Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 380

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have been using Draft:Middle East International as a reference/source and would like to know if it can be considered as reliable. I appreciate that it is no longer published, probably had low circulation and is not available for checking on the internet. I have been using it in dozens of Lebanon related articles, for instance War of Liberation (1989–1990) and Zahleh campaign. Many thanks. Padres Hana (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've seen them cited by a few good resources in my search to find their e-prints, but it seems they hosted their entire archive on their own site and now that's kaput. Internet Archive has only their indices stored (and only for select years). I was hoping to read one of their articles used to support one of the more judgemental statements of the WP article (I selected ref 49 in the Lebanese Civil War: MEI 148, 24 April 1981; Jim Muir p.3.). If you know what online database, if any, carries their archives, let me know -- I tried ProQuest and a couple others already.

In the meantime, I'm overall just glad that almost everything in the articles is attributed in-line to specific places in source material (to what degree that correlates to the reality of the sources, I don't know yet). It does seem however that there is a lot of reliance on MEI as a source almost contemporaneous with the event in question, which is not ideal for something that happened over 30 years ago about which many books have been written. It's great to go into fine detail where appropriate, but historical reviews make a more generalized and hopefully more accurate assessment using a range of sources, so it's important to be reliant more on those for bigger-picture analysis. Also, sometimes MEI is cited when a broader source would be perfectly fine, such as ref 84: "three Western hostages were executed and a new round of hostage taking started." That's a pretty easily verified fact, though it seems to usually be lost in secondary history coverage because waaaay too much other stuff was going on. However -- and this is a good illustration of the caution needed using contemporaneous sources in history -- according to Nevin 2003 they "executed 1 US and 3 British hostages within a week." SamuelRiv (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I am away from home and cannot check ref 84 but I would think the report included the names of the men killed which would add to its credibility. Before I left I took a photo of ref 49 and can share if I knew how. Padres Hana (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I take the point that a longer perspective might clarify our view of events in the past. This case (reference 84/6) is an example: according to the MEI report it was unclear from the video released by the “Revolutionary Organisation of Socialist Muslims” that the man being hanged was Alec Collett, a 64 yr old British journalist working with UNRWA, kidnapped in March, as claimed. So I put the number killed as three. I haven't followed up the Springler reference you give and don’t remember the full Collett story except that somewhere on Wikipedia I saw that his body was identified in 2009.

With reference to reliability here are some notes taken from the Jim Muir report (2 May 1986).

16 April 1986. Three bodies found in grey blankets near village, Roueissat Safor, single shot in back of head. Two where quickly identified. Philip Padfield and Leigh Douglas, British teachers and long time residents, kidnapped in March. Confusion over third body. Initially thought to be Collett but confirmed as Peter Kilburn, 61 year old American librarian at AUB, who had been taken sixteen months earlier. The family believes he died shortly after the kidnapping since he had had a stroke previously and needed diabetes medication. Doctors were surprised he had not lost weight in time as a prisoner. A note near the bodies from the “Arab Commando Cells” made it clear that it was in retaliation for the Libya airstrikes. Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe quoted as saying he had firm intelligence that the men had been in Libyan hands. The murders were condemned by all West Beirut leaders, including Walid Jumblatt (long quote “my homeland is collapsing”), Nabih Berri and Sayyid Muhamad Hussein Faddallah. A few hours later John McCarthy, “a cameraman with World Television News”, was kidnapped on his way, under escort, to the airport. On 20 April remaining 35 British citizens evacuated from West Beirut. Two days later 11 Americans “escorted across the line”. A few French teachers came out later. Padres Hana (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not published in academic press seems like a polemical magazine Shrike (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No. It's

WP:SPS and anything to do with job searching websites is going to go over poorly in terms of RS. Sennecaster (Chat

) 01:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I would even be careful using it as a

WP:SPS. - Aoidh (talk

) 01:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And note also that the vast majority of reliable sources cited in Wikipedia are likely to be copyright. Almost all websites (and other publications) are, whether reliable by Wikipedia standards or not. Your edit to Hamburger University seems to have been reverted because you copy-pasted content from the source. I suggest you read the note Diannaa left on your talk page back in January. [2] Reliable sources are supposed to be cited to support content written in your own words, not copy-pasted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I already read the note, and that was January 2021 (over a year ago). Since then, I have improved on adding references, typing them in without copy-pasting them. AKK700 02:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Several sources in article that are on the Perennial list, per

The two most egregious usages are: 1) Fandom.com (unclear licensing, unclear ownership as its fan-based content, unclear

Additional input is requested. Thanks GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am bringing my arguments here from the discussions at

WP:METRO

because it is a direct interview that we can clearly verify is reliable and correct using the attached video. There is no alternative since any other discussion of the interview would just be referencing this original source.

The bigger issue is Fandom.

SlashFilm. We could change the new wording to something similar to what we already have for IGN, such as Fandom's staff articles are considered generally reliable for entertainment and popular culture, but consider whether the information from this source constitutes due weight before citing it in an article. - adamstom97 (talk

) 02:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

adamstom97 -- do we have anything to go on other than the hiring of Mr. Goldman? I agree, that is evidence tending to show some level of reliability, but by itself I am not sure it gets to full "RS" status for me. I find navigating the fandom site to be a sisyphean task. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should get to full RS status, I thought my wording was cautious enough to make that clear. Just that certain pages which are actual articles should be generally reliable for certain wiki articles, namely entertainment and pop culture. I agree that navigating the website is bad, I have only ever looked at articles on there that were suggested to me by Google or other sites reporting on Fandom's info. If there are still concerns, we could be more cautious and go for something similar to

WP:SPS. Perhaps wording like this? Fandom's staff blogs are written with an unclear level of editorial oversight and consensus is that they are not necessarily reliable. These should be treated as unreliable self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. - adamstom97 (talk

) 02:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this approach, but I don't think I personally would go so far just based on the existence of a managing editor. The best I could endorse at this point is treating the articles as

WP:DUE status that way. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 02:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've said something at the talk page first. I don't have any concerns with that wording. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 05:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I just realized I misread adamstom97 above, and he basically was advancing the same approach I was. Chalk it up to old eyes (or an old brain!). Suffice it to say, fine with that wording. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries Vortex, and thanks for the input Dumuzid. Let's see if anyone else has thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion, RIA Novosti should get the same classification as TASS (generally unreliable for facts), while Interfax should get the status RIA Novosti is now (no consensus, although with a note that the Russian Interfax should generally be avoided), the reason for RIA Novosti is obvious (not only it is a Russian state-owned channel, and the fact that it has already spread fake news, it also published "What Russia Should Do with Ukraine", a opinion paper explicitly calling for the destruction of Ukraine and Ukrainian culture and people, aka pro-kremlin rhetoric, only these facts would already pretty much classify it as a biased source), while Interfax is.... harder to tell, the Ukrainian version seems legit, although the Russian one has spread rumors that Ukraine was building a nuke/dirty bomb, so, i dont really know, any thoughts? 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

First and foremost these evaluations have to be time-dependent, and not just some simple color code. Most articles on WP for which newspaper sources are RS take place before 2022, and (probably most?) before 2013 (the merger) as well. RIA Novosti had at least some integrity in their news section as late as 2018, in spite of fake news creeping in (link in article). Opinion was trash since at least 2013, but of course the opinion of non-notable non-experts in newspapers is not a RS almost anywhere. Science and tech is also problematic since 2013 (and comparable, in that writer's opinion, to the UK's Daily Mail prior, which of course isn't great). CJR has a rather nuanced analysis of Russian state media from 2010. Of course the further back you go, the less you have to worry about direct state censorship (and in the 90s, the more you have to worry about crap quality and standards, so I've heard). I mean, what facts are you saying it's unreliable for? If you see a headline like "A pothole on 42nd street got filled Tuesday", do we really think that's unreliable reporting? SamuelRiv (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Im talking about using RIA Novosti for "facts", specially on the war in Ukraine, although we could do with RIA Novosti like we did to Newsweek (until a certain time period (in this case until 2018 for general stuff, and 2013 for opinions, tech and science, maybe also exclude the 90s because of quality, standarts, etc)= more or less reliable), and, no, im not talking about basic things like "pothole on street is filled", im talking about using RIA Novosti for facts about the war in Ukraine and stuff, although it can be used for statements by Russian politicians, kremlin officials and the Russian state, although, as always, attributing the fact that its a STATEMENT/CLAIM, for Interfax Russia, the note should say the same (generally avoid it to state facts, but reliable for STATEMENTS/CLAIMS by the Kremlin and pro-kremlin politicians), as always, also say the basics (opinion papers and stuff shouldnt be used). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have edge cases or a specific disagreement then it would be helpful to link to that instance. Otherwise we just have to speak in generalities and guess at what you're referring to. You obviously shouldn't use daily newspaper reports for any specific military-related statistics. Many Western newspapers have very high-level sources, but even then it's hard to know whether a high-level government source will have reliable statistics in the middle of a war, especially with less-than-top-tier militaries. So that's one of about 50 possible types of fact you could be trying to verify. Did I guess right? SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What im talking about is that people will try and push RIA Novosti into random articles to push POV and propaganda, i dont really need to link a single instance, theres a LOT of instances of RIA Novosti publishing propaganda, and some idiots have tried to put it in articles (like

