Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 374

• Comment Not necessarily claiming this as a reliable source (I don't know enough one way or the other), but this web-article yesterday from Euromaidan Press gives a counter-narrative that should perhaps at least be investigated. Author is identified as a long-standing research analyst for a Ukrainian human rights NGO (Linked-in, NGO website). At the moment our article doesn't seem to give any rebuttal points, even to dismiss them. Jheald (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: Editors interested in RSs might want to review the lists of sources being discussed in current RfC in that article, here and also in source review at top of its talk page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I got a note on my talk page that prompted me to see if this had already been discussed and I haven't seen that after a quick set of searches. The message I received:

" "Ed-Tech Press" books are straight-up copies of various Wikipedia articles as they were in 2019. In every instance I've dug into I've yet to find original material in one of those "books", and the authors are always falsified. The company's address is an accounting proxy as well."

If this is the case, would be useful to call out this "press" via the perennial sources list. Thanks for discussing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Do not use, but do not list. I do not think this should be listed at RSP.
  WP:CITE about WikiData "Wikidata is largely user-generated, and articles should not directly cite Wikidata as a source (just as it would be inappropriate to cite other Wikipedias' articles as sources)." A third party doing a presentation of a WP snapshot gives it RS qualities of being a stable reference and having a third party mention, but does not alter that it is crowdsourced. Cheers Markbassett (talk
  ) 14:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ethnicities in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Reason: Denying all sources for the

It seems like there is a lack of

WP:JDLI) here. So let me repeat myself for the third time; What you're linking is a revolutionary organization (which the map apparently is largely based on), not anything government related. Even if it was a reliable source, it is from 1986, thus heavily outdated. Also, what country I belong to is none of your business. Last but not least, this is not a place for reporting other users. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 15:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Your statement is based on assumptions, personal insults and claims that you cannot prove. You are also denying obvious facts. There is nothing more to add.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the contributor. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 15:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

“lack“ is a personal insult. Thank you and be civil.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:SANCTIONGAME. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 15:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is counted as a triple personal attack, as there are already 3 users opposing your world view.—2A02:3030:C:6060:6C36:47C1:F18D:8396 (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it is irrelevant as even if it is a government document, that does not mean it is "scientific". Plenty of government bodies has produced the most appealing racist cobblers in the past. Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn‘t make such a claim. The matter is that governmental data is scientifically used by an University and the largest fundamental science agency in Europe (CNRS). I hope this is clearer now.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

To make this easier, can someone link to the original of the map? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Ofc, http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/record.php?q=AR-040516&f=local&l=en —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to the map's source. My first thought is that HistoryofIran is correct to raise objections to this map. My first question is: why is the map captioned with 1986–2012? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Because 2012 is written in the original map file (bottom right: University of Tehran and CNRS).-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm interpreting that as the year of authorship. Do you think that's intended to signify that the data goes from 1986-2012? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because the source also says “… and others“.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

But its main source is formk 1986, and the only one they name. Also who are irancarto? Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It also seems like the year of authorship/publication to me. Also, I find “and others“ pretty vague and unconvincing, especially when the main “source“ is pretty questionable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

General question: why should the University of Tehran including the largest fundametal science agency in Europe use non-reliable data. Makes no sense at all to me.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The source is irancarto. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, irancarto is part of CNRS and makes [Cartographic Studies on Iran and the Iranian world].-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It also no longer seems to be active. http://www.irancarto.cnrs.fr/, which causes me some conceranrn. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Active until 27. dec. 2019.. So, shouldn't effect the credibility of the source. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Well it might, as we do not know why it is no longer active. The fact the map seems to be mainly based on a dodge course (from before it was part of any ministry) from a source that is no longer active makes me wonder about this maps purpose and accuracy. I am not saying it is wrong, I am saying I can see why another user might question its veracity. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I admit, Iran is politically a difficult country. But the final question still remains: why should the University of Tehran including the largest fundametal science agency in Europe use non-reliable data? As the question itself give the answer, there shouldn’t be any concerns at all. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the first question still remains; Why cite a revolutionary organization as a source? How is it reliable? That was the first question which was made, and you still haven't answered it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

And my point is they are not, as they have ditched this. It may be for many reasons but one might be they decided the data they were being supplied with was flawed. so dropped it, like some have dropped dodgy research papers after publication. Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It‘s like saying Iran had no official institutions at those times. This would contradict the facts. Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) Also the University of Tehran is not only seen as the “mother of all Universities in Iran“ but has also been ranked as one of the best universities in the Middle Esst and is among the top universities of the world. No offense but hat’s the official branding.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Page 348: I think you are dazzled by the wikipedia entry for the Ministry of Jihad of Construction: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cognitive_Linguistics_and_Translation/sP3oBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Jihad+of+Construction+government+of+iran&pg=PA348&printsec=frontcover --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC) You act as if this ministry was not an official organ of the Iranian government.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, Is this the reason why the Ministry of Jihad of Construction was later (in 2001) merged with the Ministry of Agriculture Jihad? —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers:@Slatersteven: In this aspect the argumention of HistoryofIran is flawed by a simple fact. More reliability is not possible-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You can't even answer a simple question, yet you call my argumentation flawed? So far no one has agreed with you here.--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this serious now? You deny the official governmental source and then tell me that I couldn‘t give you an answer? Answer to what? That a ministry is a ministry?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not gonna bother repeating myself for the literal fifth time. Kindly read

WP:REHASH. Also, don't edit my comment [27]. I think we're done here. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 16:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So actually we have a wholly new issue here. You are basically denying that official ministry data do not belong to the ministry? -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Our edits had an overcross, wasn‘t meant to edit your sentence.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, you wrote that you think that the source for the map may not be an RS, which is impossible. Please elaborate —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I really can say no more than I have. The source of the map is no longer part of any reputable accadeic institution. No (by the way per

wp:primary) would an iraining government ministry be an RS for facts. For opinions maybe, but not for those opinions being true. Slatersteven (talk

) 17:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why a reliable source is not a reliable source? So far, you didn’t explain it with a rational argument, give a backup from the wikipedia pool if necessary.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is just

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by the IP at this rate. Also, @IP don't put words in my mouth, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in, I have had my say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What you said is not true. The site irancarto states:

• The Irancarto site is no longer updated. To consult new maps on Iran, you are invited to visit the new CartOrient site, a portal for distributing cartographic studies applied to Western Asia, the Caucasus and Central Asia and on which you will find, in particular, a space dedicated to Iran : http://cartorient.cnrs.fr

Look: All ethnicity maps are compiled into one map.

