". While it has some relationship to reality, it is fundamentally confused and is not a satisfactory definition. For Wikipedia we should be clear about what we mean, whether genetics, language, or whatever. I really do intend to shut up at this point. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Since user:Bhaskarbhagawati is discounting Taher, it should be pointed out that his is a standard work. Also peopling is not necessarily in the domain of historians alone. The people who are propounding these racial categories are anthropologists from a by-gone era who used craniometry. Besides giving out inaccurate results in the case of Assam (as Taher mentions below), it is no longer used—having being supplanted by genetic studies. All the references given by Bhaskarbhagawati are are quoting results based on these discredited methods.

  • The standard reference is Taher (1993) "The peopling of Assam and contemporary social structure." in Aijazuddin Ahmad (ed) "Social Structure and Regional Development: A Social Geography Perspective", freely available here.
  • As we have been doing here, he explicitly points out to the problem of using physical measurements to find out the racial types: "The racial traits, reflected through the physical features of individuals, are of such a varying degree that it is perhaps safer to divide the State’s population into ethnolinguistic groups." (emphasis mine)
  • That any critical work considers Taher as standard today, is given here: In Swarupa Gupta's critical examination.
  • That it is standard is also borne by the fact that this is Taher's work is substantially reproduced in the book 'Geography of Assam'.

Chaipau (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not disputing that Taher is an acceptable reference, I am saying that (a) it doesn't seem to be substantially better or more reliable than the other sources, and (b) it still does not directly contradict the other sources. To do so violates our policies on original research and synthesis of sources. You cannot use your own knowledge to disregard or disprove a reliable source, and you cannot use a source to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in the source. Taher would have to explicitly say that the other sources are wrong for you to use it as a reference to prove that the other sources are wrong. As for the P C Choudhury reference, that is from 1959, so if that is the most comprehensive work on the subject it must share many of the racial classification errors as the other old citations, yes? UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@UnequivocalAmbivalence: Let me address each of the issues you have raised separately—
  • Taher (1993) is definitely a more reliable source than the other sources. It is a critical work, that specifically addresses the issue of peopling in Assam. That is the main subject of Taher (1993). It explicit rejects the racial categories on the basis that they produced unreliable results—here is his quote in full: "With this hazy background, a probe into the present population of Assam reveals four racial traits, viz., Proto-Australoid, Mongoloid, Aryo-Mongoloid, and Aryo-Mongolo-Dravidian. The racial traits, reflected through the physical features of individuals, are of such a varying degree that it is perhaps safer to divide the State’s population into ethnolinguistic groups. Such a division provides three major groups, viz., one group speaking an Austro-Asiatic, another speaking Tibeto-Chinese and still another speaking Indo-European families of languages." (emphasis mine). This is an explicit rejection of the "racial traits" approach to the problem that yield unreliable results ("varying degree"). He has explicitly rejected the racial categories ("Proto-Australoid, Mongoloid, Aryo-Mongoloid, and Aryo-Mongolo-Dravidian") and is using ethno-linguistic categories instead ("Austro-Asiatic", "Tibeto-Chinese" and "Indo-European"), as you require.
  • The other sources that Bhaskarbhagawati has provided are works that are not about the peopling of Assam. Some of them are about Temples, Goddesses, background material in a government gazatte, current politics etc. They make cursory reference to the racial types. If the authors were to remove the reference of Dravidian, nothing would be lost from their articles. The only work that makes a critical analysis is Hem Barua (1956) but which is old and from the time when the use of racial categories was still popular. All of them hark back to the initial work done by Risley and Hutton etc., colonial era anthropologists, without naming them. On the other hand, critical work on peopling today uses Taher's ethno-linguistic approach, as I have shown with the example of Swarupa Gupta.
  • So, could we use P C Choudhury to discount the Dravidian hypothesis? Yes, because his is an example of how the racial method fails. He has been able to disprove the Dravidian hypothesis, using the same methods as the other anthropologists, and then he was able to introduce a new racial type in the peopling of Assam (Alpine people). This is what Taher (1993) is calling "racial traits ... of such varying degree". Racial types should be avoided because it yields unreliable results.
  • So is this WP:OR? No, because we are not saying anything new. We are using Taher (1993). So are the other sources reliable: Probably yes, in the own areas of expertise, but not in the area of peopling of Assam. We cannot use WP:RS to introduce the results of a discredited methodology, under WP:COMMON.
So following user:Richard Keatinge's suggestion, we could mention the work with racial types in the People of Assam in a separate section, but take out the racial type "Dravidian" from the list of ethnolingusitic groups as are current in Assamese people.
Chaipau (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Since user:Bhaskarbhagawati is discounting Taher, it should be pointed out that his is a standard work.refer to p.202 (the same page where he mentioned migration chronology of Assam) of Mohd. Taher's chapter, he wrote "with this hazy background, a probe into the present population of Assam reveals four racial traits, viz., Proto-Austroloid, Mongoloid, Aryo-Mongoloid, and Aryo-Mongolo-Dravidian. The racial traits, reflected through the facial features of individuals, are of such varying degree that it is perhaps safer to divide the state's population into ethnolinguistic groups." although he keep out Dravidian people from migration list, he referred to Dravidian racial traits of Assamese people. We can also observe that he using race and ethnolinguistic groups not synonymously, my question is is he using some discredited racist theory (as frequently brought by Chaipau). Also peopling is not necessarily in the domain of historians alone. Mohd. Taher had geography educational background, he worked in geography department of Gauhati University, thus his comments on historical matter are not out of ordinary as tiny-minority view which can override what is majority consensus in Assam.The people who are propounding these racial categories are anthropologists from a by-gone era who used craniometry.i never come across any work by any Assamese scholar who used craniometry in his study. Besides giving out inaccurate results in the case of Assam (as Taher mentions below), it is no longer used—having being supplanted by genetic studies. why we need genetic studies to say something about Dravidian ethno-linguistic group.The standard reference is Taher (1993) "The peopling of Assam and contemporary social structure." in Aijazuddin Ahmad (ed) "Social Structure and Regional Development: A Social Geography Perspective", freely available here. As we have been doing here, he explicitly points out to the problem of using physical measurements to find out the racial types: "The racial traits, reflected through the physical features of individuals, are of such a varying degree that it is perhaps safer to divide the State’s population into ethnolinguistic groups." (emphasis mine) we already pointed out how wording of Mohd. Taher is not passing reliability standards as even as set by you. That any critical work considers Taher as standard today, is given here: In Swarupa Gupta's critical examination. it is what false positive of google search gives you, as you mentioned above (which you are using to buttress to your claim), she as amateur author referred what other are saying on the her subject, which included authors like Manilal Bose and Mohd. Taher, the former not necessarily a exceptional scholar.That it is standard is also borne by the fact that this is Taher's work is substantially reproduced in the book 'Geography of Assam'. both the work you are mentioning is work on geography, where Mohd. Taher offered a chapter as fellow geographer.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I am thankful to Richard Keatinge for his new insights on the subject, Chaipau thanks to you too for your other detailed previous posts above, although i feel it violates wp:nor, i believe "how we use sources in wikipedia" is helpful, as we discussed sometime back.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Chaipau in your last comment [38] which suppose to follow my last one, you are reinstating your position. But i don't think Mohd. Taher is authority on the subject, as discussed earlier. All the above citations are from books which explicitly based on Assam, its culture, society, history; written by local authors backed by others (i think above are enough).भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Bhaskarbhagawati, I do not understand how you are using 'local authors' here, or how it is relevant. Nevertheless, the current culture, society, history etc are dependent on the pre-historic immigrations, not the other way around. Moreover, the racial categories were created by British authors, who were colonial administrators of the time, who are definitely outsiders. And Mohammed Taher was born in Khutakatiya, near lakhimpur Town in Assam [39], with a PhD from University of Auckland and an author of more than 30 books, both in Assamese and English. You are making frivolous, irrelevant and inaccurate statements. Chaipau (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a long thread and I am not reading it all. Just in case, though, the racial categories were created by British authors, who were colonial administrators of the time, who are definitely outsiders is something of a red flag. We should not be using stuff from the Raj era. See, for example, the background info at User:Sitush/Common#Castesources. So, if we are using such sources at the article, or proposing use of them, please try not to do so. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Chaipau what i am trying to say is Mohd. Taher is not a authority on the subject and isolated from mainstream, of course he is local. Sitush, welcome to discussion, i do agree with you colonial authors are inappropriate to use, we are not using so nor using four broad category of racial group, i.e. caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid and australoid. We are discussing Dravidian people, consider reading entire thread.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: @Bhaskarbhagawati: without a doubt the racial categories these authors are using above were created by colonial administrators. They are defined in Risley's 1908 The People of India, Chapter 1 Physical types: "Aryo-Dravidian", "Mongolo-Dravidian", "Dravidian", "Mongoloid", etc. They are defined using facial features such as this—"In typical specimens the stature is short or below mean; the complexion very dark, approaching black ; hair plentiful with an occasional tendency to curl ; eyes dark ; head long ; nose very broad, sometimes depressed at the root, but not so as to make the face appear flat." (p33) This is the racial profiling that Taher gently critiques using an academic argument when he writes: "The racial traits, reflected through the physical features of individuals, are of such a varying degree that it is perhaps safer to divide the State’s population into ethnolinguistic groups." Chaipau (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Chaipau, i am tired of keep referring wikipedia's policy of no original research. We made our points, let noticeboard volunteers decide what is appropriate for wikipedia,@UnequivocalAmbivalence, Slatersteven and others.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Dismissive comments like that suggest that basic information about the sources is being overlooked, typical for cultural disputes like these that end up with blocks and bans.
Basic information about the sources either hasn't been provided or is lost in this huge wall of text. I suggest dropping it, or find what you feel is the absolutely best source and write up a new RSN request. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, thanks for commenting, i not dismissing him, the point is already addressed several times, despite it is brought all over new. The issue is not a cultural dispute, it is mainstream in Assam (refer to my earlier posts). If wp:rsn decides that above books and authors are unreliable and blocked from used in wikipedia, i will definitely drop the issue.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Chaipau, if Dravidian is racist, consider Indo-Aryan too as racist as used by him in the same page, followed by Mohd. Taher, as provided by you.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Bhaskarbhagawati, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan are used today to denote linguistic types. Not racial types. But the sources you have put up are using them as racial types. The evidence of Indo-Aryan language in Assam are the rock and copper plate inscriptions from the 5th century. Do you have any source that shows Dravidian languages in Assam after the ingress of the Austro-Asiatic? Chaipau (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Bhaskarbhagawati, Dravidian and Indo-Aryan are used today to denote linguistic types. Not racial types. now you believe Dravidian is ethno-linguistic group not a race, as used by Assamese scholars.But the sources you have put up are using them as racial types.Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burmans, Aryan as used by them are not races of human, also you don't have issues with other groups.The evidence of Indo-Aryan language in Assam are the rock and copper plate inscriptions from the 5th century. Do you have any source that shows Dravidian languages in Assam after the ingress of the Austro-Asiatic? refer to Sharma (1995) and others. Looking for evidences by editors is also not permitted. Omitting Dravidian people from the list is erasing history of Bania and Kaivarta people, thus overlooking their existence, nobody in Assam done that, nor wikipedia article which you recently edited and removed Dravidian.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Bhaskarbhagawati, just to clarify:
  • Some of names of older racial categories are today used purely in a linguistic sense. Dravidian ("people who speak a Dravidian langauge"), Aryan ("self-designation of the Indo-Iranian speaking people") and so on. But the sources you provide use Dravidian as a racial category. This is demonstrated by Taher 1993—when he drops racial categories, he drops, for example, "Mongoloid" (which is not a linguistic category) along with "Dravidian". If you claim a source above is mentioning "Dravidian" as a linguistic category, then you have to show which study it is referring to that established the direct immigration of the linguistic Dravidian into Assam before the Tibeto-Burman.
  • Bania and Kaivartas, also mentioned in Risley, are not linguistic groups.
Chaipau (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Some of names of older racial categories are today used purely in a linguistic sense. Dravidian ("people who speak a Dravidian langauge"), Aryan ("self-designation of the Indo-Iranian speaking people") and so on. i explained in last post how they are not races of humankind, never used such by local authors. But the sources you provide use Dravidian as a racial category. i answered it before This is demonstrated by Taher 1993—when he drops racial categories, he drops, for example, "Mongoloid" (which is not a linguistic category) along with "Dravidian". kindly refer to his work again, where he continously used 'race','racial','caucasoid', 'Aryo-Dravidian', 'mongoloid' etc.If you claim a source above is mentioning "Dravidian" as a linguistic category, then you have to show which study it is referring to that established the direct immigration of the linguistic Dravidian into Assam before the Tibeto-Burman.first try the same for Mohd. Tahers chronology. And i made new addition to above citations, you should too consider adding more, don't stick to just one source. Bania and Kaivartas, also mentioned in Risley, are not linguistic groups. are they also races of human ?भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Bhaskarbhagawati, these comment may be helpful. If I understand you correctly, you believe that Assamese Banias and Kaivartas are in some sense Dravidian, either in terms of language or physical type or genetics. And that their forebears arrived in Assam before the modern period. Now, we no longer regard assessments of physical type as useful to make that sort of judgement, however popular those judgements have been and in some quarters may still be. It is inappropriate to include them in Wikipedia. But if you can produce evidence that the ancestors of Bania or Kaivarta castes in Assam:

1) have a large element of genes from Ancient South India, and/or

2) are continuous with speakers of Dravidian languages

you may certainly include these points. So far, no such evidence has been produced. If you cannot produce such evidence, please stop belabouring this matter, which has already taken far more time and space than it justifies. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, no i don't have pet theories or personal beliefs on the subject, i am reproducing what sources saying, if it is decided they are unreliable and blocked to used further, i have no issue. I like to point out we settled the issue long back, so time is not a factor here on my part. I believe all the sources passes reliability test as prescribed in Wikipedia:Verifiability.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a rather long discussion, I am providing a TL;DR below. And since I and Bhaskarbhagawati are the two claimants here, I request others to kindly edit, modify and replace it as necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, Chaipau thanks for TL;DR, although i don't agree with the summary below, The references given in Talk:Assamese_people#References are reliable, i currently asking here are they and since they mention Dravidian as one of the immigrant groups, we should include Dravidian as a constituent in Assamese people. consider differentiating between Assamese people and People of Assam, former is a ethno-linguistic group speaking Assamese language as first language, later is all native residents.
I am providing many references.You are providing only one. for academic consensus These claims are based on racial categorizations that were established more than hundred years ago by colonial administrators and they offer unreliable results.no they are recent and post colonial works based on ethno-linguistic groups, some newer than your source.These sources may be reliable in their respective main areas of focus, but they are not reliable on their use of racial categories. Taher 1993 is quoted by other scholars whose main focus is peopling.works of pioneers like Hem Barua and others are quoted by numerous scholars including government agencies, not just once as in case of Taher. The above works are too based on peopling, but by experts, peopling is not field of expertise of Mohd. Taher, nor he provided any references of other scholarly work, thus lax and racist (extensively used outdated racist terms), a isolated minority.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Bhaskarbhagawati, you raise additional issues, which I think are not relevant to this thread. But as far as claiming "academic consensus", you are wrong. A survey of Physical Anthropologists concludes Our data indicate there has been a “dramatic rejection” of race concepts among professional anthropologists regardless of subfield. We observed consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists but as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health. Wagner et.al (2017) "Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics", Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017 Feb; 162(2): 318–327.
Chaipau (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The above is general study, unrelated to the subject.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 14:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