2022 Western Russia attacks) to try and "prove" a point, although the consensus was against including them. 187.39.133.201 (talk

) 02:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Not just RIA, but any source or reporting in general should be chosen carefully surrounding war. Because as it is said: "In war, truth is the first casualty." What's reported today can turn out to be untrue tomorrow or even mere hours from now as things constantly change. Also some of what you refer are likely syndicated pieces highlighted and often times "Reliable sources" report the same info if even just to inform others what's out there.CaribDigita (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

i know, the thing is that RIA Novosti has spread fake news, if we are going to let them in, them might as well let TASS, RT and Sputnik in, also, a lot of what they have reported, specially related to the war, has been disproven, what i want to is at least make it clear that you cant use RIA to state facts like it has been done in the past, for random claims and statements by Russian politicians or public figures? its fine, but not to state facts, the same way you probably don't want TASS, RT and Sputnik in is the same reason we shouldn't let RIA Novosti in to STATE "FACTS", i repeat, STATEMENTS BY RUSSIAN PUBLIC FIGURES, OK but not to use it as a reliable source in any way, the way RIA Novosti is considered now opens a LOT of breaches that Russian trolls may try to use to push POV and Russian disinformation/propaganda. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't cite any established media out of Russia for factual reporting since February 2022. Prior to 2018ish is qualified per above. But again, the vast majority of citations of Russian media on this site will be prior to 2022, so why should the general classification change? I wouldn't rely on an interview with a person with a concussion for absolute facts, but prior to and after the concussion I'd evaluate things differently. (Not the best analogy but whatever). SamuelRiv (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Recently an unregistered user has been using this website as a source for a claim regarding S-400 missile systems in the ukraine war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-400_missile_system&diff=1099710716&oldid=1099679621

The website seems to be heavily positively biased towards russia. A lot of its articles, including the one above, cannot be verified through prominent news outlets. It also seems to heavily rely on sputnik, which is a wikipedia deprecated source. Interestingly enough, at the bottom of some of the articles the source is stated simply as "Source: Facts".

The website does not seem to be reliable regarding politics, specifically when it's related to russia. Eddmanx (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It was subtle, but I detected a tiny bit of bias in their reporting on the Balkans. Probably just my imagination though. In general wouldn't trust any news outlet for accurate military data in current time in the middle of a war, per another comment I have on this board. Looking into srbn's range of coverage more, I found an article on U.S. policy used a colorful character as its source and played up his credentials quite a bit. On domestic Serbian affairs the headlines are far worse than the content, which seems actually rather objective and possibly reliable in that particular case (though I would always cross check facts).

I couldn't find anything about Russian affairs apart from the Ukraine war, which is probably just saturation, so I can't look at whether they have a particular bias in Russian domestic politics, or in favor of Russia relative to Balkans or EU politics. On Ukraine specifically they're clearly cheerleading for Russia, but factual reliability is an interesting question, because even though you have e.g. mini articles based around quotations that are clearly biased, is the quotation nevertheless real? In that case it says (in the machine translation anyway so it may be wrong) that he told it to "our agency", which would imply they have a foreign correspondent, which is not cheap (or just someone who knows some important people because there's zero communications discipline, or just used a syndicated column and didn't correct the wording), so is that believable for an outlet of this size (I don't know how big it is)? They quote other high-level officials in similar articles, though some of that could easily come from public releases. They also take some detailed war coverage from Sputnik, where again I wouldn't trust facts to be representative of anything other than either what people on the ground actually believe or what they are being encouraged to push (and the two can intermingle). Such an evaluation is for someone like a feature journalist or analyst however, and not for us to make for a WP article. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Virgin Islands Daily News is a local newspaper in the

It was one of the sources that I referenced in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Caesar.

My question is whether the newspaper is considered a reliable source. I haven’t been able to find previous discussion regarding this newspaper, but I may be mistaken. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Fats40boy11. According the the newspaper's About us page, it has been published for over 90 years and has won at least two major journalism awards. The Virgin Islands Daily News verifies that the paper won a Pulitzer Prize and also awards from the Society of Prifessional Journalists. There may not have been any previous discussions because the reliability is obvious. Cullen328 (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. I thought that it was reliable, hence why I brought it up in the AFD, however I just wanted to double check with others. Again, many thanks Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Its generally viewed as the USVI's

St Croix with the Daily News being the paper of record for the rest. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 17:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to think it is not reliable. Its editorial processes are completely opaque. --Boynamedsue (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "opaque"?

talk

) 09:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear who writes and selects the data that is published and at whose behest. Boynamedsue (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I was thinking of revising the

It has a RSP entry at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Heavy.com which states There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements, including dates of birth. When Heavy.com cites another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew that I was missing it somewhere so thank you for pointing it out and apologies for missing it earlier.

Aoba47 (talk

) 02:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on their help page, I think About The Artists is an example of

Thanks, WallAdhesion (talk) 02:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. 'About The Artists' is clearly and unambiguously user-generated content, and shouldn't be cited. Wikipedia's own internal search shows it's use in a more convenient manner than the link above, and lists 166 citations. [5]

As for how to best deal with it, I'm not sure. It probably depends on whether it's citation is being used to establish notability (which is clearly inappropriate), or just for minor details in a performer's career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

World Population Review presumably provides the latest year data for comparison between countries. However, when I come to check their sources, some of them seems to be old or not working.

I am considering it in List of countries by irreligion, which currently has outdated statistics that does not reflect the world. Statistics need to be updated, as recent statistics have more value. [6][7][8]

Therefore, there is a compromise between reliability and latest data. What do you think? zsteve21 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, its a random internet

WP:SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 17:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

They cite their sources in those maps, so you can cite the sources they cite in a secondary citation: "Pew Research 2020, cited in World Pop Rev".

I'm not sure why zsteve21 says it's random internet SPS without any further explanation -- accepting that prima facie, it is more appropriate to cite sources in a secondary fashion when they are presented this way, even though you could just cite the RS from the website directly; moreover, citing the website in a secondary fashion is certainly better than citing any published source that doesn't cite its sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I'm not seeing anything that gives me any confidence in World Population Review. There's no "About us" section, so we don't know who they are or if they have any kind of fact-checking operation or even that they're not a one-person operation. Nor am I seeing any reviews of the website by second parties. It's an ad-driven for-profit website. It's not entirely impossible that they have an agenda, since we don't know who they are. Not a usable source IMO. You can't expect the reader to go check our sources sources. Why is "Pew Research 2020, cited in World Pop Rev" better than ""Pew Research 2020"? Herostratus (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1965), "Mauryan Art", Indian art : a history of Indian art from the earliest times up to the third century A.D., Vishwavidyalaya Prakashan, Varanasi, pp. 56–74,
  OCLC 475432099 is a collection of papers written earlier by Agrawala. The particular one, "Mauryan Art," is an unpublished one
  written in 1952.
• A Flickr picture: INDIA 2019 - Sarnath Archaeological Museum Ashokan Lion Capital which shows a 24-spoked wheel surmounting a pillar.