http://cartorient.cnrs.fr/atlas/98

—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:@Slatersteven: Maybe you need more time. In case you both are ready, please confirm that we have found cencus now and that all misunderstandings are gone.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP. I think you're misreading the discussion. It's clear to me that there is consensus not to include the map. Perhaps other editors will chime in, and consensus could change. PS: I wasn't pinged because of your initial misspelling. FYI, you can't easily fix pings (see

WP:PINGFIX), and it's usually best to just post a new reply with a properly formed ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 18:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Give me a last try. We are very close to it.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)

I note the two maps seem slightly different, I have no idea if this is due to one being ethnic and one linguistic, or if one is more up to date. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It‘s because all ethnicities are compiled into 1 map. But this doesn‘t mean the single maps at the still valid irancarto site would be unreliable.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Can I interpret the silence as an agreement. Maybe even as confirmation of the consensus?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)

@HistoryofIran:, Can you please give comment on this subject, too? I'd appreciate it, as I would really like to know your opinion on iranCarto and cartOrient, because so far I couldn’t read anything from you relating to this subject.--2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times does me and Slatersteven have to tell you our opinions? Stop pinging me. HistoryofIran (talk)

Is your name Slatersteven? Let him speak with his own tounge. He is already far away from your point of view. By the way, we still don‘t know your opinion on iranCarto and cartOrient. Communicate with us. We don‘t bite.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the map looks scandalously unreliable, or coming from a plainly untrustworthy source. The only thing that vexes me (and apparently no one else so far) is that is says "Turkish" when it clearly depicts the Turkic-speaking ethnicities of Iran. That's quite a bummer for a CRNS site. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think the very subethnic term “Turkish“ is due to the selfdesignation of Iranian Turkic speakers (Torki or Turki).—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Compare https://iranicaonline.org/articles/turkic-languages-overview and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turki_(disambiguation). -2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, the reasons for it are quite transparent. Nonetheless, not considering this when producing a map in English is extremely sloppy. I support the inclusion of the map provided the text in the image gets corrected. And please, 2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5, step back for a while and just let community input trickle in. It is quiteextremely off-putting when involved parties try to continue and dominate the debate on the noticeboard (whether it is through clatter or strongmanship). –Austronesier (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much. And yes I agree with your proposal of content supplement. Should we wait? Sorry for not informing you that I already filed a dispute resolution .—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The author uses Les villages turcophones, so probably no blame for him. fiveby(zero) 14:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran:, I really don‘t want to file a dispute resolution just because you are avoiding to comment on the subject.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)|

No silence does not mean agreement, I means disengagemnt. Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Precisely ^^. What said has already been said, it's clear you don't take no for an answer. Drop it already. If you continue I will report you for breaking multiple guidelines. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:REHASH. You are the main cause of this dispute. You are deleting content without knowing why? Instead you are pushing non-related WP shortcut stuff?—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk

) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slaterstephen: or it means you are in denial and you warnt me to file a dispute resolution.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You literally just copy pasted the guidelines I said you were violating. Anyways, reporting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, all these guidlines are a pale reflection of your wishes how the fellow discussant has to behave in order to please your mind. Nothing to to with the subject.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

These are community guidelines. House rules. Simple. –Austronesier (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. But this is just the psychological aspect of this discussion. It has nothing to do with the deleted content.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk)|

Arbitrary break

Reliable. The map was published on a site belonging to the French National Centre for Scientific Research judging by the domain. The successor project, Cartorient has a very respectable list of participating institutions which include leading French universities and ecoles [28]. They published this map which has the same source and matches the map in question when it comes to the Turkic population. Alaexis_¿question? 20:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it reliable for the claim made in the article, that the map represents ethnicities "1986-2012"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You are right, the caption is misleading. I'd note that the map dates to 1986. Alaexis_¿question? 20:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Don‘t know if I am allowed to write in this field. But I agree with 1986.-2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My thanks to you and Alaexis. If that and the "Turkic-speaking" issue raised above are fixed, all the RS issues that I feel knowledgeable enough to comment on are resolved. I continue to have other issues unrelated to this noticeboard, mainly that a 36-year-old ethno-linguistic map is too old to be useful in articles/sections that aren't historical. If it ends up mattering, I can bring it up on the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see how IRI published souces are reliable for anything controversial (which includes information about ethnic groups). Iran is a country without freedom of press. See
  WP:AA2), I would say close to zero. - LouisAragon (talk
  ) 21:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

France is a democratic and free country. And no, I do not agree with your conspiracy on my person and I hereby advise you to refrain from such allegations. Thank you.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This *is* published in a Western country. Judging from the participating institutions, these guys at Cartorient are experts and they published this map on their site without reservations or qualifications. If you think that the map is inaccurate you should find reliable sources which show different data and then follow WP:NPOV to decide which map is better in a given context. Alaexis_¿question? 05:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. The main source of the map is Jihad of Construction/Jahād-e Sāzandegī, a revolutionary organization, that doesn't sound very reliable. This revolutionary organization was based in Iran, which is indeed a country with no freedom of press. Also, Irancarto has not been active since 2019 [30], which makes it even more questionable. Last but not least, a map from 1986 is way outdated, we have much newer statistics than that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

CNRS (IranCarto + CartOrient). IranCarto moved to CartoIran which still makes it a valid source.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk

) 21:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

No, the sources says 'Jahād-e Sāzandegī', which means 'Jihad of Construction', and the map dates to 1986, which was way before 2001, as you've been told multiple times. Also, please respect others opinion and don't derail this thread as well, you don't have to comment on every single comment you disagree with, it's ruining the discussion, thus this new thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not really feel inclined to answer to this strange word game. Why are you trying to play this word game card now. Everybody knows the institutions name. There is no rational reason to continue this misleading style.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I know that this has already been said several times, but stop throwing accusations towards others due to the sole fact that they don't agree with you (Readers might want to see [31]). --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You mean this accusation:

Ministry of Jihad of Construction/Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran) (since 2001 Ministry of Agriculture Jihad)? Yes.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk

) 21:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

From the site http://cartorient.cnrs.fr/atlas/98:

• To produce the map, other sources (publications, ethnolinguistic maps, etc.) were used to fill in the missing or poorly informed data (Caspian languages, Lori). The map may therefore contain inaccuracies in detail, but it confirms, for the first time on a fine scale, not only the well-known diversity of Iran's linguistic heritage but above all the dynamics of the changes characterized by the emergence of zones of multilingualism. (2012)

There is no reason to further deny the credibility of this source, as already 3 users are disagreeing with you. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A bundle of text doesn't mean it is reliable. Also, only one is user besides you is saying this map is reliable, and guess what? I am not spamming and attacking him because of that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

CNRS is unreliable now? Ok. Thanks. —2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk

) 02:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought you said that you would withdraw from this discussion? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April). Why did you deleted your last comment which was a “Yes“ to my last question after you have apperently accepted my invitation to serenity at your ANI? —2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Because I wanted to. I never accepted your 'invitation to serenity'. You wrote that you withdraw from this discussion on 22:27, 11 April 2022, yet you've already posted two comments since. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I already did (see my time stamp above: 02:32, 12 April, ca. 11 hours ago). Unfortunately I am now here again because you manipulated the conversation thread. It is apparently clear why you felt inclined to do this.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

More

WP:ASPERSIONS. --HistoryofIran (talk

) 13:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well observed: [32]. --2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am allowed to change my comment as I see fit unless other comments have been made afterwards. This has nothing to do with manipulation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Not when you provoked a clear revival (there has been 2 hours between your first answer and your second manipulated answer).—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That is not something you decide. Again, lay it off with the accusations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Showing an manipulated edit from the revision history is also part of the accusations now.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh if you two don't stop it I'm going to pull this car over and put both of you out on the side of the road. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't find it particularly funny that I can't show my opinion without getting hounded and attacked. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable. Agree with Alaexis and Austronesier. (don’t know if my word as a non-established member counts. I just wanted to add an Image, hell look what happened). If an admin thinks my line should be removed, I am ok with it. --2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You really are doing yourself a disservice by trying to dominate the debate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for this misconduct. From now on I will withdraw from the discussion.—2A02:3030:C:6060:B932:1E1C:2033:6AD5 (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Context Matters This is just one of a series of maps, intermediate work for the author to develop Main languages spoken in rural Iran. Reading the author's analysis there are a number of caveats: the 1986 data is incomplete and unreliable, the map represents a rural villages (about half the population), and even if one family speaks a particular language in a village that is represented in the map for that language. The series also includes multilingual villages and "knowledge of Persian" to give a more complete picture. The author has corrected for deficiencies in the 1986 data, but makes use of additional sources for the newer CartOrient data, and admits some details may be incorrect. Use should follow the authors intent. For the overall map that is: This map portrays Iran’s well-known ethnolinguistic diversity. There are seven zones where a single language is spoken in nearly all villages in the rural subdistrict (dehestān). Depending on the province, the language might be Persian, Baluchi, Arabic, Luri, Turk, Kurdish or Caspian language. This map also highlights five multilingual zones where several languages are spoken in the same village or neighboring villages. Given all that, pulling one map from the series and inserting into the article is inappropriate as the reader will not have a clear idea of what the map represents. fiveby(zero) 14:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The author‘s analysis regarding the unreliability refers to the unrelated 1996 census. Apart from that I agree with you.—2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I may be misreading Certains dehestân semblent avoir des valeurs – hautes ou basses – qui peuvent surprendre. Il n’est pas possible de vérifier et corriger ces données datant de 1986. Il est possible qu’elles soient vraies, traduisant une réalité locale originale, ou même fausses, par suite d’une erreur de saisie des données… from IranCarto and To improve the effectiveness of rural development policies, the Jahād Sāzandegi Research Center assembled data from the 1986 census that had not yet been published (because they were deemed incomplete or unreliable) from the newer CartOrient. Regardless, the author is plainly competent to correct such deficiencies. fiveby(zero) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what the older link says: Pour donner une plus grande efficacité à sa politique de développement des zones rurales, l’organisation de la Lutte pour la Reconstruction (Jahād-e sāzandegi) a réuni à la fin des années 1990 les données jusqu’alors non publiées, car incomplètes ou jugées peu fiables, concernant les langues en usage dans chaque village, à l’échelle très détaillée des 2215 cantons ruraux (dehestān) du recensement de 1996 (1375). ] Translation: [In order to make its policy for the development of rural areas more effective, the organization of the Struggle for Reconstruction (Jahād-e sāzandegi) collected at the end of the 1990s the hitherto unpublished data, because incomplete or considered unreliable, concerning the languages used in each village, on the very detailed scale of the 2215 rural cantons (dehestān) of the 1996 census (1375).] This is what it says, essentially. The Meta data says Statistical Center of Iran, Jahâd sâzandegi (main organization for statistics in Iran).--2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This is what the newer link says: Certains dehestân semblent avoir des valeurs – hautes ou basses – qui peuvent surprendre. Il n’est pas possible de vérifier et corriger ces données datant de 1986. Il est possible qu’elles soient vraies, traduisant une réalité locale originale, ou même fausses, par suite d’une erreur de saisie des données… La méthode de cartographie des données lissées permet cependant de minimiser ces exceptions locales pour mettre en évidence les faits dominants qui permettent de construire des analyses utiles.] Translation: Some dehestân seem to have values – high or low – that can surprise. It is not possible to verify and correct these data from 1986. It is possible that they are true, reflecting an original local reality, or even false, as a result of a data entry error... The smoothed data mapping method , however, makes it possible to minimize these local exceptions to highlight the dominant facts that make it possible to build useful analyses.] --2A02:3030:F:1369:5063:1D6F:5CAB:774C (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Misleading. The 1986 data itself seems valid enough, but there is one major issue (As Fivebyzero pointed out): It covers a non-representative sample of the population, specifically only the portion of the population that lives in villages (roughly half the population at the time). Attempting to insert it into

Izady’s map looks quite similar in dispersion to that of the CNRS, the only big difference: Izady uses different shades of green for the Turkish-speaking areas (but not shown as districts as CNRS fairly accurately does). The percentages from 0-25 are completely missing in Izady's presentation. Beyond that, Izady mostly uses sources from the same range of years (some older, some slighly newer). When compared to CNRS, it doesn't make a particularly big difference.--2A02:3030:2:D5E7:D068:D514:DB14:F418 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Question: can’t we separate

That page existed but was deleted years ago, same with this one. --Qahramani44 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Based on that, I must consider my request failed.—2A02:3030:2:D5E7:D068:D514:DB14:F418 (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Archives show Tucker Carlson has been depreciated along with other Fox News hosts, but I wasn’t able to find a discussion regarding the reliability of his words appearing in media besides his cable news show.