TL;DR

  • Claim: Are the references in Talk:Assamese_people#References reliable?
  • Counter-claim: These references are not reliable in so far as their racial categories are concerned since they were established more than a hundred years ago by colonial administrators and they offer unreliable results. Immigrant categorizations today are based on linguistic or genetic evidence and those based on racial categories are rejected. (Taher, 1993).
  • Claim 2: I am providing many references; and demonstrating academic consensus. You are providing an isolated minority.
  • Counter-claim 2: A survey of Anthropologists concludes that "there has been a “dramatic rejection” of race concepts among professional anthropologists regardless of subfield." (Wagner et. al. 2017) [40]

-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaipau (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Proceedings World Geothermal Congress

Specifically, this PDF. I was wondering whether it can be used to source a statement on Coropuna about that volcano being a low-priority geothermal zone. Thoughts? I am not so familiar with geothermal sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News downgrade?

Our list of perennial sources correctly differentiates Buzzfeed from Buzzfeed News, however the latter is listed "green" as "generally reliable", which in the light of recent controversies seems to be a questionable assessment. Should it now be moved to the "yellow" level instead? — JFG talk 18:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It would be bizarre to downgrade Buzzfeed News' status[41]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Buzzfeed appears to have substantial ongoing economic woes. https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2019/02/08/buzzfeeds-minneapolis-headcount-cut-by-over-25.html https://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-buzz-feed-digital-media-layoffs-20190203-story.html and so on, reducing its actual editorial staff greatly. https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/buzzfeed-layoffs-national-news-desk-1203118080/ Its "national news team" is gone. Future "news stories" from "Buzzfeed News" thus are not the product of a genuine journalistic staff with any fact-checking in future. https://www.businessinsider.com/2019-media-layoffs-job-cuts-at-buzzfeed-huffpost-vice-details-2019-2 "In a memo published by Digiday on Tuesday, Peretti said the company would refocus its efforts on BuzzFeed Originals (home to quizzes and viral videos), commerce content, branded content, and branded production and publishing." Not News. Collect (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
(1) "Future "news stories" from "Buzzfeed News" thus are not the product of a genuine journalistic staff with any fact-checking in future" [citation needed]. (2) The final quote has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. (3) It's strange how an outlet which is "not news" gets nominated for and wins prestigious journalism awards every year. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I am attacking no one -- but "getting journalism awards" in the future with no employed journalists would seem an interesting concept. Mu point was that Buzzfeed News is in a major transition state, at best. The point about their national news bureau was cited above, but it appears it was not noted.
" New details trickled out about the layoffs across BuzzFeed’s news division Friday, and the picture hasn’t been pretty: The publication’s entire national news desk has been laid off, as has almost the entire national security team, according to a source close to the company as well as tweets from affected writers and editors." From Variety as linked above. Collect (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
"with no employed journalists" - what are you talking about? One fifth of the news division has been laid off.[42] It's not the entire news division. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
No. All serious news publishers screw up from time to time (even first-tier sources such as the New York Times and BBC have had to apologise for serious errors in coverage), and Buzzfeed News is no exception. As noted above, it is a well regarded news source. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No... but... Buzzfeed was a real journalism site, but is it still? I think it likely that the recent changes in staffing and direction will greatly impact how we look at the site and it’s reliability. It may help to distinguish between “pre-2019 Buzzfeed” and “post-2019 Buzzfeed”... considering them as two distinct entities when it comes to reliability. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm honestly surprised this was ever considered usable to begin with when often conflated with the user-generated content that Buzzfeed is known to often post. Sure there are journalistic publications held in high regard that make mistakes and still are overall trusted for their general accuracy (as noted above), but I can't say Buzzfeed was overall ever as respected as NYT, BBC, or anything of that nature. Something we could ask ourselves is this: would any of us use Buzzfeed or Buzzfeed News as a source for any academic or work-related project? I know it wouldn't go well if I did that, and try to uphold the same standards in Wikipedia articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    "would any of us use Buzzfeed or Buzzfeed News as a source for any academic or work-related project?" Absolutely. To the extent that "it wouldn't go well", it would be because people are generally unaware of changes in journalism and media in the last five yrs. Nobody who knows journalism disputes that Buzzfeed News is a legit news outlet - the fact that it gets nominated for and wins prestigious journalism awards ever year should be sufficient. Wikipedia editors who argue that it's not a RS should really explain how this "not news" outlet manages to win and get nominated for these awards - what precisely do these Wikipedia editors know that the Pulitzer Prize people do not?[43] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You do have a point with the awards. To be fair, most of them came after I had finished my education entirely, so perhaps my professors would have different thoughts today than they would have when teaching me and my current bosses wouldn't have such reservations as they would have in the past. One possible solution that comes to mind regardless is handling it in a way similar to Forbes, whose staff is trustworthy while its guest contributors are often questioned if not flat out rejected. I'm not saying we should simply call Buzzfeed News entirely bad these days, only that we should be cautious with it, especially given the recent layoffs mentioned in this thread and how people can (understandably) confuse it with Buzzfeed's user-generated content. We can also use the idea of making distinctions for pieces used prior to 2019 and those used in 2019 onward that Blueboar brought up. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, yes. People do cite it quite often. Check Google Scholar yourself. Many of those are papers about Buzzfeed, but scroll through and you'll see plenty of cites to it - and of the papers about it do treat it seriously as a news source, eg. [44] and [45]. Note particularly the end of the abstract from the second source: The analysis found that while news articles produced by BuzzFeed are exhibiting some departures from traditional journalistic practice, in general, BuzzFeed is playing by the rules, which might explain its legitimation as a recognized agent in the field. --Aquillion (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • BuzzFeed News acquired a better reputation after their news articles were moved from the buzzfeed.com domain to the buzzfeednews.com domain in 2018. At that point, there was a clear separation between BuzzFeed's entertainment content (which should be considered generally unreliable) and their news content (which has previously been well-received). The BuzzFeed News staff layoffs are unfortunate, but I'm refraining from making a judgment until there is enough post-2019 content to evaluate. This looks like a "wait and see" situation similar to the Daily Mail's editor change, which was discussed in its second RfC. As Blueboar mentioned, we may need to split the entry at WP:RSP again or at least make a note of the staff changes. — Newslinger talk 01:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A cautious Yes, mostly per Collect. With such staff cuts, Buzzfeed would probably be more comparable to Daily Beast, Business Insider, IBTimes etc. than any widely reputable news outlet. Which is to say, generally usable for uncontroversial statements, but not particularly a good source. It's fair to say that Buzzfeed News at its height was at the same tier as a publication like Mother Jones (warranting a "generally reliable" rating), but I don't think anyone has ever considered Buzzfeed (news or not) to be comparable to, say, NYT or the New Yorker. feminist (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    "I don't think anyone has ever considered Buzzfeed (news or not) to be comparable to, say, NYT or the New Yorker." Except, you know, the Pulitzer Prize folks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    Your referring to the non win? Or Chris Pulitzer before he's there?--Moxy (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm referring to being a finalist for Pulitzer Prizes in the last two years. You can clink this link[46] if you are unfamiliar with the Pulitzer Prize. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    OK just making sure you were not imply they wow. Yes being one of the 10,000 is a good thing..... but does not negate the public's view of the site.