Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 372

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. 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 main page.

Archive 365

←

Azov Battalion

I am getting shouted down while trying to verify the references in this article. There’s a pretty definite refusal to discuss, let’s just say, and so far I’ve been called specious and unworthy of a reply. I was also referred to a previous RFC, which I admit I haven’t examined inch by inch, but I took a pretty good look and what I see is a lot of other editors getting told that the references are “fine”. Given all the emotion over there I would like to specify that I am asking a very narrow question here. In the context of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS does this citation

Upchurch, H. E. (22 December 2021). Cruickshank, Paul; Hummel, Kristina (eds.). "The Iron March Forum and the Evolution of the 'Skull Mask' Neo-Fascist Network" (PDF). CTC Sentinel. 14 (10). West Point, New York: Combating Terrorism Center: 27–37. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 December 2021. Retrieved 19 January 2022. Smith also had ties to the Azov Battalion, a neo-fascist Ukrainian paramilitary group.

support a characterization of “right-wing extremist” I am asking about this one because it is the first reference. I may have more similar questions later.

As best I can tell, editors believe that it is RS because of its publisher, but its entire discussion of Azov is in passing on page 37. This mention does use the descriptor “neo-fascist” (which I accept as close enough to “right-wing extremist”) but its point, as demonstrated by the topic of its citation to NPR, is that a given American soldier had unspecified “ties” to Azov. According to the the prosecution case against the soldier, which was according to the FBI, which is explicitly restricted from jurisdiction outside the United States. And has sent people to Guantanamo for “ties” to 9-11 which amounted to waiting on one of the terrorists at a restaurant where the detainee had worked. True story. Bottom line I would like to hear more about these ties, if the soldier were the point, but he’s not.

Again, I think it is likely that one or another past or present incarnation or another of this group could be described as “right-wing extremist”, but I don’t think this sort of fourth-hand in passim reference proves that. Suggestions as to substantive discussions of the group that could be used instead would for my part be welcome.