At

Source

Thank you for any help clearing this up. petrarchan47คุก 14:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Carlson’s piece has also been added to

Marquis Who’s Who: In 1999, Forbes magazine published "The Hall of Lame" by Tucker Carlson, in which Carlson reported that the selection process was neither rigorous nor meaningful; self-nominators and thousands of people who are not particularly notable were included; and that Marquis profited by selling subscriber addresses to direct mail marketers.petrarchan47คุก

13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's "reliable" for his view but weight would be an issue:

talk

) 14:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think deprecation can spread from a publication or broadcaster to anyone who is later platformed by them, although writing or presenting for a deprecated outlet obviously raises questions about reliability. This is an opinion, though, so it's covered by due weight rather than reliability policy. (However, it's hard to see why his views on this topic would be considered noteworthy.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Fox News hosts have not been depreciated and have not even been deprecated. Also, I think that treating editing Wikipedia as a battle is itself rather problematic. Otherwise I agree with BobFromBrockley that it's a WP:DUE matter. Alaexis_¿question? 18:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it a Forbes contributor article or their regular coverage? If regular coverage then we should be agnostic to the author and treat it as if it were any other author (including deciding if it's commentary, facts etc). If it's a contributor article then it's treated per other Forbes contributor article. Springee (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that Carlson was ever a staff or freelance journalist for Forbes, and his career at that time was apparently as a columnist and opinion writer for various publications, but not a news journalist. So I believe it should be treated as a contributing column or op-ed, not a journalistic piece by Forbes. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, contributor articles are a specific thing that doesn't go through the normal editorial channels. I suspect many normal Forbes articles are written by outside contributors but still go through their normal editorial process. In that case we shouldn't treat it as "Forbes Contributor" (it may still be a normal Forbes editorial). Springee (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The article in question is from their magazine in 1999; the "contributor" system was built post-2010. I don't think

talk

) 23:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Even if this was a contributor piece from the 2010s, FORBESCON specifically notes articles that appeared in the print magazine are excluded. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that in 1999 Carlson wasn't the controversial figure he is today. Springee (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• OK RS for his opinion, but too long a section. This seems an opinion piece in Forbes, also put into his book The Long Slide, so it would be acceptable as RS for his opinion, and it is not in the realm of Politcs or Science that he is criticized for. That said, it is specific to just one Who's Who, so the whole section at overall Who's Who level should be reduced. This piece is also over 20 years ago so a bit hard to tell if this was in the print edition and a 20-years later RSP seems of dubious value. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Forbes conflicted?

Another consideration regarding this piece - Forbes is essentially conflicted here as they have their own set of lists which can be seen as direct competition to the Who’s Who lists. petrarchan47คุก 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Forbes is a red herring here. The piece is reliable for relaying what the author wrote. The real question is:

talk

) 13:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there is something to the idea Forbes isn’t an unbiased source here, and could be disallowed for that reason, however I agree with all else you’ve said. As far as I’m aware, Carlson is known as a smear merchant, and a conspiracy theorist, so his name may diminish the points being made, and result in readers questioning the reliability of WP. petrarchan47คุก 14:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The quote you gave above is "In 1999 Tucker Carlson said in Forbes magazine ...". The source is reliable for this because there's no doubt he did that. The question is of NPOV.

talk

) 14:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't even seem to be really

WP:BLUE situation. There's even an episode of King of the Hill about it. Don't worry though, Peggy and Hank get it sorted out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 15:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Per Alexbrn, if we are using this to quote Tucker Carlson in his own voice, then his own writing is a perfectly reliable source for his own quote or paraphrase thereof. The question is "Why should we quote Tucker Carlson in his own voice in the first place"; thats not an RS issue, that's a

WP:ONUS, not about whether it is reliably sourced (that is, does the source support the text in Wikipedia that he made such a statement), rather it becomes about whether the quote itself is relevant to the article. That's not really the remit of this noticeboard. --Jayron32

16:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't generally evaluate medical sources for reliability, so I would greatly appreciate a review of the appropriateness of this source used in this edit on Dupuytren's contracture. Any assistance is greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

That's

talk

) 13:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, thanks a ton! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like to get something more concrete here than just passing mentions in the archives. News.com.au is essentially a News Corp news aggregator, and republishes stories from some well known reliable sources, and also from some, er, less reliable sources. It republishes content from several sources considered to be deprecated or generally unreliable, such as The Sun, and The New York Post. (Note, those two specific articles were chosen at random, they aren't particularly outlandish). It also republishes from the Daily Mail as well I believe, but I think I've established the point that it republishes content from.deprecated sources. Even so, other content is usually reliable, even if rather tabloid-y, so I would suggest that News.com.au be considered to be generally reliable, but that any content republished from generally unreliable or deprecated sources be treated as though it came directly from those sources. Disclosure of personal opinion: I don't like it much, as it doesn't seem to publish much actual news, mainly just mind-numbing prolefeed, ("ooh, a weird thing washed up on the beach, maybe it's an alien!" Soon afterwards: "oh, it was just a possum.") plus it gives you stupid ads to annoying websites.

So um, yeah, I guess we discuss its reliability now? Or have I summed it up well enough? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where is it being cited on Wikipedia, and for what content? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly labeled who it's aggregated from. MSN, Yahoo and a pile of other aggregators do the same thing, and aggregate from just as many bad sources. Just don't cite aggregated content from unreliable sources. Problem solved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That is precisely the conclusion that I had come to, but was wanting something more definite than the frequent passing mentions in the archives. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, is Office for Science and Society an RS for this statement on the BLP JP Sears:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, he shifted his focus to conservative politics and to promoting conspiracy theories through anti-vaccine activism.

See this diff Note the accompanying NYT source doesn't support the statement. It simply says he spoke at a conference of anti-vaxxers, it doesnt say the subject of his speech, shifted focus, etc. I suppose if the content is only supported by the NYT source, it will be a different matter. If you are curious about the NYT source (and you dont have a subscription), it says: "Speakers included J.P. Sears, a conservative conspiracy theorist, YouTube celebrity and comedian"

Thought I would first ask about the Office for Science and Society first, as it seems to be an entire source dedicated to the subject and if it is an RS then the passing mention in NYT is just added weight. If if this university source is not an RS, then the NYT passing mention would not really be sufficient (in my opinion).

Please note I did ask about this source here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_330#JP_Sears_and_McGill_University's_Office_for_Science_and_Society in the past, only a few commented. I also did an RFC on a more general subject here Talk:JP_Sears#Include_conspiracy_theorist_content, somewhat different from this RSN post (still using the same source), but thought I would link to that for editors that might be interested as well. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like an ideal source for that.

talk

) 10:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It would be a much better source if it mentioned them being an anti-vaccine activist in any way, shape or form, which it doesn't. The only mention of vaccines in the OSS article is The founder of this institute, Paul Chek, endorses anti-vaccination rhetoric, and Chek and Sears are reportedly very close friends. The NYT article simply states he spoke at an anti-vaccine mandate rally, which is significantly different than an anti-vaccine rally. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Any content would have to satisfy

talk

) 11:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed it from the lead, and a bunch of other stuff, per

WP:BLP. I wish I didn't keep ending up on the side of people like this in BLP discussions. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 12:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hold up. You also removed the NYT reference to the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" and have plastered over Sears's promotion of conspiracy theories through his YouTube channel (and, for what it's worth, media coverage of his podcast as a means of spreading Covid conspiracies is also inevitable, but we'll need to wait on that).