--Moxy (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    AFAIK, there are 3 or so finalists (incl. the winner). Many of the news outlets firmly considered RS here haven't been finalists for a Pulitzer in ages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait It is a worthwhile question, but it is better to see how that shakes down in the next month or so in wake of these layoffs. Also, we should keep in mind BFN's archives, which still wholly remain valid sources. If we have to makr BFN differently, we need to set a date where its reliability changed. --Masem (t) 15:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact our readers may question the reliability of the site should make us realize we should use it sparingly and try to find better sources. But no need for a ban.... just need to cut down on the clickbait from them.--Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait - the staff cuts probably mean that Buzzfeed News will be scaling back on the ambitious original reporting that they've been doing recently, but that might well mean less risk of inaccuracy, not more. It's worth noting that widely accepted RSes like politifact.org do very little original reporting, but their editorial standards remain quite high. Nblund talk 20:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No/Wait per above...DN (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wait – WP:CRYSTAL states that we should not use Wikipedia for speculating. Assuming anything regarding future reliability is not appropriate.----ZiaLater (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes for the time being. There is enough of a question that we should hold off using them for contentious claims until the effects of the reshuffle are known. I am not saying they could not be reliable but it is better to be safe than sorry. PackMecEng (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No per Snooganssnoogans and ZiaLater Gandydancer (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No Such blacklisting or downgrading of status is only appropriate where the source is completely unacceptable. We don't know that the layoffs are likely to affect the journalistic integrity, and we also have no problem with their reliability before the layoffs. And we probably won't have a problem after. Layoffs happen all the time, it doesn't mean all of the existing citations suddenly become unreliable, nor does it mean they will turn into the Daily Mail instantly. --Jayron32 17:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hell No They've been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize the last two years. The fact that the Pulitzer committee considered them one of the three or four best media sources in that category makes me question how anyone could seriously believe they are unreliable unless this is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Smartyllama (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't wade into many of the Wiki articles where Buzzfeed is going to be a factor but I would be concerned about the bias of the reporting and the associated spin. Consider the examples raised in this Quillette article [[47]]. It seems that BuzzfeedNews (they call it Buzzfeed but the link goes to BFN) looked for inflammatory comments and quoted them out of context as a way to generate a controversy. A news source that tries to spin information to remove context or present what might be seen as reasonable to many in context as desirable should be concerning to all of us. If this is an isolated example so be it. But, it certainly doesn't speak highly of the source that they, based on the Quillette article, tried to magnify the controversy rather than try to explain the subject's original logic/thinking. That falls into advocacy rather than reporting. Springee (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    I think this sounds like more of an WP:UNDUE issue than one of reliability. feminist (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    There's nothing in that Quillette piece about Buzzfeed News taking anything out of context. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • NOT A GOOD QUESTION - that the perennial sources essay article is embarrassed by someone did a prominent oops is not a problem of RS but a question of that article’s quality - what it’s practices and behaviour or basis of judgement are. Personally, I view that article as baseless and just posturing personal biases so will not be surprised if it would jump without much of a push ... but if one wants to exhibit good journalistic standards it would seem to be not revisionist history typical of blogs but rather to leave the evaluation that was and acknowledge factual errors or concerns by adding a mention or footnote. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No, financial woes don't reduce a source's reliability. The quality of its reporting might drop in the future, but that wouldn't affect existing citations (which are from a period when it received multiple awards and significant attention from places like CJR noting its quality); if its reputation does drop in the future, we'd deal with it when it happens. The distinction between the news division and the opinion / listicle division has been discussed at length in previous discussions and is obviously still relevant, of course. See the cite I posted above: The analysis found that while news articles produced by BuzzFeed are exhibiting some departures from traditional journalistic practice, in general, BuzzFeed is playing by the rules, which might explain its legitimation as a recognized agent in the field. --Aquillion (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes A recent example of buzzfeed's bad reporting- [48]. I'm not really sure why this was considered reliable to begin with. Rusf10 (talk)
  • Wait and watch Can't preemptively deprecate news source that might go south in the future. If this is raised again please provide multiple examples of confirmed bad reporting after the layoffs. Also no provision made for older reliable articles in this !vote. Definitely worth keeping an eye on though. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Today, R. Kelly was indicted for 10 counts of aggravated sexual abuse. It was Buzzfeed News that broke the story of R. Kelly's sex cult. Last week, Buzzfeed News reported on YouTube's promotion of anti-vax propaganda,[49] forcing YouTube to change its policies.[50] These are just two examples of good journalism from Buzzfeed News that had a high and positive public impact just today. Amazingly, it turns out that a news outlet that has been a finalist and/or winner of every prestigious journalism award in the last few years is actually a good news outlet. I'd like to note that not a single editor who has called for Buzzfeed News' downgrading has accounted for why their opinion should be considered more authoritative than, say, the Pulitzer Prize folks, and why all those prestigious awards keep failing to understand that this is a "Not News" outlet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No. Maybe another day, but at this point we have a news source considered award-worthy v what amounts more to a prediction that they're going downhill journalistically than actual fact.Jacona (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Current headlines: https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/ariana-grande-beat-selena-gomez-most-followed-instagram?ref=hpsplash , https://www.buzzfeed.com/katieglider/products-for-your-shower-that-our-readers-actually-swear?origin=hpp-acpv2 , https://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click%253Fxai%253DAKAOjssmhY16Qx34eYWXDBfKlunMiJrA9qjxV6mBzZ70onx0V1qxQM1cjp7Lm4DsXVmuN0gHtivI7eon0I3-tyTui0G_K0nanMP8vgp0aMuD77HscJ-bcSMsrxSAnNaXkxa2kekaKyBzTIJElJM6cpKN3r9nsVJ1K6GFpq0nLQmyzYYMM2cNlC0Ws-0zJdZ8Kt3UDp0dbHXX_5o6c_6hRtCBSi1jsFRXmfwGYA5X6cIFySNIO6vuRgPf7U4I1l74NNkS7gc9RROnKhfvvVQ%2526sai%253DAMfl-YSdsj-oKwmAHMn2B9UA1Lf8C7WwpA2DkkXPT43FqZ1Ows3If113ksNkCIngpbY9uVOvkihjZatBxHB7N5pTdHsvimHX8bKUG_9R0INL%2526sig%253DCg0ArKJSzEuaU3p-uq63EAE%2526urlfix%253D1%2526adurl%253Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.buzzfeed.com%2Fgracespelman%2Fheres-how-to-plan-a-super-fun-viewing-party-on-a-budget , https://www.buzzfeed.com/ignaciafulcher/super-cheap-products-to-keep-your-apartment-organized , https://www.buzzfeed.com/elliewoodward/khloe-kardashian-sending-tristan-message-new-instagram and so on. On Buzzfeed News: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/this-canadian-dad-micd-up-his-son-at-hockey-practice-and?ref=bfnsplash , https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/trump-matthew-whitaker-appointment-memo , https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/gabrielsanchez/powerful-photos-african-american-black-feminine-lens and so on. The big "news"? A newly released document regarding former acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker’s appointment shows that, at the earliest, President Donald Trump authorized Whitaker to lead the Justice Department a day later than officials previously said was the case. Sorry, the era of Buzzfeed actually being "serious journalism" has passed. Collect (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite having declared that Buzzfeed News is "Not News", you still don't seem to have realized that there is a difference between Buzzfeed News and Buzzfeed (calling into question whether you're actually familiar with the subject). And there's nothing wrong with the Buzzfeed News stories that you linked. I eagerly anticipate hearing why you are so disturbed by a photo essay about African-American women... And again, no explanation provided why Buzzfeed News has managed to win or be a finalist for every prestigious journalism in the last few years despite being "Not News". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Despite me making clear the difference, some folks prefer to snidely attack the other editor. As for asserting that I said Buzzfeed News is "Not News" I used the term to refer to the Buzzfeed "branded content" which no one in hell could call "news." And which I gave several examples of. Again attacking me personally does not impress anyone at all. Now back up a bit and relax. And deal with what I write and not what you think is an easy target. Collect (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