What are not welcome are appeals to Google search results, cries of “everyone knows”, or declarations that lots of reliable sources exist. If they do, I think we should use them. Thank you for your attention. Oh and before somebody asks, yes I have tried to discuss {See above) and no I have not yet notified any other editors, but will start on this as soon as I hit publish. This will take a little time, as I am going to include participants in the prior RFC I keep getting referred to Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nice job only providing one of the two cites for the "far-right extremist" designation. The other is this, which is more than enough on it's own to substantiate the wikivoice designation in the lead when taken in conjunction with the source you brought up above and coverage in the article. technically the lead doesn't need any cites, owing to it's nature as a summary of the article. The cites mostly serve to assuage people who insist Azov is not inf fact a neo-Nazi organization and to prove that the designations are used by RS and are not just an invention of Wikipedia. They don't need to be in-depth cites on the nature of Azov, that's what the body is for. All they need to do is establish that Azov is called a far-right extremist neo-Nazi organization by reliable sources, which they do more than adequately. You repeatedly insist sources don't exist, and the cry how the sources are bad or wrong with your bizarre readings of them and unrelated tangents when they are provided, and now seem to be forum shopping when you didn't like the response you got at the Azov talk page. The sources exist and have been discussed before. That you aren't willing to look at them or accept them is not Wikipedia's problem.BSMRD (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera piece says "Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists and accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. Surely no one doubts that they are so accused! Nor does anyone doubt that there are/were neo-Nazis in the regiment. There are nasty people in most armies, since armies don't tend to attract pacifists or saints, but unless one knows the extent, how does one get from "has fascists" to "is fascist". The obvious answer is WP:RS, but in this case the RS doesn't say it. Pincrete (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Do you have an issue with neo-nazi Azov battalion being called neo- nazi or is your issue just CTC Sentinel source. If the former, RSN is not the place to start a discussion. Anyways, quoting from The Hill Azov’s neo-Nazi character has been covered by the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph and Reuters, among others. On-the-ground journalists from established Western media outlets have written of witnessing SS runes, swastikas, torchlight marches, and Nazi salutes. They interviewed Azov soldiers who readily acknowledged being neo-Nazis. They filed these reports under unambiguous headlines such as “How many neo-Nazis is the U.S. backing in Ukraine?” and “Volunteer Ukrainian unit includes Nazis.”. Please read the links posted in the article fully and also their human rights abuse. Apart from your textwall bombardments and incoherent ramblings on the talk page of the article, this is an instance of WP:FORUMSHOP. By your own admission you've stated I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group on the talk page. You have evidently not gone through any other sources already present in the article, but you want to overturn a very long and arduous previous RFC . If you aren't convinced about the nature of this group you can start a blog. I am sure it will receive the credit it deserves. - hako9 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov’s neo-Nazi character has been covered by the New York Times, the Guardian, the BBC, the Telegraph and Reuters, among others. not doubted, but would that be like O.J, Simpson's guilt has been covered by nearly every news source on the planet? Or more like Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction? There is clearly an issue with Azov having more far-righters than most western armies would be happy to have/admit to, but is the batallion inherently neo-Nazi? I'm not persuaded by these sources. Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Neo-fascism is a far-right ideology, so I'm not sure what is not clear. Yes, the first cite makes a passing mention, but it is used because (1) it specifically identifies the group as ideological, and (2) is supporting a designation that some people want to white-wash. Under normal circumstances, a single cite (such as the source BSMRD mentioned) would be adequate (or even no cite in the lead, since it should be covered and expanded later), but this is a case where that simply is not possible. ButlerBlog (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read the post you are commenting on, reconsider the personal attacks, and look up “known unknowns”. As opposed to “unknown unknowns”Elinruby (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Very profound. - hako9 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why exactly was I called in here, other than having participated in an RfC many months ago? The sources were discussed at length, the designation was discussed at length, the differences (or lack thereof) and distinctions (or lack thereof) between "right wing extremist", "neo-fascist", "neo-Nazi", "ultranationalist" et al. were also discussed at length, seeing as they were the main subject of the debacle in the first place. Is the ongoing (literal) war resulting in some effort to retread what at this point is very, very old ground? As for the source in question I fail to see what exactly the issue is. Are you implying that "Neo-fascism" is not "right-wing extremism"? Personally I would scrap it up to neo-Nazi but I'm certain many would oppose that idea and I've no problem with settling on "right-wing extremist" as a middle ground. Why is this noticeboard being used? You are not inquiring about the nature of the source, from the looks of it, but about the contents of the source (which is a question of interpreting sources, not verifying them). The theatrical "I may have more similar questions later" doesn't exactly help your case. If you want to ask questions, ask all of them, don't lead editors on. And unless this is in some roundabout way about verifiability I would recommend moving this back to the talk page of the article since this doesn't actually seem to be on topic for the NB. EuanHolewicz432 (talk)