Contrary to

WP:RS

coverage, the English Wikipedia article on Sears now reads like the subject is an anti-government freedom fighter who simply morally objects to mandates and 'government overreach' rather than a covid conspiracy theorist who regular attends and features at anti-vaxxer events and spreads deadly misinformation.

The McGill article also discusses how Sears promoted covid conspiracy theories about vaccines on his YouTube channel, which resulted in YouTube removing at least one video (this was called "The Covid Conspiracy Theory Guy"). The "anti-vaccine mandate" thing is also highly misleading, as in reality these are events operated by and attended by anti-vaxxers, as discussed by numerous media sources (like this one). We're expected to report on what

WP:RS say here, not soften that coverage. :bloodofox: (talk

) 20:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The OSS article does not discuss(es) how Sears promoted covid conspiracy theories about vaccines. The single mention of vaccines in that article is The founder of this institute, Paul Chek, endorses anti-vaccination rhetoric, and Chek and Sears are reportedly very close friends. As I pointed out on the talk page, if you need to cite sources like this one to try and tie someone to being an anti-vaccine activist, you're committing textbook

WP:SYNTH. I removed the NYT label because it was simply In 2022, The New York Times described Sears as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" with no context, which is literally the entirety of the sentence fragment in a 700 word piece that mentions Sears in any way.[33]

I also removed other cherry picked quotes from a large interview.

As you said above, media coverage of his podcast as a means of spreading Covid conspiracies is also inevitable, but we'll need to wait on that, we'll need to wait on that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The OSS article says that Sears had a video deleted by YouTube for promoting conspiracy theories while the NYT just described him as a "conservative conspiracy theorist". You'd never know the association between the subject and conspiracy theories by reading the lead. Indeed, the attempt to cut out any mention of the subject's involvement with promotion of conspiracy theories and, yes, antivaxxer pseudoscience is remarkable. We're now at the point where the article's lead does not summarize the article's body, in violation of

WP:RS mention of the subject's deep dive into conspirituality

, Covid-19 conspiracy theories, and far right wing politics out of the article. And what conspiracy theories is the OSS article referring to? The article OSS itself does not say, but Sears has been quite vocal about it—they were Covid-19 conspiracy theories.

Additionally, here we have a fine example of the truly weird fringe article lawyering of "x article is x many words, but only x many words mention the subject! Therefore I have decided x words is too few words and, aha, it is now out of the article!" A made-up criteria, sure, and one very convenient for articles that are inconvenient for the article's subject. As you know, the NYT coverage description does indeed provide context: Sears appeared as a speaker at the event with the group of anti-vaxxers who put it on. It's seriously difficult to assume good faith when encountering this sort of lawyering to keep

WP:RS coverage out. There's absolutely no reason not to mention the NYT's description of the subject, particularly if it's not in wikivoice, and even less reason for the inaccurate new lead to not actually summarize the article's contents—we're not the subject's PR team. :bloodofox: (talk

) 21:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained my reading of

WP:DUE. As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree and see how the RFC turns out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 22:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SELFPUB "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The bolding is in the original. I've run into this issue elsewhere, but had to accept this is policy" I quoted the user, as I couldn't have said it more clearly myself. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk
  ) 10:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think OSS is really self published. The tone of the source is sensationalist, and it doesn't provide great detail on a lot of things, e.g. was recently censored on YouTube for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories doesn't tell us if it was a video, a number of videos, comments or anything else. From what I've seen in non-RS, it was an automated removal for COVID-19 disinformation, but none of what I read is usable in the article. It's not a great source, but I don't think it's a SPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed, it's not self-published. The site says "The Office" takes responsibility for its communications, so there is a layer here apart from the author.

  talk

  ) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Would that be similar to a Microsoft corporate blog, since the marketing office signs off on it after the department writes it? Sounds like an extra layer to me as well Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  If Microsoft Corp. states that it takes responsibility, then yes. But I don't believe it does.

  talk

  ) 05:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just a side note - This is a BLP… so we need to be extra cautious about applying labels. Remember that reliability is only one of several factors we need to consider… Even when the sources are reliable, it is better to apply labels with in-text attribution, rather than in WP’s voice. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  There's an RFC on the article talk page now that could always use more eyes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously RS—and how many times do we need RFCs on this single source from this single editor? Let's take a moment to count the times this editor has called an RFC on this one source: While the editor neglects to mention it here, first there was this earlier RfC that the editor proposed that, of course, resulted in an overwhelming keep. Undaunted by obvious consensus, this editor then tried a second RfC here, which also resulted in nothing but comments but to keep it. Now we have this third RfC, and a bunch of related RfCs put forth by this editor with this source in mind over at
  WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE circles, I suspect it'll be pretty obvious. :bloodofox: (talk
  ) 22:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  I prefer not to speculate on what an editor's "goal" is. Assume good faith. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, the RfC rerunning is a concern, and this could be seen as rising to the level of disruption where the community's patience is tried. Perhaps a TBAN could be in the offing, though that discussion would be for another venue ...

  talk

  ) 05:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  The behavior is long term sealioning, but it's not as if they've had no support for their RFCs [35]. Trying to get sanctions for mild sealioning is not smooth sailing. Have they been templated for fringe DS?

  In the current situation, their complaints about the source, yet again, aren't founded, but the attention brought fresh eyes to the article and allowed for some legitimate BLP issues to be tackled. What I've been doing is ignoring them. Their contributions aren't generally moving things forward, but at least they're not bludgeoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

CINTAA (Cine & TV Artistes Association) of India, is being used as a source for date of birth in biographies. The website is accessible only to members (the artistes) on payment of a fee. At the time of applying for a membership, the applicant provides their bio details and uploads proofs.