'

Peru für Trekker und Bergsteiger (mountaineering)

Greetings, is someone familiar enough with mountaineering sources to judge whether this source could be used on the Coropuna article? It's published by Bergverlag Rother and some of its books have been used as source by others, but I can't judge the author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is a YouTube video sufficient to call James Allsup a holocaust denier

It's this edit[51] at James Allsup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "In the past, Allsup has engaged in Holocaust denial, when during an episode of his Nationalist Review podcast, he made the comment, "It's been Syria where apparently Assad, 'he's gassing his own people. They're getting gassed, oh my God.' When, you know, that all turns out to be bullshit. You know, imagine that, somebody lying about people getting gassed."[52]

I don't think it is, but I'm unhappy that there might be meatpuppets participating in the edit war and the discussion at Talk:James Allsup after a YouTuber with the same name as the person who first removed it put up a video discussing Wikipedia and specifically the James Allsup article.[53] I'd like a definitive answer so we can put this dispute to bed. I've already said I don't think its a reliable source. I'll ping the editors involved: @Jean-Francois Gariepy, Nate Hooper, Excluzziver, Grayfell, Beyond My Ken, and Ewen Douglas: Doug Weller talk 15:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

No by so many means: We can't take what he said ourselves and call that holocaust denier as that would be OR. If I understand the referenced video, that's a third-party making that claim but there's no sign this person is an expert in the area so that would not be sufficient (if it were a significantly-respect media personality like Anderson Cooper or the like making that claim, that might be difference). And then it is only one voice, so again, unless we're talking a key expert that is recognized , we can't base it on a single source. --Masem (t) 15:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
YouTube is a self-publishing mechanism, so unless it is a video published by the subject talking about themselves it is not reliable for any form of BLP information. Only other exception is a otherwise reliable publisher also publishing their video on YouTube. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The Newsweek source is talking about James Allsup as a far right activist but shifts to Jones as a holocaust denier. Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ack, you're right - I misread it. In that case, I can't find anything outside the YT video to support the claim, regardless of whether it's true or not. Black Kite (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Generally, almost never no; per Kyohyi, however, if it's the official channel of an otherwise reputable source, then we could treat it as we would treat that source in any other format. In this particular case, it's clearly OR to use that quote to demonstrate Holocaust Denial as commonly understood, when the individual is talking about 20th-century Syria (trying to avoid the question of other historical holocausts, of course). ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Allsup has made comments in re: Holocaust; from Center for Public Integrity:
  • On Facebook, James Allsup, a right-wing advocate, posted a photo comparing migrant children at the border to Jewish people behind a fence during the Holocaust with the caption, “They present it like it’s a bad thing #BuildTheWall.”
Source: SOCIAL MEDIA: WHERE VOICES OF HATE FIND A PLACE TO PREACH by Kianna Gardner (August 30, 2018)
This is definitely denial territory, although the source does not explicitly state it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem is similar to one I just encountered when trying to find a reliable source for listing Christian Identity preacher Wesley A. Swift as a Holocaust denier. The sources all pointed in that direction, but none of them actually said it outright. I think he probably was, given his virulent anti-Semitic viewpoint, but I just cannot find something to back that feeling up. Allsup looks to me to be in the same kind of place: his comments point to a Holocaust-denying POV, but noone's actually positively identified him as such. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Basically what everyone has already said. Primary sources in the form of a Youtube video wouldn't be sufficient for any contentious claim about a living person unless the video was itself from a reliable secondary source (like a video from the BBC or the LA Times etc). Whatever this is it doesn't appear to be a reliable secondary source. If RS actually do cite the video in their coverage, well, then there's no need to cite YouTube. Just cite the source itself. Also, it is OR to assume or infer he's talking about Holocaust denial. For all I know there's some secret group of Halabja deniers and that's what he's referring to. Given the breadth of crackpot theories out there, I'm sure there's at least a few in the world. GMGtalk 17:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What? Noooo. No no no no no. We absolutely cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that the video itself (a WP:PRIMARY source) is an example of Holocaust denial. If a third party publishes that then you're good to go, but sourcing that statement to the video itself is very far into WP:OR territory. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • All of your comments are really appreciated, I think this was an absolutely flagrant case. As for the person who brought a Facebook quote from the Center for Public Integrity, I say this does not qualify as holocaust denial by the Wikipedia definition of it, nor is any secondary source claiming that anyways. Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • After delving a bit deeper into this, I now believe that there is not sufficient evidence from reliable sources to say that Allsup is a Holocaust denier. I agree with KEC that that comment puts his views close to that territory, and I think that a reasonable interpretation of the video would also lead one to think that's where his views are, but without backup from reliable secondary sources it's just not enough. I plan to set up a Google alert to see if anything develops on this in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A key issue, and a flaw with Wikipedia as it stands, is that many journalist activists intentionally seed articles for political purposes. At some point within a few weeks an article will appear claiming that Allsup is a holocaust denier, the paragraph will be reinserted, and fiction will become historical fact. Remember this, and learn why I abandoned a 2003 account and gave up here. There's a distinct poisonous political agenda being pushed by many people who feel that activism everywhere is acceptable, even when it comes to re-writing history, or poisoning the well. Inevitably it will go to a court somewhere, and hopefully the madness will end and journalists will no longer be able to invent primary sources. I've personally watched several thousand absurd claims be written into history through journalists mirroring each others work and dog piling people they dislike politically. It's a core flaw in Wikipedia, and political zealots like those calling others unsubstantiated names just because they disagree politically has been the downfall of this place. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not a "flaw" that Wikipedia reports what reliable sources report, it's a feature. It's the only way a conservative (small c) online encyclopedia could possibly operate when it's being built by non-expert editors. Your argument is the one usually trotted out to brand the mainstream media (excluding Fox News) as reporting "fake news", but one that's conveniently ignored about the much more extensive (and obvious) right-wing echo chamber. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