EuanHolewicz432 As to why you were pinged, it would seem Elinruby has pinged anyone who has posted on the Azov talk page since the last RfC (including it's participants). As for... why, exactly, this was done, I can't particularly say. BSMRD (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I honestly have neither the time nor the interest to read through the entirety of a complaint that starts with "I am getting shouted down"-type allegations. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. If you are "getting shouted down" then it may simply be that the consensus of interested editors is against you. Unless there is some cognizable evidence of canvassing or unallowable sockpuppeting or co-ordination, then simply being in the minority position is not grounds for intervention. No matter how sure your minority position is correct. Consensus is the fundamental model of content decision here and everyone winds up on the down side occasionally. Actually, if there is a WP:CANVASS violation here, it seems probable that it is by the OP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Note: I'm not very familiar with this topic, but made a related post a while back, so was invited here by Elinruby.) Per Elinruby, I wouldn't want Wikipedia to editorialize about the Azov Battalion (AB)'s current status based on a passing mention in something that might be otherwise generally an RS, especially if no timeframes are mentioned (I didn't check on this). I'd want something that goes into more depth, and that is clearly focused on the present. I think it was uncontroversial that the AB was once a Banderite faction (i.e. extremist), but there is at least some pretense that since being absorbed into the Ukraine national guard, it has reformed its ways, has diversity and inclusion training (just kidding) for all its members, etc. I also am perplexed why Ihor Kolomoyskyi is supposedly now funding it since he is part of an ethnic group (he is Jewish) historically disfavored by the AB.
Generally I would rather that Wikipedia avoid editorialization unless something is almost totally uncontroversial. Seeing disputed characterizations in the wikivoice just tells me I'm reading a non-neutral article. I don't like Wikipedia's "RS police" either, and would rather that we use (though not endorse) a wider range of sources, with appropriate skepticism, as I believe our NPOV philosophy intended (i.e. it is now being gamed by people using RS disputes to get rid of info and viewpoints that they want our readers not to see). Here is another thing like that, which I found interesting, from a source that has been deprecated on Wikipedia. Do I believe its thesis? Not really. Do I feel better informed anyway? Yes. Do I want the US arming this group with Stingers like it did the Taliban in the 1980s? Hell no. The article also cites some reports from 2018 calling the AB extremist. Maybe some of those are usable as evidence of the AB's status, as its incorporation into the Ukraine NG was apparently in 2014, so 2018 is relevant. Something more recent would still be better though.
Anyway, yes, I'd ditch the wikivoice editorialization unless there is better current sourcing. I do have the impression that the editorialization is likely basically right, but I'd rather conclude that for myself than have it dished out to me, unless it is nailed down better than I've currently seen. And in fact I thought the viewpoint was understated in the article when I last read it a few days ago, to the point where I felt that the article seemed useless. (Added post-EC: I haven't looked at the RFC someone mentioned and wasn't aware of it. My first exposure to this topic was about a week ago, post-invasion.) 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Added: Here is a Deutsche Welle article going into some depth in calling the AZ extremist, and from just a week ago. I guess it qualifies as RS. I came across it, posted it on the AB article talk page, and forgot about it, but just found it there again. Whether that is enough to tip the wikivoice call, I don't know. It weighs in favor, but as mentioned I prefer to be quite conservative about doing that. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. It was an excellent suggestion that was completely ignored. It is also very instructive to run the Ukrainian version of the page through google translate. Including the talk page, lol Elinruby (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@USER:Elinruby invited me here. I'm not sure why; I'm curious about the AB, but on any article involving international politics and nationalist politics, I assume that the article is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and take everything with a bushel of salt. And I've never even looked at the sources. In these matters, everyone has an axe to grind.

I contribute to a lot of articles; I have about 800 on my watchlist. If I got invitations to WP:RS from a tenth of those, I'd have left long ago. FWIW, I've never been invited here before. I feel as if I've gate-crashed.

MrDemeanour (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: Heh. If you don’t want to comment, that’s fine. I invited everyone who recently has had something to do with the article. The article does need help badly, but the topic has a steep learning curve. And is plagued by people who think that very respected Ukrainian publications aren’t reliable for an article for about a Ukrainian military unit that’s currently keeping Russians out of Mariupol. But a single-sentence in passim reference *is*, and I’m a brainwashed Ukrainian Nazi because I think otherwise. Sorry, I realize I’m shouting into the wind. Go in peace my child ;) Elinruby (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

But there are sources for this [] [] []. As well as what we already have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think there is some issue of missing context here. The right-wingness of AB is rather like that of many football ultra organisations and they are indeed descended from one. It is troubling that such an organisation is part of Ukraine's military, but a piece of missing context is that Ukraine doesn't have a US-style top-down military, but has a system that draws on its long volunteer militia history that goes back to the Cossacks. This is no cause for complacency: in German history the somewhat similar Freikorps movement played what I consider a crucial role in the rise of Hitler, but I question if that assertion should be made both in wikivoice and in the lead when the context is somewhat incomplete in the article and almost absent in the lead. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

www.convoyweb.org.uk

www.convoyweb.org.uk is a website currently referenced in approximately 673 mainspace articles primarily relating to World War 2 ships and convoys. In many articles, it forms the significant bulk of the references used by number (see e.g. SS Monrovia). It has not — to the best of my knowledge — been previously discussed on this noticeboard.