Can it be used as a reliable source? How can an editor not having a membership verify the details at the source? Some articles making use of it are: Dharmesh Tiwari, Kulraj Randhawa, Ziyah Vastani, Rajesh Khera. Jay (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Without any statement on the reliability of this one particular source, in general paywalls are not a matter for reliability. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources states "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives." --Jayron32 14:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not think a simple paywall clause is relevant here because this is a not a case of paying to access the site, but paying to become an organization member, and then members get to access the site. In other words only a member of CINTAA (an artiste, not a wikipedia editor) can access or verify the details. The site is exclusive for membership, and not intended for reference by a paying public. Jay (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me say again, with feeling "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access" Whether or not CINTAA sources are difficult to access has no bearing on their reliability one way or the other. It is not a measure we take into consideration when assessing reliability. Even if the source can only be accessed by membership of the organization, insofar as the source meets all of the other hallmarks of reliability defined by

WP:RS and the like, then it should be treated as reliable. if it doesn't meet those hallmarks, then it isn't reliable. It has nothing to do with ease of access. --Jayron32

16:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Jayron32. I also so admire the resourcefulness of the people of India! Huggums537 (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per

Newsweek, which RSP judges to be semi-unreliable after 2013. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions

) 15:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Can everyone please provide opinion with YES or NO on the reliability of the source and author mentioned below? Here is the citation that there is currently dispute on page Battle of Samana. I find the source reliable due to the reliability of publisher and author but the other user doesn't agree with the reliability of the author. So that is why I am here to get 3rd opinion. The book in question has also been reviewed by World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues Vol. 3, No. 4 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER 1999), pp. 123-125 (3 pages) [36]. Here is some information on the author:[37]. Here is another link about author [38] "By the late 1960s, Patwant had begun writing a series of books that reflected his wide-ranging interests in power, politics, culture and history",
Here is some more on author [39], "Patwant Singh's books and articles on India, international affairs, the environment, and the arts have been published in India, Europe, and North America. He has broadcast frequently on television and radio in many countries, and has travelled and lectured all over the world, often as the guest of governments. From 1957 to 1988, he was editor and publisher of the international magazine Design."

^[1]

FYI

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

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

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

Ali Husain , who by false promises had lured Guru Gobind Singh to evaculate Anandpur , also belonged to Samana . The entire peasantry of the neighbourhood was now up in arms , and Banda's following had risen to several thousands . Banda fell upon the town on November 26 , 1709.^[1]

Undaunted , Banda , making his way through Kaithal ( 27 miles from Delhi in Rohtak district ) overran with a force of 30,000 strong , Samana , sub-division of Sirhind and the home town of Jalal Khan . The peasantry joined hands with the Sikhs and did not hesitate to wreak vengeance upon their expropriating landlords.^[2]

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

References

1. ISBN 978-81-7629-300-6
   .
2. ^ Journal of Indian History. Department of Modern Indian History, 1981. p. 209.

RfC: Alexa Internet

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

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

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

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

Survey

Discussion

• OP Opine: Alexa is/was a marketing product, used by advertisers. It has largely been replaced by an entire industry that includes Nielsen, Comscore, etc.. if you want good site metric data you pay for it. The freebie stuff is questionable and keeping it updated on Wikipedia is challenging. There was nearly unanimous calls for removal in the last RfC because Alexa is "unencylopedic", a black box algorithm, many consider it an unreliable source. The last RfC was removal from Infoboxes only, this extends to all text, in light of pending shutdown. -- GreenC 15:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm not sure leaping straight to an RFC makes sense per
  WP:OR risk. --Aquillion (talk
  ) 17:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• @
  WP:RFCBRIEF, e.g. "In light of its upcoming shutdown in May, should citations of Alexa Internet be removed from all articles?" Your rationale can be moved anywhere below the first timestamp, preferably to the survey or discussion section. — Newslinger talk
  17:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• These should not be deleted, but piped through Internet Archive to preserve them, if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Scilly Today - Reliable Source?

Hello,

There’s been a bit of drama on the Five Islands Academy article, I suggest you check it out, however, as part all this, I would like to ask: Would the now-inactive local news website Scilly Today be a reliable source, specifically when dealing with potentially controversial statements about BLPs? The specific citations used in the article are:[40],[41],[42]. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[43] [44] I was able to find a couple of national sources that cover this to some extent. Regarding the COI, he's been made aware of

SPA only made to edit about himself, if he persists editing about himself, it may not end well for his account. Curbon7 (talk

) 17:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

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

https://liveuamap.com/

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

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

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

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

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

San Diego Reader

The San Diego Reader, according to its own WP page, is an "alternative press" source. The WP page has many problems with sourcing/tone. One place the Reader was used as a source is at Draft:Remigio Pereira, which cites this article: [45]. The article contains several blatantly false statements, including that the lyrics of O Canada were changed to say "We're all brothers and sisters, all lives matter to the Great". Therefore, I believe the Reader is an unreliable source. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

talk

) 01:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

talk

) 05:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Based on the name of the site, no. I can't find an about-page, and based on a quick look I wouldn't use this anywhere near a

WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 14:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Contrary to the name, this doesn't appear to be a wiki; however, it appears to fall under that same criteria in

WP:SPS as a self-published source that seemingly has zero editorial integrity. All of the articles are written by "Editorial staff", which does not spark confidence in reliability. So yeah, completely unreliable. Curbon7 (talk

) 16:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:EW

on a "Further reading" item

Myself and @Hajrakhala disagree on this [46] item in the "Further reading" section at Ghalib. It's an article on the article subject from İslâm Ansiklopedisi.

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

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

I don't think this is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard issue, it seems to be more of an

WP:ELNO#1. Canterbury Tail talk

14:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

It can't contain much we don't already have, and that info should just be integrated into the Wikipedia article per the

WP:EL guidelines. Canterbury Tail talk

15:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Well, that [47] solves the problem with the Further reading section. Looks ok to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Now you're into

WP:ASPERSIONS. But since [48] now is used as a source, this noticeboard clearly fits. And it fills the replaced cn quite well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk

) 19:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Note: please do not try to neutralize this discussion again as it will be of no use, because administrator is involved now. They have good grasp on

Wikipedia:Policies and are prolific to identify the coordinated edits or spam. Hajrakhala (talk

) 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay this will be my last post on this.

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

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

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

Apparently we are not done:[49]. I reinserted the url and author name here: [50]. Why the refname was removed I don't understand. If the text is available by url, we should use it, since it's helpful to readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

I cited the website and added a link to the website:[51]. What in this diff is false? And why are you removing author's name and refname? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

And we're back to spam: [52]. @Canterbury Tail, care to do/say something admin-y? I'm off for today. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That is clearly not a spam link, and Gråbergs Gråa Sång is clearly not a linkspammer. I also note that you are over the 3RR, Hajrakhala. If you keep this up I would not be surprised if you were the one to end up being blocked.