referenceforbusiness.com

I spot checked a few pages on referenceforbusiness.com and there is identical text on Wikipedia. I'm guessing they are just a Wikipedia mirror, but maybe someone inappropriately copied referenceforbusiness.com text into Wikipedia. If it is a Wikipedia mirror, then it definitely should not be used as reference. It's used on hundreds of articles though. Peacock (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say (after a quick look) its a copy and paste site.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It's used as a reference on over 500 pages. What should be done? Should all those references be replaced with {{citation needed}}, perhaps? Peacock (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
RS tag.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Reference for Business notes that it is "© 2019 Advameg, Inc." Advameg, Inc. is the parent company of City-Data, and I would hope that its content is properly licensed. At a glance, Reference for Business republishes content from Gale publications, including Gale's Encyclopedia of Small Business. Since Reference for Business looks very similar to Fundinguniverse.com (which was discussed at Fundinguniverse.com, with an RfC), I'm going to repeat the advice I posted there:
Cite the original reliable source, but say where you read it. Reference for Business is very similar to Answers.com (RSP entry) in that it contains text from established tertiary sources. In this situation, most editors would reference the original publication in the citation, but link the citation to the Reference for Business page, and also include "– via Reference for Business" at the end. You can see an example of this at Hypnales § References ("– via Answers.com"). If Reference for Business contains any pages that do not indicate that they were republished from established sources, then those pages would be self-published sources, which are questionable. However, a cursory search did not find any pages on Reference for Business that weren't sourced from Gale publications.
— Newslinger talk 14:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Thought it looked oddly familiar.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It certainly is. One more note: if you can prove that the content in Reference for Business is not properly licensed, then it's a copyright violation and all links to it should be removed under WP:ELNEVER. Considering that Gale is known for licensing its content elsewhere and that Advameg, Inc. owns other legitimate web properties, I think this website is unlikely to be a copyright violation. — Newslinger talk 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And there's one thing I didn't address. Can you link to the pages that contain content copied from Wikipedia? Those pages, if they exist, are circular sources and are unusable, but I didn't find any on Reference for Business. — Newslinger talk 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In Advameg website it clearly stated "Some content used on our site is under license from other companies", which I would assume it is properly licensed content from St.James Press (the imprint of Gale). While, Fundinguniverse.com I doubt it was even licensed, they did not put the name of the operator/owner of the Fundinguniverse.com in the webpage and the license page is a dead link. Matthew hk (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Ipolitics

Is IPolitics considered a reliable source for a page about a scandal? 92.19.185.199 (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • It's certainly owned by a reliable new source. Have you got any more information? Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's owned by a reliable news source, but it doesn't mean that ipolitics.ca is subject to the same (or an equivalent) level of editorial control as Toronto Star. The About page suggests that it's a professional publication, so that's an indicator of reliability. But the fact that it's owned by Torstar doesn't automatically make it reliable. I think most editors would agree that Vogue and Teen Vogue aren't even close when it comes to reliability. feminist (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Mynewsdesk as a source?

at the Sean Patrick Fannon AfD, the issue now is whether the ENNies are a rough equivalent of the Hugo awards or not, and the only source I can find for ENNies coverage goes back to its own press release at Mynewsdesk, which I fear does not meet WP:RS whilst the NYT gives explicit news coverage to the Hugo awards. Am I off base? Collect (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Media Matters

How do I find past discussions and what the consensus if for using Media Matters as a source? It is used a couple place in OANN. FloridaArmy (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi FloridaArmy, please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Media Matters for America. — Newslinger talk 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:Newslinger. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RedState

Is RedState.com reliable? Sorry, if this has been discussed before, but searching the archives wasnt very clear?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

At best, it's usable as a source for attributed conservative/right-wing opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, it is reliable only to cite to verify it's own directly attributed quotes, as in saying "On such and such a subject, the website Redstate.com said 'Yada yada yada'". It is not reliable for the reporting of any secondary factual information in the way that actual news is. --Jayron32 16:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What is the bases of that redstate isn't reliable for the reporting of any secondary factual information? [1] the reporting is far right and the reliability mixed but CNN [2] is far left and mixed reliability an it isn't considerd non=reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 16:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/
  2. ^ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/
Because it's like Media Matters for America — an explicitly-partisan outlet which exists to push political talking points from one side of the spectrum. That doesn't mean it may not be relevant to include its opinion at some points, but if the only place you can find a particular "fact" is RedState, it probably doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Any claim that "CNN is far left" (lolwut) renders whatever site you're quoting completely useless too. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Media Bias Fact Check is just a random guy's opinion on news outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is considered generally unreliable, and we should avoid using the site's ratings of other sources. — Newslinger talk 21:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK,if you're talking about facts in isolation I agree. I would say, that is true about any media though. While the slant may be unreliable on what information is considered in the analysis, the sources indicate that the reliability of the information provided is consistent with other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Opinion source. RedState is an opinion source with a point of view that aligns with the anti-Trump wing of the Republican Party, and is a valid source for WP:RSOPINION. I'd place it somewhere between Salon and Daily Kos in terms of reliability. feminist (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No source is an "opinion source" and WP:RSOPINION is referring to individual statements not sources as a whole. Not everything by a particular media source is a statement of opinion. That is why the reliability rating sources differentiates between philosophical bias and reliability of information. So, using the source to establish a fact is perfectly reliable as they are as consistent in that regards. If the source states, for example, there are 32 donkeys here today. As a matter of a statement of fact, RedState is consistent. What Redstate may imply about those 32 donkeys being there may be unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
After reviewing recent RedState articles, I don't think RedState expresses an "anti-Trump" point of view. RedState § Notable incidents indicates that RedState's editorial goals have more recently shifted to a pro-Trump stance (see also "Two RedState writers quit, citing pro-Trump bias"), and its current articles are in line with this description. I agree that RedState mostly publishes opinions, although the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources (WP:BIASED) and not Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion (WP:RSOPINION), since RedState is not associated with "Otherwise reliable news sources". — Newslinger talk 21:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, you're right. I was going by personal experience, didn't realize they've taken such a turn recently. Looks like they're edging closer to Breitbart and further from National Review... which, generally speaking, is not a positive development for reliability. feminist (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

CRM Magazine (destinationcrm.com)

I just wandered across this article on some kind of marketing gibberish. Its sole reference is something called CRM Magazine (destinationcrm.com). A quick glance at their website left me unsure whether this is a legitimate publication or is itself just a marketing tool (e.g., to sell marketing services). Other thoughts? (Also maybe that article should just be deleted.) --207.232.84.226 (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The article should indeed be a candidate for deletion. The "CRM" source cannot be an only source that supports an article on an encyclopedia, the topic should be covered in more, and better, sources than that to be notable enough to merit an article here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I am not going to create an account just to do that -- but maybe someone who already has one should consider it. --207.232.84.226 (talk) 04:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I just had a look myself, and I agree that it is probably a good candidate for deletion. I have now nominated it. A loose necktie (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

rate "Zero Hedge"

Zero Hedge (per its wp article) "its editorial has been labelled by some as being associated with the "alt-right", as well as being anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and showing a pro-Russian-bias." and "a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump" as well as political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda.

It is on Wikipedia:Zimdars' fake news list.

It is listed under "Bad: Unreliable sources" on User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here calling it "Russian disinformation". (See propaganda in the Russian Federation)

The site's pseudonym author is "Tyler Durden", a character who is violently mentally unstable.