Would either be a reliable source for an edit in which a hand-drawn illustration of a 36-spoked wheel is proposed to be introduced in a Wikipedia article,

When there's no severe shortage of quality scholarship, as in this case, you should certainly use the guidelines of

WP:UNDUE endorsement of old scholarship. SamuelRiv (talk

) 16:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv:@Fowler&fowler: The "32 spokes" of the Lion Capital of Ashoka are indeed mentionned by modern scholarship, so I don't think this should block us from providing a Creative Commons visual reconstitution. And I know of no modern sources contradicting this number: they only sometimes just don't go into such detail in their descriptions. For example:

• "The wheel that once topped the great Ashokan pillar at Sarnath had 32 spokes" in Huntington, John (1990). Understanding the 5th century Buddhas of Sarnath (PDF). p. 90, Fig.8.
• Indian Government communication of 2009, explaining that as early as 1957, the discrepancy between the symbol on the Indian flag (24 spokes) and the topmost wheel at Sarnath (32 spokes) was noted by Mukherjee, and was the object of a letter to Nehru: "We are somewhat concerned to find that our State emblem, known as Ashoka Chakra, is not an accurate replica of the Sarnath pillar ... a charkra of 32 spokes was in the original Ashokan monument, placed on the shoulders of the four lions." (), but Nehru considered the modification unnecessary in his written answer (Biswas, U.N. (2009). "Essential Service Values & Banga" (PDF). Administrative Training Institute, Government of West Bengal: 50–55.).
• "The recovered fragments of Dharmachakra as on the heads of four lions of Sarnath pillar suggest 32 spokes" in Sinha, Nirmal Chandra (1994). Asoka's Dhamma: Testimony of Monuments (PDF). Gangtok, Sikkim: Namgyal Institute of Tibetology. p. 8.
• "The mahdchakra on top of the Sarnath capital also had 32 spokes" Agrawala, Vasudeva S. (1976). The Heritage of Indian Art A Pictorial Presentation. Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. p. 51 note 9.
  ISBN 978-81-230-2290-1
  .
• The symbol of the Supreme Court of India actually has 32 spokes Supreme Court site[9]Supreme Court commemorative coin 1950-2000[10][11], as explained page 7, and contrary to what is claimed on Wikipedia this file

and many, many others...

Creative Commons reconstitutions of the Sarnath Pillar of Ashoka

I think that the "32 spokes" thing is actually a non-issue and is completely uncontroversial, and should not stop us from providing a visual reconstitution, as already done by scholarly or official sources that I have identified:

• Agrawala, Vasudeva Sharana (1965). Studies In Indian Art. p. 67.
• "Museum notice in the Sarnath Archaeological Museum". 17 February 2019..
  
• Irwin, John (1973). "'Aśokan' Pillars: A Reassessment of the Evidence". The Burlington Magazine. 115 (848): 706 and 720.
  ISSN 0007-6287
  .
• Werner, Karel (30 September 2019). Symbols in Art and Religion: The Indian and the Comparative Perspectives. Routledge. p. 97.
  ISBN 978-1-136-10114-4
  .
• Annual Report of the Supreme Court of India (2007-2008) (PDF). p. 2.

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To future respondents: please note the latter comment was simultaneously posted by User:पाटलिपुत्र to the Lion Capital Talk page thread. I think further discussion regarding archaeology, symbols, and the substance of the claims should be posted on that page, and discussion regarding the suitability of the sources themselves, as well as the proposed photoillustration, for WP, can continue here. SamuelRiv (talk) 11:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem per se with using Agrawala, which has fuller descriptions than most sources, which just mention one aspect of pieces or the period. Yes, it's rather old, but the delay before publication means little. An equally comprehensive more recent source, by a proper specialist, would be preferable, where available. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a delay before publication. It is a publication of an old paper privately without peer review, i.e. by a little known publisher. Obviously, if in the ten modern sources cited in the article not a single one makes a to-do about spokes, and that includes Frederick Asher's 190-page book on Sarnath (2020) published by the Getty Research Institute in LA, which has plenty on Oertel, on the excavation, on the discovery of the lion capital, it is UNDUE. Aggrawala is entirely inappropriate for a high-level article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  And Johnbod are you also on board on all the unholy reconstructive surgery being done by user:Pat? The missing lower jaw of one lion in profile (File:Sarnath capital.jpg) has been restored by pasting a mirror copy of the other lion in profile

  (File:Sarnath Ashoka Lions with Dharma Wheel.jpg)? The tell-tale dark stain has showed up too. After that the patient has been given an RGB2GRAY software conversion and it is being called a pencil sketch? What user:Pat is attempting to do is not only unencyclopedic but makes WP come across as being deceitful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

WallStreedPro appears to have long-read articles on a variety of topics. How do we feel about this site's reliability? Chumpih ^t 04:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable. Seems like it's a clickfarm. Articles are unsigned, and I can find no information about either the editorial board, the journalists, or some sort of editorial guideline. It seems like it republishes content from elsewhere; sometimes that's indicated at then of the article, but often it isn't. Their current top article is a republication of a Twitter rant. JBchrch talk 18:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Not reliable.

Banks Irk (talk

) 15:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a judgement call for each source. There are such a wide variety of types of sources that I think it's unreasonable to make a judgement call about an assumption of reliability, as each individual source would have its own merits or problems that contribute towards its notability. I don't think "unless we can prove it's unreliable we must assume it is reliable" would be a particularly wise call, especially when the context of what it's being cited for is often as important as what the source itself is saying. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats kind of backwards, sources generally only come here when editors disagree on a source's reliability. Editors are expected to evaluate on their own whether the sources they use are WP:RS, its supposed to be one of the core editorial competencies. So we don't assume reliability however we do

WP:V until we have reason to believe otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk

) 00:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, the discussion that resulted in this post is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Should the blog "Radical Copyeditor" be linked?. This is also a misrepresentation of what I said at that discussion. I said "We do not operate on an assumption that all sources are unreliable until proven reliable." which does not imply the obvious; all sources are reliable until proven otherwise. I also said that evidence of unreliability should be provided when asserting that a source is unreliable, which in the context of that discussion would be necessary because a several independent organisations consider the source reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which, I will clarify for uninvolved readers, is a discussion about whether a widely used style guide on the topic should be included in the MoS page's external links section...which Elizium23 and one other are opposing as they believe the style guide's attached blog is an unreliable source. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

False; I believe that the entire website is an unreliable source. It doesn't matter what's attached or whether there's a blog or not. The author is not notable, nor a recognized authority, and the website lacks editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking. Elizium23 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point remains. You are treating this as a source on an article, not what it actually is: a relevant link for an external links section on a MoS page, which had its relevancy proven in its wide usage in notable organizatiosn documentation on the subject. My replies have repeatedly mentioned this misunderstanding which I believe is present about what we're discussing here, and your replies have continually ignored it, deciding to discuss the tangential question of the blog instead. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, this is not the place to have this discussion. This is RSN. We're discussing inclusion of a relevant style guide in the external links on a MoS page, not a source in an article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, well,

WP:PAG. I mean, come on, really, can't we find anything more reliable than this? Is the the hill people want to die on for this policy? I mean the site itself links to about 3 other solid, reliable style guides in its footnotes! Elizium23 (talk

) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my point remains. "A MOS page is not a Wikipedia article", and this is a relevant link to include on the MoS page, and strong arguments have been given for its relevancy. It is a widely used style guide in this field...on the same website as a blog that is not a RS. No one is saying the blog is a RS. That is not remotely a point of contention here. Your replies insofar have stuck to extrapolating based on article-based policies rather than actually engaging with discussion on the link's relevancy. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In this context it sounds a little bizarre, honestly, I'm not sure what factual reliability has to do with style. Or why article content guidelines are being applied to project pages. Are we going to remove most of our PAG because they're OR? Or I suppose people could argue ABOUTSELF here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what it is (for example wiki's are not RS, three is no assumption they are), similar to SPS, you have to demonstrate it is reliable. ON the other hand, a book published by a reputable publisher would be an RS unless shown other wise on the whole. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well wouldn't it require evidence to determine whether a site is a wiki, or evidence that a publisher is reputable? We're in tautological territory here, no? Elizium23 (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As I've said a couple of times now, we don't operate from an assumption a source is unreliable until proven otherwise. That also doesn't mean we operate on the assumption that sources are reliable until proven otherwise. It's a lot more nuanced than a blanket statement like that.