As far as I can determine, the website was started by one Arnold Hague, who was a "sub-editor for Jane's Fighting Ships." He also appears to have several books published with the US Naval Institute Press. I presume this makes him a subject-matter expert within the meaning used in WP:SPS. However, I have several concern relating to the website and it's reliability:

Mr. Hague died in 2006 and the website has undergone several updates since then, with no clear indicia of who is the editor in charge, what their editorial policies are, and how they are ensuring the accuracy of the database. There are vague mentions of "webmaster", but I cant establish who that is. The "e-mail me" link in the side bar doesn't work for me.
For some of the contributors listed, such as "Tony Cooper" and "Roy Martin", I'm unable to establish academic credentials that indicate they would fall under the subject-matter expert exception to WP:SPS.
The website itself provides the following disclaimer regarding Hague's contribution in specific: "The records were collected by Arnold and his coworkers over a number of years but there can be no guarantee of accuracy except that it bears the name of one of the most highly respected WW2 naval historians. Consequently, the records should be treated with caution and it should not be assumed that the presence or absence of a particular vessel in convoy is complete evidence of it being so without corroborative evidence. Furthermore, it is VITAL that where an external reference is given, that it is followed up and compared with the data given here." (Capitalization retained, bolded highlighted in red in original)
Most of the pages I surveyed are absent any references that would indicate where the underlying data is sourced from. The website makes it exceedingly difficult to link to individual pages, but for an example, starting from , select "WS.2" in left side bar and then click "Find Convoy".

With this discussion, I hope to elicit opinions from both the community at large and especially from the members of WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS WikiProjects. I think a formal RFC is, at least at this point, uncalled for, but would especially appreciate opinions on whether ConvoyWeb should be viewed as a reliable source in totality; for the parts authored by Arnold Hague; for the parts clearly indicating the author, and wherein the authors expertise is established to be a SME by e.g. several non-SPS publications; not at all; or perhaps some other option. Thanks in advance for your opinions, Ljleppan (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Both WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST have been notified of this discussion. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
There cannot be any doubt that the late Arnold Hague was an SME for WWII convoys and related matters. Not only was he a sub-editor for Jane's, but he wrote quite a number of books on the subject published by Naval Institute Press, which is highly regarded in the naval field. They include The Allied Convoy System, 1939-1945: Its Organization, Defence and Operation and he co-wrote Convoys to Russia: Allied Convoys and Naval Surface Operations in Arctic Waters 1941-1945 with Bob Ruegg, a book published by the World Ship Society, and other books on the convoy escort types. His work is widely cited in other reliably published naval books. The email link goes to the email address of a Mike Holdoway who is now the webmaster I believe. The question is whether material not credited to Hague is reliable. Without a clear editorial policy or delineation between Hague's work and the work of unpublished others who may not be SMEs, material from the database needs to be used carefully, preferably corroborated from other sources, and it is best to use the database to give you avenues of inquiry to look at relevant reliable sources to confirm the detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, this matches well with my thoughts: Arnold Hague is clearly an SME, but whether the other contributors should be considered that is far less clear. It's rather unfortunate for this discussion that even the section entitled "Arnold Hague Convoy Database" apparently incorporates material from others: The webmaster is indebted to all those that have helped shape this part of the site and in particular Don Kindall, Dominique Lemaire whose input has been invaluable and for additional material supplied by Tony Cooper and Roy Martin (see and click on "Click Here" in the red box). This leaves me rather confused about what we can actually attribute to the late Mr. Hague. - Ljleppan (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I generally use convoyweb to determine which convoys a ship escorted during the war. I think that it's reliable enough for that as I've never caught it in a factual error, unlike the widely used ship histories authored by Geoffrey Mason on naval-history.net. That said, I wouldn't consider convoyweb highly reliable like combinedfleet.com either.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
  - Sturm makes a good point. It depends on what it is being used for. For which convoys a given ship escorted, it is going to be ok for, as that is what Hague put together (convoy codes with merchant ships and escorts. Other people might have added a bit of detail here or there, but it was Arnold's database and the underlying work was reliable. I also haven't found an error. But for anything controversial or likely to be challenged, I definitely wouldn't be relying on it alone. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of a PDF that's hosted by a 3rd party website

Source: Prosecutorspodcast.com https://prosecutorspodcast.com/2020/05/20/elisa-lam-ep-1-dont-drink-the-water/

Article: Declaration of Amy Price in support of defendants' motion....

Content: Wondering if (in this case) citing a PDF that seems to be a valid copy of a docket document from a civil lawsuit that's hosted or uploaded onto a 3rd party site. Access to these documents could be gained via lacourt.org or unicourt.com but those are locked behind fees.