What is the Reliability rating of this site? X1\ (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Generally unreliable opinion source. It should be avoided for factual statements. Regarding its opinion pieces, see Time article covering this blog. feminist (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Great misrepresentation! The Times ranked it as the 9th best Financial Blog site. The Times sources also clearly states the author believes it is a great source for financial news, though a bit too conspiratorial, a bit too pessimistic. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The Time article describes Zero Hedge as a "fun" blog that "has found an entertaining niche at the intersection of The X-Files, finance and tireless anti–Goldman Sachs–ishness". The writer likes Zero Hedge because he finds it humorous, not because he thinks it's a reliable source of accurate fact-checked information. The type of content in Zero Hedge does not contribute to encyclopedic articles. — Newslinger talk 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
That is your own WP:SYNTH the Times article states it is rated number 9 on the 25 best financial blogs. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a super-funny idea of what synth means. Have you read the page you linked? --207.232.84.226 (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure I read it and I know what Synth means "not because he thinks it's a reliable source of accurate fact-checked information" is garbage synth. It is super funny that you make a comment and don't seem to know what Synth means. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH applies to article content, not to discussions in the project namespace. The sentence "The writer likes Zero Hedge because he finds it humorous, not because he thinks it's a reliable source of accurate fact-checked information." would not be acceptable in the Zero Hedge article, but it is certainly acceptable here as my analysis of the Time author's intent. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes this is one reason it's stupid; but also synthesis requires multiple sources, by definition -- it's not possible to violate WP:SYNTH using a single source. --207.232.84.226 (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe worth reading the second sentence at WP:SYNTH to see that it is possible; but no, I don't see that SYNTH applies here. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC) edited Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't feel that that's as stupid as trying to cite the #9 ranking while going all "ignore the man behind the curtain" on the author's stated intent for that ranking. "Hey look, it has the #9 ranking here! Nevermind the reason why! Whatever you do, don't cite the very article I'm referring to and quote the author's words to give the ranking any sort of context or I will cite an unrelated policy as an exorcism!" Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This is just ignorant, somewhat offending, blather. I said several times that WP:BLOG covers all of this. The innocent and angelic OP, used User:BullRangifer/Reliable_sources,_Trump,_and_his_editors_here as a justification and that idiotic page list Fox News as an unreliable source. While Fox is partisan, like NBC or CNN, it has journalist and an editorial staff which makes it a news source. I objected to someone misrepresenting a source and I said it was WP:SYNTH and rather than look at what the other editor said people jump up and down talking about how SYNTH doesn't apply to Project Spaces. Which implies editors misrepresenting sources is fine and dandy as long as it is misrepresentation leaning the right way. And people wonder why so many people accuse WP of core biased views. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
While having journalists and an editorial staff is one indicator of a source's reliability, the core of the reliable sources guideline concerns whether a source has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". For example, even though InfoWars (RSP entry) has an editorial team, there was near-unanimous consensus for its deprecation. Zero Hedge propagates conspiracy theories, which is a very strong indicator of its unreliability.
I did not misrepresent the source, which clearly pokes fun at the questionable nature of Zero Hedge's content in a sardonic tone. Here's another line: "After prolonged exposure, I have to turn off my wi-fi not to sell all my U.S. dollars for physical gold, start an anti–Goldman Sachs blog and buy a Kansas soybean farm protected by a moat." Since you disagree with my assessment, I invite you to show us how the text in the Time review could possibly be construed to be an endorsement of Zero Hedge's reliability. — Newslinger talk 22:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Zero Hedge is actually an extremely important source for real-time financial market news (for which it is actually fairly accurate) - that being said the source, along side its real-time news&analysis, also hosts some writers with very unorthodox views. It is a small operation (used to be 3 people (a year or two ago - there were news pieces when one of them quit in anger - fairly little editorial oversight (the real-time stuff is (or was) basically written by whomever is there on the desk + tweeted, the outside stuff - is passed through as-is mostly)) - not sure how many today - with many outside contributors (with unorthodox views on finance , monetary policy, and geopolitics). Since Wikipedia is not a real-time news site (WP:NOTNEWS) - this should be avoided here - as what is possibly reliable falls into NOTNEWS anyway (and you'll have major outlets reporting on it 15mins-2hours later anyway), and some of the content is quite dodgy or FRINGEy opinion. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The "Tyler Durden" author is a gag/joke - and is (or was - I'm not up to speed) placed on a large chunk of the pieces on the site (all (or almost all) of their internal stuff is title this way - some (or all?) of the external contributors have their our names/psuedonames)) - it's basically ZeroHedge speak for "staff writer". Almost everything they write on geopolitics (which is not the site's main focus - they mainly do finance and effect of real word events on finance) is from a very alternative slant (and much of it is outside contributors) - there used to be (maybe still) lots of pro-Putin and pro-Assad stuff, but that's not the only slant - the geopolitical stuff is very much in fringe opinion territory. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Luckily the majority of Zerohedge's articles have other sources included in the article. It is no different than any other blog source and we should always follow WP:BLOGS to avoid WP:BIASED and WP:UNDUE Nice attempt at a hatchet job though. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLOGS clearly states that "personal or group blogs [...] are largely not acceptable as sources". It does not matter if Zero Hedge cites other sources in its articles. WP:BIASED is applicable to Zero Hedge, as "its editorial has been labelled by some as being associated with the "alt-right", as well as being anti-establishment, conspiratorial, and showing a pro-Russian-bias" (per the Zero Hedge article). WP:UNDUE makes the use of Zero Hedge's opinion content unacceptable in almost all cases. — Newslinger talk 16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Not really, WP:BLOGS itself covers everything you need to know about why ZeroHedge should be avoided as a source for anything. Everything else is opinion supported by "per the Zero Hedge article" which is rather weak form. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I stripped out the citations from my quote since they can easily be found in the Zero Hedge article. The quote is supported by Bloomberg News (RSP entry), The New Yorker (RSP entry), and the Financial Times (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Good you should have done this in the first place rather than injecting your opinion, which could be construed as bias. You aren't a scolarly opinion or a reliable source, stick to what sources say and for God's sake stop talking about what is noted in WP articles, WP is not a relaible source for anything. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
This noticeboard is intended to be a place for editors to solicit others' opinions on the reliability of a source. Editors sometimes quote Wikipedia articles here because any incorrect information can easily be changed. The ultimate goal of this noticeboard is to improve article quality. The policies and guidelines you have mentioned in this discussion (including WP:SYNTH, WP:BIASED, and WP:UNDUE) regulate article content, and don't apply to pages outside of article space. On Wikipedia, user comments are not regulated as tightly as article content. — Newslinger talk 08:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Deprecated would be more appropriate to increase Wikipedia integrity, but posting generally unreliable would be a better-than-nothing start; from what I've read here, and heard elsewhere. DEPS still has wiggle-room for the restricted value in which ZeroHedge.com can be occasionally be used, such as "per the Zero Hedge article". Being "real-time" risks Wikipedia:Recentism. Being "conspiratorial", at all, is extremely problematic for wp. Having a non-transparent "agenda" (such as echoing state-sponsored propaganda) is problematic. Original-ness could also be an issue, as content can be consider less reliable than WP:Primary. It is odd that an editor (IP) called a process of attempting to retain Wikipedia integrity a "hatchet job" ... X1\ (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Boing Boing as a reliable source

1. Web page/ Article being used as a source: here 2. Wikipedia article in which it is being used: Bobby Love 3. Content: Names of subject's parrots; information about subject's personal background and career details; subject's costume-changing behavior at certain public events; the appearance of the subject's work in recent major fashion events in the city of Los Angeles.