There's an RfC ongoing right now near the top of the noticeboard at

WP:RSP. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 23:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• All sources are less reliable than you think. The *New York Times* for instance gets important stuff wrong often enough.
• That said, even some random hobo's blog is like 99% reliable for most facts. If the one-person part-time blog "Elvis Bio Facts for Obsessive Fans" says "Max Alvis was The King's second cousin" it's very likely to be true. (Of course "very likely" and "99%" are not near good enough for our standards. Just pointing out this fact.)
• If you've only a sketchy or marginal source for a fact, ask yourself if the fact is too obscure to bother including. If it's not, there will probably be a good source or several sources.
• The #1 thing you need want to know about a source is details about their fact-checking operation. Is it independent, or can the editor overrule the factchecker? How many factcheckers are there? Is it an intern/entry level position (usually true) or a career job? This is really hard and rare to know, and if you don't know this you have to look for other, less-sure indicators. The proxy is to sniff around their "About Us" section and do other detective work. (For instance, I have no idea what Time Magazine's independent fact checking operation is like, but I operate under the assumption that it's decent because they're big enough to have one and it fits their business model to care if they get facts right and they don't really have an incentive to spin or cherry pick facts to support some ideology, and so on. (This is a main reason we don't like small blogs and publications -- they don't have the money to hire someone to check everything, so any kind of error can slip in). "Reputation" is a poor data point, doesn't mean that much.
• Also, books don't usually have independent factcheckers (they have copyeditors) so most books are less reliable than you think. (This is just a general statement with many exceptions). So you have look at other factors for vetting a book, such as the author's skill, rep, and business model (that is, what are her incentives for getting everything right as opposed to getting to print ASAP, etc).
• There's lots lots more. But basically,
  WP:RS, correctly, says that there are only two sources that can assumed -- not proven! -- to be usually reliable: peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and publications (such as the New Yorker and Der Spiegal etc) that are known to have robust independent fact-checking operations. Everything else is up for discussion, and we want to seem some proof. Herostratus (talk
  ) 17:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: "Default judgement?" The OP is
  WP:FORUMSHOPPING, attempting to find purchase for their view on a hypothetical when there's an ongoing discussion of the concrete in the appropriate talk venue. This is also an incorrect forum for this particular discussion; we most often discuss reliable source policy issues on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, not in a forum designed to discuss discrete and current situations in pagespace. Further, the title of this section says much about how the OP views this--participants continue to use the word "assume" instead of the word wikipedians utilize in guideline and policy, "presume." A legendary tek figure has often said "assumption is the mother of all f#ckups" and that's an essential point to understanding the danger in pursuing this thread. Reliability is NEVER assumed. Reliability is a quality demonstrated and recognized, not merely hoped for in good faith as the OP (perhaps playfully) attempts to inquire about the default position of a hypothetical untested source. Society measures the reliability of free throw shooter not on an assumption (a good faith expectation based on hope) and not on a presumption (a good faith expectation based on standards) but on their current success rate and their pattern of success based on experience and training. Likewise, we don't put entries on the Perennial Sources list based on assumptions or presumptions; we link those entries to relevant discussions and consensus on this board as they actually arise. As several editors have pointed out already, we shouldn't be having this discussion here at all. BusterD (talk
  ) 18:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is listed as needing a copy-edit, but strikes me as something that possibly should be reviewed by MEDRS people. Since I have no idea how to make that happen, if so, I am asking for help with that. If it doesn’t, fine then, somebody can look at the English as somebody suggested. Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Would posting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine help to attract people who know about Med RS? Red Fiona (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting comment on whether this poll should be included in the Opinion polling on Scottish independence article.

For further information please see ongoing discussion here and here. AlloDoon (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlloDoon Are you asking whether this is a reliable source or whether information from the poll should be included in the article? This noticeboard can only help you about the former. JBchrch talk 08:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort to try to establish a view to guide us, and hope I am not being pedantic here but the issue with this poll is not whether the source is reliable or not but rather in using such an unusual method (specifically sampling 1600 UK wide with a Scottish sample of 500 within this). In some ways it is similar to there has been about the Yougov/These Islands Poll which asked 2 different Questions on Independence giving samples of just over 500 for each With both it is the unusual nature of there practice that makes me think they don't sit with the Wiki page main section. Soosider3 (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@JBchrch It is the latter point you mention - to check if the source should be included in the article. My apologies for wrongly posting this here. Shall I delete this section of the noticeboard ? AlloDoon (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@AlloDoon No worries at all. Just leave this section up if anybody wants to chime in, and it will be automatically archived after 5 days of inactivity. JBchrch talk 12:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @JBchrch, appreciate this AlloDoon (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the personal blog of Todd Bolen.[12] Bolen is a professor at

No. - Roxy the English speaking dog 16:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The only posts I see in the first several pages are "Weekend roundup"s, which just list outside media items with a one-sentence summary. If you have the specific opinion or fact that can be attributed only to him and not a secondary source he links, could you post that? Meanwhile, from what I've read even though mainstream biblical studies/criticism and biblical archaeology is now mostly secularized and has decent scholarship, this was only a relatively recent development, and the field still draws many fringe figures. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I finally found a few "web-log"-type posts of his. With the caveat that anything I assess from the writing of someone in a field I've never trained in is completely not worth considering, I'd just say that he seems to cite biblical text and turn-of-the century scholars ([15] and in particular [16] caught my attention in a few places) more than my reading of the above articles would suggest would be typical for mainstream scholarship. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Depends on what it is cited for. The blog falls under

Banks Irk (talk

) 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society is also inerrantist with anonymous peer review. That doesn't give me any confidence, there's no way of knowing whether all the "peers" are also inerrantist. And here's a mention of a non-peer reviewed article in it.[17] Its article is entirely self-sourced by the way. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be shocked if its editors were not all inerrantists, based on the description of the Society itself.

Banks Irk (talk

) 17:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

After googling in vain for reliable secondary sources for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, I have prodded the article. What the journal has to say about itself can't confer notability. Bishonen | tålk 16:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC).

Deprodded, so I procedurally nominated for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would concur with you here. Artemaeus Creed (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I would use it on Todd Bolen's page (if one ever exists) but not as a general references. The degrees aren't from institutions known for their academic rigor, they're rather fringe. Same goes for the journals, this guy just isn't published in the mainstream. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• No, outside of Bolen's own views if those views are treated seriously elsewhere. Then possibly could use this site to give some further detail, but generally no. nableezy - 14:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• www.tvguide.com/celebrities/kath-soucie/credits/3030062019

TV Guide is a reliable source for air dates and such. I'd say it's also a reasonable choice for biographical details about celebrities. However, in the page linked above, Kath Soucie's birth name is listed as "2/20/1967 12:00:00 AM". Well, that doesn't seem very likely. If we assume that's her birth date, is this usable? As far as I can tell, this is not user editable. I can't even find a way to submit a correction or alert them to the error. That does make me feel a little less sure about using this as a source in BLPs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not likely because of the 12:00:00 AM time stamp, or because that would have made her 12 years old in her first television acting appearance? BD2412 T 03:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea how old she is. If you do a Google Image Search, she looks somewhere around 50, though. I'm mostly worried that the site has obvious errors, such as listing her name as a timestamp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Databaes are going to have errors in them, and I can almost guarantee that there's some central database (or set of databases) that's behind it. The way the urls and formatting work across all of the credits pages indicate to me that the pages are likely procedurally generated from a database without additional oversight. Whether this clear error appeared in the database due to some data entry person mistyping something or from some OCR/robotic process automation error, it's unclear. I'd be surprised if humans were completely uninvolved in vetting the data, and as far as I can tell it isn't quite like IMDbPro where anybody can claim and edit their own page (for a fee). —

talk

) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• A note to anyone who wants to write neutral deprecation RFCs… for the basic question, just ask: “Should (insert source) be deprecated/downgraded?” That’s it. Stop there.