MrOllie (talk

) 22:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

@Canterbury Tail, we continue:[53], despite [54]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And continue:[55]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The disruptive editor has been partially blocked from that article for clear disruption and failure to drop the stick. Canterbury Tail talk 13:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Per the barnstar at your talkpage, they approve. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Grove Music Online and "Music" in "United Kingdom"

The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This source is available as

Grove Music Online; subscription is required (e.g. through a library or university). The first paragraph of United Kingdom#Music has a summary of classical music from the Tudor period to the modern era. Five Grove Online articles are linked to "England (i)", "Scotland", "Wales", "Ireland" and "Great Britain [Opera]"; BBC sources have also been used. The information from Grove is consistent with what can be found on the wikipedia articles Early music of the British Isles#Renaissance c. 1450–c. 1660, Baroque music of the British Isles and Classical music of the United Kingdom#British musical renaissance 1860-1918. They are also consistent with Grove's analysis of British music being divided into four periods: Tudor; Baroque or post-Restoration; Victorian/Edwardian renaissance; and modern/contemporary. The corresponding sections in France#Music, Italy#Music or Austria#Music

are similar to the prose style of the first paragraph:

Handel's "Zadok the Priest", HWV 258, coronation anthem for George II

St Matthew's Concert Choir and Orchestra, Damien Giromella, 2013

Northern Ireland. Historically, there has been exceptional Renaissance music from the Tudor period, with masses, madrigals and lute music by Thomas Tallis, John Taverner, William Byrd, Orlando Gibbons and John Dowland. After the Stuart Restoration, an English tradition of dramatic masques, anthems and airs became established, led by Henry Purcell, followed by Thomas Arne and others. The German-born composer George Frideric Handel became a naturalised British citizen in 1727, when he composed the anthem Zadok the Priest for the coronation of George II; it became the traditional ceremonial music for anointing all future monarchs. Handel's many oratorios, such as his famous Messiah, were written in the English language.^[1][2] Ceremonial music is also performed to mark Remembrance Sunday across the UK, including the Traditional Music played at the Cenotaph.^[3][4] In the second half of the 19th century, as Arthur Sullivan and his librettist W. S. Gilbert wrote their popular Savoy operas, Edward Elgar's wide range of music rivalled that of his contemporaries on the continent. Increasingly, however, composers became inspired by the English countryside and its folk music, notably Gustav Holst, Ralph Vaughan Williams, and Benjamin Britten, a pioneer of modern British opera. Among the many post-war composers, some of the most notable have made their own choice of musical identity: Peter Maxwell Davies (Orkneys), Harrison Birtwistle (mythological), and John Tavener (religious).^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]}

Moxy- has written[56], "Will redo section on Sunday. Clearly not not going in the right direction." They appear to be challenging (a) Grove Music Online as a source and (b) the structure of music of the British Isles from the four different periods. This seems to one of the few encyclopedic sources where this material can be found and has numerous references. Mathsci (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Never said anything of the sort......as has been mentioned to you numerous times its the miinin bios and lists that are a concern. Lets try an hear others...no guess work pls. Moxy- 16:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@

DRN. Curbon7 (talk

) 18:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't believe anyone has mentioned that Grove Music Online is not reliable. What we are looking for is educational information over a list of people and bios that say nothing about the music itsself. Moxy- 18:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "British Citizen by Act of Parliament: George Frideric Handel". UK Parliament. 20 July 2009. Archived from the original on 26 March 2010. Retrieved 9 March 2015.
2. ^ Andrews, John (14 April 2006). "Handel all'inglese". Playbill. New York. Archived from the original on 16 May 2008. Retrieved 11 September 2009.
3. ^ "Remembrance Sunday". Department for Culture Media and Sport. Retrieved 19 April 2022.
4. ISBN 0-7190-4506-1
   .
5. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0
   .
6. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0
   .
7. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0
   .
8. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0
   .
9. ISBN 978-1-56159-263-0
   .
10. ^ "British 20th century composers". BBC. Retrieved 21 April 2022.

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

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

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

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

Dr. R.B. Singh, M.A., Ph.D. was a historian in Deptt of Ancient History, Culture and Archaeology at Gorakhpur University. Regarding age there is hardly any comprehensive work done on Chahamana history except by Dr R.B. Singh and Dr Dashratha Sharma. And both are almost of same period. There has not been any questions raised on the work's reliability. This user is who is questioning the source actually a couple or days before was describing R.B. Singh better authority on this subject than other modern works, see here [57], later when his point of contention i.e. territory controlled by Prithviraj Chauhan was challenged by this very source, he started describing this source as poor. See here [58].Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Agree both editors are too aggressive and editing bordering on

Bahawalpur state were, despite being warned multiple times. And he has been blocked for 31 hours, just a few days ago, he has also been blocked from editing a particular page because of his disruptive editing. I too believe both these accounts should be topic banned for disruptive editing. Sajaypal007 (talk

) 05:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

@

WP:ANI. @Packer&Tracker: My advice to both you and Sanjaypal007 would be to work collaboratively across a wide range of topics and each time you interact, be cordial and kind. Regarding reliability of the source, it is a borderline RS, given it’s age. Can be cited for minor details but avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk

) 18:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky: I agree with you on this 100 %, We should be cordial and kind in heated debate especially in context of South Asia related articles which are under discretionary sanctions and any contentious edit can lead to a certain backclash.

But since my 31 hours block; I tried my best to be as cordial as I could.

Regarding reliablity of Singh; I personaly believes that age of source should not matter given the thesis is from learned scholar/indologists like R.C. Majumdar, Dashratha Sharma, Mohmmad Habib, Gopinath Sharma or even G.H Ojha but such extraordinary claims that he controlled parts of Uttrakhand, Malwa (without any expedition), Pakistan are bit over the top. No other reliable source mentions those territories as much as I know;

Bottom line is Should we use/quote Singh to mention the territorial expansion of Chauhan Rajput kingdom ? Thanks for input. Packer&Tracker «Talk» 01:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Pinsky: Do tell how you come to conclude that this is borderline RS and should only be used for minor details, on the basis of the age? Can you quote any relevant rule that forbids use of 60 year old book. Sajaypal007 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Yfull.com a reliable source for DNA?

We seem to use it a lot.[59]. But I see nothing at [60] that convinces me it's a reliable source. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's apparently reliable enough for researchers, but it is not for our purposes. It's a raw database and is cited by trusted sources (e.g. this article by Patterson et al. (2021)), but we generally don't use primary raw databases as citations. Also, this source shouldn't be used to update text and to replace peer-review research articles as reference, as happened here[61]. –Austronesier (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

cahighways.org

The

talk

) 17:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

---

There seems to be mixed opinions about the reliability of cahighways.org. A while back I made an edit to the page

talk

) - just another roadgeek 18:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It says it's a hobbyist website, not a hobbyist blog. Seems like a big difference to me.

talk

) - just another roadgeek 20:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

A hobbyist website and hobbyist blog are more or less the same and the idea that it's inherently reliable because they don't say blog is silly. You asked for a reason, and if the content can be sourced to an actual RS, that needs to be used. If it can't, it shouldn't be in an article. Seems pretty simple to me.

WP:SPS applies. CUPIDICAE💕

20:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You asked for a reason, and if the content can be sourced to an actual RS, that needs to be used. If it can't, it shouldn't be in an article. Seems pretty simple to me. It's more complicated than that. There are tons of content that can be in an article without any sourcing per

WP:SKYBLUE. Huggums537 (talk

) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No. You're quite the comedian.