Question: In general, I'm wondering if it is acceptable to cite sources when my access to this source is thru a 3rd party site. The PDFs in question seem to be genuine copies from the docket but I can't say for sure. Jasonkwe (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Several thoughts… FIRST, PDFs are very easy to fake, so it is vital that the hosting site be completely trusted. If there is any doubt, don’t use it.

SECOND: reliability isn’t the only policy you need to think about. You also need to think about WP:No original research. Legal documents such as a “Declaration in Support of a Motion” are Primary sources, and thus there are very limited situations in which it would be appropriate to cite them (no matter what website they are found on). They are essentially statements of the declarator’s opinion, and should not be cited to support facts. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree 100%. With all due respect, Jasonkwe, you can count me as a "no way, no how" as to this particular source. For all the reasons Blueboar gave, and just--for me, dealing with a tragedy, we need to be even more fastidious than usual. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

”About the Podcast” uses only first names, so there are no indicia of reliability. Not that a website needs to be a reliable source in order to host a usable source document, but this does not even give me reassurance that we are talking about an underlying factual event. If this is for real, I can imagine situations where a cite to the document would be appropriate – “according to the hotel manager,” etc. Is this for an existing article? If it does have appropriate use, I might be able to obtain a copy for you. John M Baker (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

John M. Baker, I imagine this is for the article Death of Elisa Lam, but as I said above, I am skeptical that a worthwhile use case could be found. I am often wrong, however! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dumuzid. So this is a seemingly unimportant exhibit to a filing in the litigation referenced in that article. It's hard to see how the document would be something that could be used. But the dismissal ruling, if available, would probably be worthwhile. Again, this might be something I could obtain, if there is a request for it - so far I haven't looked. John M Baker (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar, Dumuzid, John M Baker, and OrangeMike: Thank you all for your responses and advice. I'm not legally trained so I didn't realize that declarations like that are primary sources. Would depositions generally be considered primary sources as well? Although the deponent(?) is under oath, that doesn't necessarily guarantee they are telling the truth; just like witnesses testifying in the courtroom, they could be perjuring themselves, right? I'm thinking the ideal secondary source would be based on the court's decision or verdict but that might not be a guarantee either? For example, let's say there is a criminal case where there's evidence that the crime occurred at 4:05pm and Witness B stated "Defendant was at work until 4pm exactly and did not leave early". If the defendant is convicted, the verdict addresses the defendant's guilt or innocence but might not necessarily validate or disprove Witness B's statement or the evidence about when the crime occurred, right? Because there's multiple possibilities that could be compatible with the verdict: the evidence stating that the crime occurred at 4:05pm may not be accurate or Witness B may not have noticed that the defendant left at 3:55pm. Alternatively, both the evidence and Witness B's statement could be true and the defendant could have gotten to the crime scene extremely quickly. This is all far beyond the scope of this issue at hand but I wanted to better understand the ramifications.

User:Dumuzid: I absolutely understand and it's part of why I wanted to make these edits. I felt badly for her family as so many people were/are making theories or suppositions about the circumstances of her death. Many of the news articles have conflicting facts in them which muddies things and there have been many edits to the wiki article over the years that have disagreed over these dates or facts. I know it may be hypocritical but I had tried to get the formal documentation about the incident so the facts detailed in them could put the speculations to rest. But I understand how sensitive it all is and don't want to possibly make things worse by using unverified sources.

User:John M Baker: If you might have access to these court documents, I would appreciate that. The case was in Los Angeles Superior Court and was case BC521927. If it's deemed a worthwhile use. This was just one of the depositions of the case, made by the manager of the hotel she was staying at. I don't know its contents but I believe it will help establish some of the timeline Jasonkwe (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Jasonkwe, unfortunately my search for case documents was unsuccessful. I can confirm that there was judgment for the defendants and that the plaintiffs appealed but subsequently abandoned their appeal, but that would not seem to help much. I can also confirm that the filings include the declaration originally asked about, although I cannot see its text. Again, I don't see it as a useful document in any case. A deposition similarly would be a primary source and difficult to use. John M Baker (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh dang. But that's a good point about them being primary sources. Thanks. Jasonkwe (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