If you need to say anything else (be it to give background info, evidence, comments, an explanation about why you are asking, or whatever) do that in the discussion or survey sections. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

We list Who's Who (UK) as generally unreliable due to its "poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information", and state that "Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source". Check. But what about Marquis Who's Who, which is used on some pages? For example in Barack Obama, currently footnote 51, it's used to reference details of Obama's pre-presidency career in 4 places. In 3 of the 4 it's not the only reference, and the content is most likely true, but should it be used at all? Especially when other sources are available. MWW seems to have some higher pretensions to accuracy than Who's Who (UK) — certainly if we read its Wikipedia article. While Who's Who (UK) has an extensive, and partly critical, section on "accuracy", and an up-to-date discussion of the subject on talk, Marquis Who's Who largely elides the subject of accuracy, and of where the information comes from. (Also the article has a more promotional tone altogether.) It focuses on the selection of the biographees, and avoids looking at the man behind the curtain — the composition of the entries. All MWW say about that, at least all that appears in our article, is: "Once selected, a biographical draft is sent to biographees for pre-publication checking. In cases where notable individuals decline to submit biographical data, Marquis proceeds to compile all of the information to be published." That sounds evasive in my opinion. (I suppose the dangling modifier doesn't matter, though it's not promising for the quality of the writing.) The two sentences sit uneasily together, strongly suggesting a first step that's not mentioned: that first the individual is asked for biographical data, then the MWW editors compile a "biographical draft", and then the biographee gets to change it, if they like. I do believe MWW normally gets the info from the biographees in the first place, because, you know, if they did independent research, think how much more expensive it would be. I doubt that it does much fact checking. Bishonen | tålk 14:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

Of the various Who's Who's, MHH is probably the most reputable in that it's not a purely vanity publication, unlike others. It does have editors, but its editorial rigor is questionable in that it relies on the subjects themselves (if alive) to provide review of its profiles. A quick Google search contains many anecdotal examples of subjects writing that the drafts they received were inaccurate and had to be significantly revised. It is a valuable research source, but I'd be cautious about using it as a reference, and would never rely upon it alone as a source for an article.

Banks Irk (talk

) 14:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Should be treated the same as the UK version, as a self-published source. Id just say that Who's Who books regardless of location or publisher should be treated the same. nableezy - 14:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Our WP article is being evasive? The entire thesis of your post seems to rest on your misconception that the sentence you quoted is a direct quotation from someone other than our WP article. Aside from that WP quote, you don't provide any supporting sources at all, nor do you contraindicate the sources referenced in our article themselves. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The section that contains the lines I quoted clearly hews closely to what their chief executive told The New York Times in an interview. The link is unfortunately dead, at least for me; it says I should be "redirected automatically to target URL; if not click the link", and there is no link. I don't know how to handle that. But perhaps I might as well instead quote Marquis' Description of Services from their website: ..we do not and cannot warrant that the description of our Services or other content contained on the Website are entirely accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free. .. Users have the option to submit biographical and personal information for publication in our directories. You are responsible for ensuring that any information you submit to Marquis is accurate.[21] Bishonen | tålk 15:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

WP:LIBRARY databases. I also updated the article's link. SamuelRiv (talk

) 16:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Their website says "Marquis Who’s Who strives to provide our listees with the best branding opportunities in order to reach their highest potential."[22]. Though the branding opportunities are outside the listings, the business model of this organization does appear to rely on monetizing the listings and that doesn't give us the necessary confidence in it being a reliable source. For example, I looked up Michael Milken and it doesn't say anything about his convictions, pardons etc., merely labels him as a "think-tank executive, philanthropist", reinforcing the possibility that this is all about branding and not necessarily about accuracy. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per lacking the basic criteria that we look for in reliable sources. Andrevan@ 16:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Marquis Who's Who is also essentially a SPS which will publish false information if provided by subjects. At best we can treat it as akin to a press release, but I don't think we should go that far. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• General comment: everyone here should check the linked article themselves. There are three relevant critical sources: one is a print book that I'm not bothering finding, one is the 2005 NYT feature that Bishonen cites but says they never read, and the third is the 1999 Forbes piece from before the 2003 buy-out. The takeaway from the NYT, the only real source on this, is unfortunately really lacking in substance: it either means that of the returned corrections, they mostly fact-check but expect to miss some, or they mostly don't fact check except a few, or they never really bothered checking and just hoped their editor would let it slide. The librarian's quote is rather relevant I think. In general, are we measuring its reliability against, say, Encyclopedia Britannica, who thoroughly fact-check, or some nonfiction book publishers, who often don't? ([23] [24] etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelRiv (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• If there is no way of knowing which pieces are provided by the subject without any fact-checking, there is no practical way of separating those that are subject to some review from those that are not. Which means this needs to be judged by the lowest common denominator, and that means cannot depend on it to have performed any type of fact-checking or editorial review, and that makes it generally unreliable or an SPS. nableezy - 23:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Did you read the Atlantic article I linked? It implicates Random House, among others (it accuses all non-scholastic publishers, really). I don't know where you'll find the bottom if you pursue that reductionism without context. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Generally Unreliable. Probably an SPS, the current summary at RSP says Marquis Who's Who, including its publication Who's Who in America, is considered generally unreliable. As most of its content is provided by the person concerned, editors generally consider Marquis Who's Who comparable to a self-published source. There is a broad consensus that Marquis Who's Who should not be used to establish notability for article topics. Seeing these publishing links and the lines Have you made strides in your career that deserve to be showcased to the world? Could you benefit from joining a notable network of like-minded, seasoned professionals? Are you looking for an effective way to revive your professional reputation? from here makes me doubt its reliability also. VickKiang (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, an editor added some info to the history of Ice cream, i would like to know if the source used is reliable or not for this topic. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, copy-pasting from the BBC source is a breach of copyright, regardless of its merits as a source, so I've removed it. As for whether the BBC article can be used for paraphrased content on the subject, I'd have to suggest not. At least, not for the claim being made, since it appears to contradict later text both in the source cited and other sources cited in our article. If ice was being used to make frozen desserts in other places a thousand years or so earlier, we can't say that what was going on in China in 618-97AD was 'first'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think BBC News is a trusted source that can be used for any claim on the English Wikipedia.

I also think citing two sentences correctly doesn't mean copyright violation, but I will change it for you.

This is the first recorded ice cream in history as the Iranians only made it in 550BC. CABF45 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You think that 618-97AD is earlier than 550BC? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This site is one aimed to children, and while it is unlikely to be absolutely wrong, there has to be far better quality sites for the same information. --Masem (t) 12:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the BBC News source OK or not? CABF45 (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's CBBC, the children's site, so probably not unless it's for something where a source aimed at children would be clearly necessary. Also, even if a source is generally ok, that doesn't mean you should just republish it when it prints

WP:NONSENSE. SamuelRiv (talk

) 12:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually it's not just CBBC, it's a page from CBBC's

Newsround. As far as I know, despite its target audience being children it nominally falls under the remit of BBC News and follows their editorial standards. That said, the citation is pretty old, and there's almost certainly better sources we could use for the history of ice cream. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 04:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As with any other source, it depends on what it is being cited for. The history section of the ice cream article is contradictory as it is, and adding further to this isn't at all appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Just as all of the above people said, reliability is context dependent. The BBC is generally considered reliable, which is to say we trust them to do an appropriate level of fact checking and that they generally do it correctly, but until we know WHAT wikipedia text is being cited to WHICH information from the BBC, we really can't answer definitively if the specific usage is appropriate. In this case (non-specialist source aimed at children, contradicts information from other sources, etc.) it's probably best to leave this out, but that doesn't impugn the BBC in this case, just that this usage of this BBC source doesn't work for our purpose. --Jayron32 13:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

News sources are reliable for news. When ice cream was first created is not news and shouldnt be citing a news source. nableezy - 14:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of these disputes arise from some camps of editors seeking to establish a "first" origin. (Quoting User:AndyTheGrump from the related talk page discussion "Wikipedia needs to avoid definitive statements - and ideally, to avoid sources which make them.") I agree with User talk:Jayron32. We can do without the BBC for this. The same information can be sourced to widely used on Wikipedia Reaktion global history series. Spudlace (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In general, history is not the sort of thing that we should be using

It's "buffalo milk, flour and camphor". Camphor is like turpentine. It sounds awful, thickened buffalo milk no sweetener and tasting of lamp oil. If it counts as ice cream, seems open to interpretation. -- GreenC 19:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a terpenoid, not a turpentine. And camphor does have historical culinary uses, as well as a few modern ones. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to get some input on whether this book should be considered a reliable source for information about the D.B. Cooper hijacking. It's published by "Moonshine Cove Publishing". I notice a few questionable books in their nonfiction catalog, such as "The Geology of Climate Change" (the jacket says "Is the Earth's Climate changing? Yes! And it has been changing since the Earth formed...") and "Truth Lies and ETs" (the jacket says "If you want to know the truth about Extra Terrestrial Vehicles, read Truth Lies and ETs. Dr. Donderi presents the facts, the reports and the hard evidence than other research scients ignore and professional disnformants deny."), which makes me suspect the publisher has less than thorough editorial oversight.