WP:SKYBLUE isn't. Maybe your comedy special should be called "Huggums, King of Bad Takes" CUPIDICAE💕

23:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is nothing more than a long-running

SPS. The About page makes it clear that they're not a subject matter expert. They're not widely cited by other reliable sources, either. Woodroar (talk

) 21:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because they're is no reason to assume it is reliable, same as anyone else's random website. I could make a website and publish whatever I wanted, wouldn't make it reliable. See

WP:RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 22:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

WP:SPS. Woodroar (talk

) 21:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@

self publishing their own material, especially not someone self publishing on the web as anyone with a small amount of cash and technical know how can do that. I posted on usenet probably as far back as 1996, definitely sometime between 1996-1998. I suspect in some archives somewhere, you'll also find a Geocities page of mine from 1998 or earlier. (Maybe Angelfire or Tripod, but I think only Geocities.) I've had maybe two or so other very minor websites. However I've definitely never been published by any stretch of the imagination and the fact I didn't maintain these websites is nothing to do with that.

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

Nil Einne (talk

) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:BESTSOURCES.’ Cheers Markbassett (talk

) 15:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Kremlin Disinformation Outlets Referenced by Wikipedia

This article may be relevant:

Юркова, Ольга (19 April 2022). "Pro-Kremlin Disinformation Outlets Referenced By Hundreds Of Wikipedia Articles". StopFake.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

We can do nothing about what foreign language wiki's do. And without knowing what we use them for its hard to say we should not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Cambridge University source?

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

Article- Siege of Sirhind

Need feedback on page 257 starting from sentence- "All were prepared to fight for their new faith" to the sentence- "Only lahore, delhi and a few afghan towns held out". The book is a Cambridge University book published in 1993. Its editors are Gordon Johnson, Director of South Asian studies at Cambridge University, CA Bally, a professor of Modern Indian History at Cambridge University and John F Richards, a historian at Duke university. Disputed on the basis of citation 8 being a quote from

WP:RSPRIMARY

, university scholars have examined his work and found apt of what to include in their research. Cambridge University is a peer reviewed academic source and it certainly would've researched and found Khan's work appropriate enough to include although it's unclear just how much of the page is derived from just Khan alone.

Not knowing anything about this topic, it seems to be a reliable source. Having a citation to a contentious work is not a good enough reason to make a source unreliable. Of course, if the content that this source supports is contentious - in the sense of other sources contradicting it - then

WP:DUE should be used to determine the appropriate weight given to each position. Alaexis_¿question?

05:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

This reversion and the message is out of order for two reasons (i) simply eliminating reliable sources distorts our coverage and is not in keeping with our neutrality policies and (ii) while it's OK under the circumstances for Kamhirir to come here given that revert message, coming to RS/N directly is not generally the right thing to do; instead per

WP:BRD

editors should try to resolve disagreements on the talk page before bringing in outside editors.

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

Chalst - All this information have already been shared and cited on the page Siege of Sirhind, under Aftermath section. The dispute is about Khafi Khan and about a specific quote by him that says "Sikhs massacred the inhabitants who did not readily convert to Sikhism and destroyed the city buildings." Khafi Khan was a writer who served the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb and his source has been widely studied by various modern historians for specific information but have also considered most of the work from Muntakhab-al Lubab, as fictitious and exaggeration. Like here, scholars Ganda Singh, Kirpal Singh Narang and Thornton have said that the book by Khafi Khan "contains terrible details of atrocious deeds and the writer is not be entrusted upon such a point. Very fruitful imagination seems to have been at work to ascribe every kind of cruelty". Here is the quote from the book by historian Ganda Singh, [62]. Dr. Narang on page 71 says that "there is sufficient evidence of the exaggeration by Latif, corroborated from Khafi Khan". Whereas Ganda Singh says that "such statements are blindly repeated by later writers like Latif" page 85 [63]. Also historian Khushwant Singh specifically states in his book on page 106 that, "Either from conviction, or fear or profit [or combination of all three), Hindu and Muslim peasants accepted conversion to Sikh faith" [64]. And all these quotes from modern historians and references have been included on the page Siege of Sirhind such as "He further castigates the writers of the Siyar-ul-Mutakherin and Muntakhib-ul-Lubab for exaggerating Sikh atrocities". Even historian like Hari Ram Gupta haven't used such quotes. The book new Cambridge history of India was written between 1922 and 1937 and states on page xiv that "We do no expect The new Cambridge history of India to be last word on the subject but an essential voice in the continuing discussion.....aim of the book is to encourage further scholarly work on Mughal period. We do not know enough." MehmoodS (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The New Cambridge History book that was provided was published in 1992/1993, not in the 1920s or 1930s as you are claiming. Please check the first few pages of the book in the link above, it also clearly states the editors of the book and they're all current or recent university professors [65], [66]. Also see [67]. Further Khan's work is widely cited and used in every single reliable secondary source I've seen so far regarding the 1700s in India. Remember our job is to review secondary sources, not primary sources. I'm not sure what you mean by Hari Ram Gupta didn't cite Khan, Khan's work is widely used in his book, the same with Ganda Singh's book, and Khushwant Singh's book as well. Just look at the citations on the bottom of the pages. Reviewing primary sources within reliable secondary sources is going to open a giant can of worms, and scholars can examine and determine what parts of someone's work to include in their research, if the primary source wasn't reliable they would not use it or choose the most accurate narrative. See [68]- The Cambridge History of India was published between 1922 and 1937, the New Cambridge History of India was published starting from the late 1980s and as you can see from the link, Part 1 of Volume 1 was published 1988. As per Cambridge university's site: "Although the original Cambridge History of India, published between 1922 and 1937, did much to formulate a chronology for Indian history and describe the administrative structures of government in India, it has inevitably been overtaken by the mass of new research published over the last sixty years. Designed to take full account of recent scholarship and changing conceptions of South India's historical development, The New Cambridge History of India is published as a series of short, self-contained volumes, each dealing with a separate themewithin an overall four-part structure." -- [69]. MehmoodS, please retract your claim that the New Cambridge History of India was published in the 1920s or 1930s, when it was published in 1992/1993. Kamhiri (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Certainly contentious. Further,

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The edit looks reasonable to me but only since it is preceded by mentions of disputed accounts. The cite seems a good RS, it is a published work by Cambridge, and an author with other books and publications in the field, along with other reputable historians as mentioned above. That historians differ should be taken as a given norm, as should that opposing sides of the time put out differing accounts. (I could point to British naval history and accounts of Trafalgar.) That they include claims of atrocities should be included as a reflection of the heat involved, such are always going to be suspect of being propaganda. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)