I am the original author of the article. Another editor recently reviewed it and wasn't certain about the reliability of Boing Boing as a source for establishing the subject's notability. The previous discussions on this board regarding Boing Boing don't seem to offer a clear answer, and the other editor suggested I submit a noticeboard entry. The Boing Boing article was written by the zine's publisher, Jason Weisberger, who has been the website's publisher for 12 years and appears to have a track record of presenting factual statements. The site, however, is technically a blog, which I understand makes it questionable as a reliable source. My own feeling is that if a person has become notable enough to become the subject of an in-depth article written by the publisher of Boing Boing, then so long as there is at least one other published source that also discussed the person, that person likely qualifies as notable for Wikipedia's purposes. Weisberger relates a few unusual facts about the subject, but none of his statements is off-the-wall incredible and there doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements he makes. Can Boing Boing, then, and Jason Weisberger in particular, be considered a reliable source within the context of an article like this and can becoming the subject of one of his publications count towards a notability argument? Please advise. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: I am not certain if this is relevant, but the reason I came across Weisberger's piece was because I was doing a search on the article's subject in Google News, and Weisberger's Boing Boing articles all show up there— as "news." I do not know how Google classifies certain sources as "news" and others as merely "Internet" hits, but my guess is that most blogs don't end up qualifying as Google News (unless I am wrong on that?). A loose necktie (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Google News searches are absolutely not enough; they contain lots of stuff that utterly fails WP:RS (it would be cool if someone made a plugin to filter out stuff in its searches that definitely fails WP:RS.) That said, I would say that Boing Boing is a borderline source - they have some reputation, and do seem to have basic editorial controls and fact-checking, but I wouldn't use them to (say) source a controversial claim about a WP:BLP or anything like that. I think it's fine for establishing notability in most cases, though (the only exceptions would be situations where simply having an article about someone might raise WP:BLP issues, ie. if any article would clearly end up being extremely negative.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Boing Boing is reliable for topics that typically center around Internet culture. Web blogs can be reliable sources as long as they show the same style of journalistic integrity as newspapers and magazines, which BB has done in the past. And I've not ever seen report something completely out of line. --Masem (t) 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Icons of Women's Sport

Greetings, is this a reliable source? I have seen elsewhere that there was some feminist aspect to the first (non-indigenous) climb of Coropuna volcano; I was wondering if that was a good source for this aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Book is published by ABC-CLIO, which is generally considered WP:RS. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Dunblobbin'

I'd like to ask would Dunblobbin' be considered an RS for references in Noel's House Party, Mr Blobby etc? It may appear user made but does seem to be fairly well resourced as an unofficial museum to the former Crinkley Bottom theme parks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Just another fan web page. I would say this is not an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Political article sources

For some weeks an editor has been adding information on various political congressional representatives about a recent vote that they made. For example, "xxx voted yes or no on such and such a bill." I have several progressive politicians on my watch list and they all get the information added to their article positions sections or their political positions articles in one batch. As often as not the politicians name is not actually in the source but is one of the group that voted for or against a bill. This is getting to be problematic not only because the Position sections are growing and growing with no end in sight, but I've come across problems in the past where a vote was used to show lack of support for a position when actually the congressman was for the position and voted against the bill for an entirely different reason, as you all know happens quite often. I've looked the other way for quite some time even though I've suspected that the edits may be not using our sourcing rules properly but now I need to bring it here for attention due to the latest bunch of additions that are related to a politicians opinions on abortion. See, Political positions of Elizabeth Warren where the editor added:

"In February 2019, Warren voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, legislation requiring health care practitioners present at the time of a birth "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age."

If you are unsure about this bill you can check it out here: [54]

Hopefully you all can give some good information about how to handle this. Does primary sourcing come into play here? Gandydancer (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is the first shortcut that comes to mind. WP:UNDUE may apply as well. If the source does not explicitly mention the person, it's probably not worth mentioning in a person-specific article. feminist (talk) 15:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I have removed this particular sentence from the Political positions of Elizabeth Warren article. It's completely undue (no reason to single this bill out), and the fact that Warren voted against this stupid bill says little about her position regarding abortion rights in the US. feminist (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact, this whole bunch of edits are all in the form of "[senator] voted [for/against] this Act". How a particular Senator voted regarding this bill is simply a blip, not worth mentioning in a BLP. However, I'd note that this seems like more of an issue regarding INDISCRIMINATE/UNDUE, and not the reliability of the source cited (Fox News), even though I would definitely avoid citing Fox News for this topic. feminist (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Pretty much not an RS question.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I know, but it's still helpful to provide an answer. feminist (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding other edits by the same editor such as Special:Diff/884486400, I think these would be more reasonable as they involve a limited number of politicians. Though, again, that's not a question about source reliability, but rather whether a particular fact is worth including in an article. feminist (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well yes, but I did not bring up the (much less frequent) letters. It is the votes on this or that bill that are the problem when they are just one of a bunch that voted yes or no with no further info on what said politician believes about the bill. If I'm going to go around deleting these extremely numerous additions I need something concrete to use as a reason rather than to get lost in endless controversies. If it's basically OK for this editor to go around adding this stuff I will (grudgingly) accept that. If this is not actually a problem that I should be presenting here I will accept that too and try to figure out something else or just (again grudgingly) drop it. Gandydancer (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
You have been given them, its just not an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I get it but sometimes when a person comes here for help someone points them in the right direction rather than say "not RS issue". I looked for "I'd note that this seems like more of an issue regarding INDISCRIMINATE/UNDUE", and well what that may mean I have no idea. I am the one that will be trying to clean up these edits and if it's going to take forever and then some, I'm not going to do it. Gandydancer (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If you click on the links to those pages it will tell you what it means.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Gandydancer, I'm referring to the policies/guidelines at WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. feminist (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE is the right answer for sure. (This is also why articles shouldn't have large quote-farms from people who write prolifically: there needs to be some evidence that particular things they wrote are of individual significance.) --207.232.84.226 (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say that in most cases this runs afoul of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The political process is complicated, and generally we can't draw conclusions directly from a politician's votes; furthermore, even if we word things carefully, highlighting it runs into WP:SYNTH with implications. For instance, "politician X voted against the bill to ban puppy-kicking" may be technically true and citeble, but without analysis about why they voted against it, including it in the article in any form would carry an implication that they eg. hate puppies, when it might have been in response to a poison pill amendment or because they wanted to vote for the "double-ban puppy kicking" bill instead. Note that this does not apply when an article about the politician directly highlights the vote as important, of course - if a bio of a politician highlights a specific vote or something, then it may be worth covering in their article, even if it provides no further analysis; and if a source is clearly bringing up a vote to illustrate a point, then we can use it the same way. But just pulling votes out of the congressional record or relying on sources that list all votes on a particular bill indiscriminately strikes me as inappropriate WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, since highlighting some votes in particular inevitably carries implications that we need sources to back. I think it's a particular problem on "political positions" articles, because even if it's described as just a vote, including it there carries the implication that this provides insight into the politician's political positions on the topic, and (due to the issues I mentioned above with poison pill amendments, preferring alternate approaches, etc) it may not actually do so, making the implication WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Since Congress votes on 5,000 bills each year, a secondary source is required to establish the significance of each vote and why a member voted for or against it. Adding these votes across a range of congressmen is spamming and I suggest you bring this to ANI if the editor does not change. TFD (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks to all and especially to TFD who has given me the most helpful information for how to handle these edits. Gandydancer (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_259&oldid=1088102596"