The D.B. Cooper book in question is written by Bruce A. Smith who the book jacket claims is "an investigative journalist", although it doesn't mention any newspapers or magazines he has written for. This site describes Smith as "a beach-cleaning entrepreneur, journalist, he podiumed at 1997s storyteller of the year, he's a published author, a student of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment, gardener, alien abductee, and DB Cooper expert" (emphasis added). Here is Smith's own web page, which does not fill me with confidence.

An editor has recently added a fair amount of information to our D. B. Cooper article, sourced to this book. It concerns me that much of this new information directly and explicitly contradicts other information in the article, sourced to other reliable sources. For example, a quote from an FBI investigator about Cooper's likely lack of skydiving experience is followed by this new statement sourced to Smith's book: These claims about Cooper's lack of skydiving skills are seemingly refuted by the testimony of Mucklow who was impressed by Cooper's skill with a parachute. And later after a statement that the FBI believes Cooper did not survive the jump, a new statement sourced to Smith's book says Despite the dire assessment regarding Cooper's fate given by the FBI, it should be pointed out that all of the "Cooper Copycats" survived their jumps, some in worse weather conditions and some with no skydiving experience at all. Although I'm tempted to revert most of these new changes, I hesitate to do so without broader input about the reliability of the Smith book. CodeTalker (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we can do better. With such a major case, we can afford to stick to the established experts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What is an established expert for D.B. Cooper research? Bruce Smith, odd a guy as he is, IS considered an expert in the D.B. Cooper world. Hell, he was interviewed for both the most recent History Channel and HBO documentaries.

As far as contradicting reliable sources, there are plenty of things that contradict Larry Carr's opinions that are pretty basic and logical. The fact that all of the Cooper Copycats survived IS a statement of fact, including that one of them had never even touched a parachute and that one jumped out into snowy conditions wearing a tshirt and cowboy boots. I've removed Smith's cites on those and added others.

The only people that any of this stuff is contradicting are statements made by the FBI. They are essentially the only people who still think Cooper was some amateur idiot. The skydiving community has never thought that nor the special forces community. What Larry Carr says isn't gospel and it is misleading a ton of people about the D.B. Cooper case whenever they read this wikipedia page. He flat out calls Cooper an idiot for jumping out of the plane with an inoperable parachute despite the fact that Cooper could NOT have jumped out of the plane with that parachute because he had no way to attach that reserve parachute to the main parachute he jumped with. Earl Cossey is the main who supplied the chutes to the FBI that they gave to Cooper. In his statement to the FBI on 11/26/1971, 4th paragraph "...he described the missing back pack parachute as having a sage green nylon container, model NB6 with sage green nylon harness, which harness has no "D" rings to mount a chest pack." There needs to be some balance in that section and I was shocked to see that the entirety of his FATE section was: he was an idiot and he died. The end.

Regarding Bruce Smith in particular. Is he a strange dude? Absolutely. But so is everyone else who writes books about Cooper. I love the Cooper story and have for decades, but I'm not weird enough to spend time writing a tome about it. So what book is a reliable source about Cooper at this point? I'd say that currently Geoffrey Gray's is great but the problem with Skyjack is that it is essentially written as a novel, so it's not really a "source." I see Himmelsbach's book quoted repeatedly in the wiki article but it is terribly outdated and is now 36 years old. I'd also argue, as a former District Attorney myself, that Himmelsbach's work is just as bias as any other work on Cooper. Himmelsbach (and the rest of the FBI) have a vested interested in portraying Cooper as a fool who went splat somewhere in Washington. You can't arrest someone who is dead, right?

I own many, many Cooper books and Smith's, for my money, is the most straight forward and comprehensive of all of the Cooper books. It's 506 pages and is basically a Cooper encyclopedia. Is he a weirdo who believes in UFO's and Remote Viewing and all that crap? Yes. However, nothing I would ever cite from his work is anything that is out of the ordinary in the "Cooper canon", and none of that has ANYTHING to do with what he writes about the Cooper case. At least he isn't a grifter trying to push a particular suspect in order to make a buck like Thomas Colbert pushing Rackstraw with The History Channel and his book The Last Master Outlaw.

Anyways, I've written far too much about this. If you want to wave a wand and expunge everything I've contributed from Bruce Smith, then so be it, but nothing I've contributed that is sourced to him is incorrect, and I don't know anyone in the Cooper World who thinks Smith is just making things up. Everyone thinks he's weird, but his knowledge on the case is respected by all. I'm a former prosecutor, I'm not some lunatic. I would never put something on Cooper's wikipedia page that I wasn't sure was backed up elsewhere (things I've added from Smith such as: Cooper's seat number, the lack of D-rings, cutting the shroud lines from the functional reserve, McNally never wearing a chute before, etc). But Bruce's book is essentially the Cooper encyclopedia and is by far the easiest book I own to just go to when I need a quick cite.

Regards SillyRyno (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Neither his appearance on the History Channel nor on HBO seem to count for much in demonstrating that Smith is a respected expert on Cooper. The History Channel is famously willing to promote all sorts of

WP:RSP entry reads: "Most editors consider The History Channel generally unreliable due to its poor reputation for accuracy and its tendency to broadcast programs that promote conspiracy theories". As for the HBO documentary, it seems to be largely about the people who research Cooper, but not exactly an endorsement of any of them in particular: in an interview for Vanity Fair, the director says "My initial ambiguity was: Are they just going to be a load of wackos and crazies? And some might argue they are. I don’t. The people that we picked genuinely believe [in their theory]." As endorsements go, "I don't believe he's completely crazy but some people might" and "he does genuinely believe the things he says" are about as lukewarm as you can get. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk

) 14:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's fine, I don't really care about the History Channel because you're right; they are the network of Ancient Aliens anyways. However, "DB Cooper and the FBI" is considered by many people in "Cooper World" to be the "Cooper Bible". It is extremely well researched, comprehensive, easy to read, and doesn't promote any particular suspect to try to make a buck. Heck, I was today just listening to the Cooper Vortex podcast and their two hour interview with Larry Carr, the FBI's lead agent on Cooper for over a decade. He was asked if he'd read "DB Cooper and the FBI" because the host mentioned how it is basically the greatest work out there about the Cooper case and Carr laughed and said that he hadn't read it, but he appreciates Smith's work, although he'd like to have a talk with him about some of his conclusions (Carr is a big proponent that Cooper died...most Cooper researchers believe he lived).

You ask what you need to prove Smith is an expert. He co-led the Panel Discussion at the DB Cooper Symposium at the Washington State Historical Museum along with Geoffrey Gray (a highly regarded journalist and editor of New York magazine). He has been a featured speaker at every CooperCon that I've ever attended and all of them that I've ever even heard of.

Honestly, the fact that I'm having to defend Bruce Smith's expertise on D.B. Cooper is like having to explain to someone why William Shatner is an icon in the Star Trek world. Smith is like the Godfather of D.B. Cooper research. When people say so and so "wrote the book on it"...well he literally did on the Cooper case. It's a 500+ page tome that has sources listed. I don't know of any other Cooper book that is as much like an encyclopedia about the case than it. Almost every other book about Cooper is some quick money grab by someone trying to sell a book by promoting that they've solved the case with some new suspect they've uncovered. It's just trash.

I'll repeat this again, I'm a former federal prosecutor, state district attorney, and now a criminal defense attorney. I'm not some cracker jack lunatic. Smith is certainly an eccentric. Lots of people in the Pacific Northwest are when it comes to the Supernatural, but the man knows his stuff on the Cooper case. I wouldn't cite his stuff otherwise. I've literally thrown Cooper books in the trash that I've gotten off Amazon, but his book is the immediate go to source for myself and many other Cooper fans because we trust its accuracy.

Bruce Smith's expertise on Cooper is unquestionable. Not trying to be disrespectful so don't mistake my tone, but if you were a fanboy/fangirl of the DB Cooper case you'd understand why questioning Smith's expertise is a bit silly and why I'm so bemused by this. There's a reason he's on every single TV show about Cooper and he's a featured speaker at every single CooperCon, and featured speaker at every single Cooper Symposium. It's because his knowledge is RESPECTED! SillyRyno (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem here is that most of what you are saying is basically irrelevant from the point of view of assessing whether Bruce Smith is a

reliable source in Wikipedia's eyes. It doesn't matter that you're a former federal prosecutor – your personal expertise is not important here. Listening to anonymous editors' claims of personal expertise is how we got Essjay. Nor is the fact that DB Cooper fanboys like him. What we want is evidence that either his work has been published by a publisher with a track record of reliability (which it apparently hasn't) or he has been recognised as an expert by reliable sources, not just DB Cooper fans and anonymous internet commenters. To that end, being invited to lead a panel discussion in a museum symposium is the kind of evidence which is actually useful for demonstrating reliability. But frankly, for someone whose book is from a publisher of no reputation, and who publicly claims to have been abducted by aliens, we need very strong evidence of reliability. Has Smith had any writings on the Cooper case published by a publisher with a strong reputation? Has he been cited in other unquestionably reliable sources? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk

) 11:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have voluntarily removed all Bruce Smith cites and replaced them with mostly FBI.gov cites from their recently released case files. SillyRyno (talk) 04:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Two separate users are intent on posting a new RfC to reassess the reliability of Fox News, and I don't think either of them can be dissuaded. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Second_Fox_News_RfC in order to discuss the potential format of the new RfC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! Here's an interesting one. It turns out that the Washington Post holds an account on GitHub where they maintain various repositories of software and data. One of those repos is currently being widely added as a source to support biographical assertions about slave ownership in early America. So, if the WaPo is reliable, are data dumps in their GitHub repos reliable too? Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secarctangent is doing the adding. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm happy to add the WaPo article instead if that's what people prefer (and indeed I've seen some instances of editors do that in some articles and did not edit it), but to me, it seems much more useful to readers to be able to access it in this format. WaPo's article is both paywalled and slightly annoying to navigate by comparison to being able to access the underlying source, especially given the considerations that @Sideswipe9th mentions below. Secarctangent (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a really interesting one. In most cases I'd say that a GitHub for a reliable source isn't inherently reliable by association and an assessment should be done based on their contribution guidelines on a repo by repo basis.

In this circumstance, while it is accepting user submissions off GitHub, according to the README.md file the two Washington Post staff contributors are vetting and verifying the submissions before adding them to the data dump. As long as editors are careful to cite Washington Post controlled repo and not one of the (currently 4) forks, I'd be somewhat inclined to say it is a reliable source based on the verification being done by the WaPo journalists prior to addition to the repository. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is primary unfiltered research data. Anything based on it would be

b

} 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with one caveat, you could use primary source data from a reliable outlet, e.g. Johns Hopkins covid data linked from NYT, CNN, Washington Post or something like that, for simple verifications of fact only. Andrevan@ 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I definitely agree it's a primary source, and great care should be taken in the use of it, but that wasn't the question being asked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have pointed out it's PRIMARY (not OR or SYNTH unless it's used for anything other than referencing what's in the dataset). The publication medium (Github) is irrelevant in this case since the page itself can't be modified by anyone but the creator, and I suspect we would have consensus that WaPo is an RS as SPS (They state their methodology, the primary author, the sources, and have previous recognition (if controversial) for publishing on history, and they're more or less competent enough to essentially mostly just cross-check census data). Other datasets on Github must be traced in a similar manner to an RS. It's not at all unusual for authors in academic journals link their code or datasets to cruddy their personal sites, blogs, or github repositories -- whatever works. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

As a technical matter, the Washington Post is not self-published, since anything it puts out goes through an editorial process first. JBchrch talk 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

But the data sets are probably not editor approved if they are just data dumps. GenQuest ^"scribble" 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@GenQuest I seriously doubt that journalists at the WaPo have the authority to just dump data on Github under the WaPo name without editorial approval. However it's kind of a moot question in this case because the data is reproduced in the article. JBchrch talk 11:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch, I doubt editors care what their GH-approved journalists are dumping in their file storage. GitHub is about as reliable as IMDB. If there are articles that contain some of that data, then those should be used. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the "official" WaPo GitHub, not the journalists'. In any case, a story is linked in pretty much all of the repositories containing "interesting" data. JBchrch talk 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is much better than a dump on GitHub. The data dump on GitHub would the same as a journalist putting it on their personal Twitter or Facebook.PrisonerB (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually no. The data dumps on GitHub represent a deep and serious commitment to open sharing of raw data. It'd be like if, in 1985, the New York Times collated and transferred all their investigative Cold War research notes to microfiche, cross-referenced it carefully to every article they'd ever published on the topic, and then mass-distributed microfiche packages to every public library in these USA. It'd be a revolutionary step of openness beyond a daily piecemeal publication of stories.

This openness of data-sharing has parallels in government, as well. I personally receive a police report every week that's collated by LexisNexis, which is a service that allows me (or anyone anywhere) to use a simple web interface to review crime data in any neighborhood that's covered. My city government has massive open-data projects including GIS stuff. I sat down with one of the techies over coffee and had great conversation about it; she was actually interested for me to add a local point of concern to their vast database to be shared with the general public.

I deeply respect WaPo for this GitHub project and, while I've only skimmed the front page of the corresponding blog, I'm amazed at the sort of infrastructure they're sharing with the general public. Elizium23 (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Useful incorporation of that raw data into a citation for article use would often border on

OR, wouldn't it? GenQuest ^"scribble"

20:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO using raw data can be OR-compliant if used for very discrete pieces of information, like buildings' heights, stock market prices, population stats... The moment it begins to be incorporated in a broader "narrative", I agree that it will often be problematic. JBchrch talk 21:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone could call it "raw" data. In the IT world, raw data is unprocessed and unfiltered. What WaPo has offered the world is a curated collection of analysis by credentialed researchers working under editorial oversight. It's only "raw" data if you consider its format as machine-readable. Just because data is machine-readable doesn't make it a less-worthy source for Wikipedia's purposes! Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, there's

WP:BUNDLEd with a secondary source citation. Andrevan@

22:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say "raw data" I'm thinking of, like, spreadsheets or graphs, devoid of any prose or analysis. Example. JBchrch talk 22:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, hang on. It'd be tricky to cite a graph, but if you had a raw dataset, and that was from a reliable place, you could use it to cite a specific stat. You could also combine it with secondary sources to source material provided you weren't using it to drive a conclusion, just offering it as an additional exhibit. Andrevan@ 22:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to call such data "structured". It's structured in a particular way that may not be human-readable or include extraneous trappings such as prose, text formatting, etc.

Wikipedia already uses plenty of structured sources and we also generate structured data. That's Wikidata. That's images on Commons such as political maps. That's tables of filmographies and the like. So we're already both consumers and producers of structured data in addition to the prose we write in articles. I don't see why WaPo's GitHub products should be any different than a PDF full of tabular data. Elizium23 (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. With the caveat that Github is just a platform and any given Github repo with different policies for how stuff gets merged into it may not be reliable, but the Wapo one is. Andrevan@ 23:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a historical survey, however basic, so it depends what the article editors' consensus feels is the standard for publication -- if that's academic peer review, then WaPo editors and fact checkers might not meet that standard (for 1619, they brought in at least one fact checker from academia). The next few comments don't seem reasonable considering it is an account under WaPo's name and the dataset page lists the linked story, the primary journalist, and the methodology. I cannot see any scenario in which that's possible without editorial oversight. The comparison to a journalist's social media post is interesting, if we accept it at face-value, since journalists are held to very high (arguably unreasonably high) ethical policies on social media by major outlets. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to note that I'm not sure we got to consensus here, but assuming that others feel we did, @Elizium23, I would have preferred if you hadn't gone through and just deleted the source in all the articles instead of replacing it with the article. Now I have to go through a lot of these and revert a whole change rather than just editing in a different citation.

Is there a way to mass-replace one citation with another across a set of contributions I've previously made? It seems like you made all those edits quickly, so maybe there's some sort of tool I can use as an editor to do the article citation replacement. Secarctangent (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Secarctangent you experienced a good deal of pushback when you initially added this to lede sentences. I would say that you should consider the placement of this fact.

If I went through sources to find every US politician who'd cheated on his wife and added "Jonathan Q. Public was an adulterer, slave owner, and Senator" then I think I'd catch some heat for it. It's fine that we publicize their slave-ownership, (I mean I guess because it's good to impute shame onto notable people who's been dead for 300 years and did totally normal 18th-century things,) but some of us don't believe that it's a thing that warrants

MOS:LEADBIO prominence. Elizium23 (talk

) 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but unrelated to this discussion about which source to use. Secarctangent (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Since your change affects a wide swath of articles, I'd prefer that we had a centralized, visible discussion of its merits. Your user talk page is not suitable, and no other discussion is currently open. If you'd like to move venues to a WikiProject or another noticeboard, feel free to suggest a venue change, but let's not

WP:DUE and neutral placement within the articles. Elizium23 (talk

) 04:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Github is fine if we are linking to it as a repository for say a pdf copy of a source. It should not used if we are using the raw data. Take the edit that resulted in this question. Even if we assume the data about slave holding is correct (and I would assume it to be) how much WEIGHT do we assign to the information? As a data source Github can't help us there. The edit in question[25] changed the opening sentence which is meant to summarize the most notable, factual aspect of a person. It previously stated that the person was a politician and at one point speaker of the house. After the edit he was most notable for being a slave owner. While slave ownership is reprehensible in the region and time it wasn't something that was uncommon for a wealthy person. This data source doesn't provide that context thus, even if we consider this reliable for the basic statement, "owned slaves" it doesn't tell us how much weight we should apply to that fact inside of the larger biography. In the case of a plantation owner only noted for cruel mistreatment of enslaved people it could be the majority of the biography. In the case of one of the slave owning presidents it might be a small part of their overall notability. Springee (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a single dataset couldn't be used to give something a lot of weight on its own, but not that it couldn't be usable at all. Andrevan@ 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess there are two issues there. The first is do we trust a data set on Github. I presume in this case we do. Second is when might it be appropriate to use such data. I would say only when it's clarifying a point made by another source. So if no RS says "owned slaves" then we can't use this dataset to establish that fact. However, if it were a detail question, "Swift brand racecars won 17 SCCA national championships" I would be more inclined to agree assuming we have a RS that said Swift cars won a lot of SCCA national championships. The database is only filling in a small fact, not establishing weight for the fact nor the only source supporting the general subtopic. Springee (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree, we can use primary sources to establish facts. However it might be of limited weight. Andrevan@ 23:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

While this isn't NPOVN, there's no need to seek a different venue to determine what weight to give these primary sources. The answer is to give it little or no weight. If far better references refer to the fact or provide a proper context for the fact, then it might be used, though perhaps only as a supporting reference or footnote. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Little weight, yes, which is not 0, there might be situations where the inclusion of this information is merited. The question here though is whether the information is reliable, which I think we are saying it is. So each article can be determining the weight in context and whether or not to include the content based on that article, but in general, these primary sources should be considered reliable. Andrevan@ 17:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The primary source is the 1850 census that says e.g. "Bill Williams household: 1 wife, 6 children, 1 slave". The NYT dataset took census data (among others) cross checked with other information and lists the notable names they confirmed. It is in every respect a secondary source if it is being used as a source for a statement like "The NYT project showed Bill Williams was a slaveowner," with or without explicit inline attribution (depending on what editors make of the NYT's credibility in historical research). It only becomes a primary source if, after being used as a raw dataset for another study, it is cited within that study. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I agree with your clarification Andrevan@ 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, good point. It's raw data, devoid of any encyclopedic context. It absolutely does not belong in the lede immediately after the person's name and nationnality.[26]. --Hipal (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Book Title: Trajan, Rome's Last Conqueror (2022) Author: Dr. Nicholas Jackson Publisher: Greenhill Books https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trajan-Romes-Conqueror-Nicholas-Jackson/dp/178438707X

Book being used for several citations in the following Wikipedia page on TRAJAN https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan#cite_ref-ReferenceF_209-0 2A02:C7F:681:800:F42D:3A73:7F4A:7334 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that Nacjackson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) judging by their username, has been adding citations to their own book, which is a quite clear conflict of interest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback and fair comment. I do agree, I have a conflict of interest. Learning the right way to work on Wikipedia. 2A02:C7F:681:800:2150:1C30:1731:168C (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a readable account but way out of the author's field of competence. It is a sign of integrity that the author addressed this page to inquire whether his work met Wikipedia's criteria. Aside from

WP:RS, which must govern articles like this, where the bibliographic abundance of academic scholarship on all aspects of a classical life is such there is almost no room for amateur (in the best sense) input. If one's lifelong study of a subject outside the ambit of one's professional purview does turn up something not noted or overlooked by specialist sources, the way to go is to seek a scholarly confirmation of that 'something', get it quoted in an academic source. If that occurs, then the book you wrote could certainly be considered as a source for the relevant article.Nishidani (talk

) 14:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the sort of difficulties we have. Some years back a fullyfledged classical scholar of some distinction edited the Homer page. He'd just written a book arguing that Homer was Euboian. So he had a conflict of interest in showcasing his personal take by editing that underlined his approach. No one doubted his competence. But the article could not be tilted to one viewpoint at the expense of so much other peer research which argued differently. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed work by an academic press, so I think that it is a reliable academic source for wikipedia's purposes. If it were pushing controversial positions (as in the Euboian-Homer example cited above), then there would be an issue, but there is no sign that that is the case. I acknowledge that there is potential for a conflict of interest if the author adds material from the book to articles, but it is clear that said author is eager to work within the norms of WP, so I don't see the need for a blanket decision - it will be better to resolve things on a case-by-case basis as/if issues arise. Furius (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Can these two links "Muslim-institute.org"[27] and "pakistaninfo.com"[28] be used as

I don't think they are reliable for demographics. I doubt if any of the census on this is very reliable but I think we would prefer UNHCR. Spudlace (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The UNHCR report gives the number of ethnic Tajik Afghans in Pakistan, not the total number of Tajiks in Pakistan. If the UNHCR or World Bank or some other agency has a survey on Pakistan itself they might possibly have reasonable independent data. You can't use stuff from Tajikistan because this is an article about ethnic Tajiks, so remittances and citizenship data isn't much use. As for the Muslim Institute I can't find independent information on them, their own information on themselves is virtually nonexistent, and the piece you linked is labeled "opinion" (which doesn't mean their facts should be less accurate than if it were not opinion, but it just means there's even less justification to cite it for facts). PakistanInfo's article is interesting because they say that 1.2m is the number of Tajik migrants coming from the Soviet-Afghan war and the USSR collapse, which completely changes the math, and that restricts the regions and dates enough that it's reasonable to try to independently verify the numbers. So then it's a matter of whether for counting the Tajik ethnicity in Pakistan it suffices (or is a reasonable substitute with an explanatory note) to give the number who migrated in the past 50 years instead.

Meanwhile PakistanInfo claims it's the largest online news website in regional languages in Pakistan, but they still don't seem to print any kind of editorial policy, and only have the profile of the one managing editor available (who's not a journalist). It's not the kind of fact you want to have to source out to something like this, but I get that in this region of the world right now there's not a lot of good options, and again the article gives enough information about the number that it's probably reasonable to independently verify it. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Aayan Uzoqov: You might be interested in leaving a comment here. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Aayan Uzoqov, the "user" who added those links, turned out to be a sockpuppet and has been CU blocked in the meantime. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

These are all news papers of Times Group Are all these news papers considered reliable?

They are at the least reliable for uncontroversial subjects such as film reviews, music reviews, sports reports and the like. Anything else would need specific examples of their use, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"The Liberacy" is a website that publishes news, but it seems that one of their articles is fabrication (fake news). https://theliberacy.com/2021/07/27/china-a-prison-of-nations/ In this article, it calls "Hookien", "Basuria", "Goetsu", "Hong Kong", "Aksai Chin" as "nations". But this is evidently false and Hookien, Basuria, Goetsu are not names of any country or territories. It also says that Hong Kong is currently an Independent Sovereign Nation which is false. Is this correct or not AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Strange article, indeed. The site is Indian, self-proclaimed as advocating for liberal democracy in India. Aksai Chin is the subject of an active dispute between India and China. Much of the rest of the article appears to be talking about the PRC asserting full control over various territiories that have historically been part of China, but which were more or less defacto autonomous during the first half of the 20th century. A few other articles I looked at did not seem outragious, but I wouldn't want to use the site as a reference. - Donald Albury 18:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Can this website "legacy.unreachedresources.org"[30] be used as