NOPE; NOPEITTY NOPE-NOPE - In an era of Photoshop and other, more subtle tools, I would never trust anything which allegedly reproduces documents, clippings, etc. unless it's got a spotless reputation. That said, in this case it's doubled and redoubled because you've got (purportedly) raw documents from a lawsuit or court case. That's WP:OR, due to the risk of cherrypicking and unconscious bias, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, court documents outside of final rulings should be considered unusable, particularly on BLP, even if published by an RS. Let an RS digest and report the important parts. --Masem (t) 01:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Book about Stede Bonnet

Is The Life and Tryals of the Gentleman Pirate, Major Stede Bonnet, a reliable source for the article Stede Bonnet? (See Talk:Stede Bonnet#Speculative / Unsourced Sentences for a discussion of its use.) The book is published by Koehler Books (no WP article), which advertises both "Traditional Publishing" and a "Co-Publishing/Hybrid Model" on its website. I can find only one peripheral mention of Koehler in the archives, and that may not be this company. The author's blog lists only a couple of 'forwards' to other books in addition to this one book as author. Donald Albury 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Written by a "lawyer and lobbyist" first, "emerging author" second and "freelance historian" only third, who as far as I can tell makes no claim of any historical training, not even to BA level. Published by a press without a particularly strong reputation, which appears to categorise historical fiction and non-fiction as a single genre(!?), and which reserves traditional publishing for "seasoned writers (with or without an agent) with superb work and a verifiable track record of sales and marketing success" while "emerging authors" (i.e. Jeremy Moss, presumably) get a hybrid/co-publishing type arrangement. I can find no reviews of the book by reputable reviewers, academic or otherwise.

On the other hand, he does get a slot on the BBC's History Extra to write about Bonnet, and the podcast Footnoting History (which is apparently hosted by people with history PhDs) list his work as further reading about Bonnet. So his claims probably aren't obvious nonsense.

All in all, I would advise very cautious use of Jeremy Moss. If he is usable, it's pretty certainly only for supporting uncontentious statements of fact. I certainly wouldn't cite him for speculation about Bonnet's emotional state or to explain why his marriage broke down, which I see is what triggered the examination of this source – leave that to actual historians. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

My first response was to say that any book published under the "Co-Publishing" model was not a reliable source. While I am pretty sure that is how this book was published, I can't point to anything that proves that. I think your formulation is reasonable, and will cite it in the discussion on the talk page. Donald Albury 14:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is essentially where I come down as well; while in my personal life I think I'd find it fairly authoritative, the dearth of the normal indicia of reliability means proceed with caution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it, which is a shame. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we cite a book by a good publisher even if the source the book cites may be unreliable?

As you can see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&type=revision&diff=1079423664&oldid=1079422503

"some sources estimating that the nation contains over 30% of the world's natural resources"

is cited to a book by a good publisher which in turn cites an interview with Richard Branson.

As the book is by a good publisher Moxy contends that the reliability of Richard Branson for that statement (I don't doubt he is reliable for many other facts but he is not an expert on natural resources) need not be considered by Wikipedia editors.

But according to the NYT and other newspapers many good publishers do not fact check

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/business/publishing-books-errors.html

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a33577796/nonfiction-book-fact-checking-should-be-an-industry-standard/

What do you think?

Chidgk1 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of naivety about "fact checking" on Wikipedia. If a book says "Bauxite mines in Siberia routinely produce over 70 tonnes per day of raw material" do people really think the publisher is going to send a team to "check the fact"? Publishers value expertise, and publish it, nearly always without question. In this case a book by Harvard UP has content which is easily due. Attribute it to the author and have done with it. Alexbrn (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there are limits to fact-checking, but we don't have access to the magical unvarnished truth. Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia is to reflect what the best sources say, which includes reflecting their limitations and flaws. I get leery when people start talking about second-guessing sources, because that amounts to saying that we should do our own WP:OR to correct problems in the sources... or, in other words, sure, the book might have limited fact-checking, but we can't replace it with an editor's opinions! If we have better sources, we can use those. If we don't, then it's the best source available and I'd be opposed to omitting anything just because an editor dislikes their sources or methodology - "I dispute this particular claim in an otherwise-reliable source because I don't think their evidence is strong enough" is an argument fundamentally grounded in WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Without delving into it, if you have a good editor/author and a good publisher, I would go with that unless you have equally good evidence to the contrary.Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say no, as a publisher is motivated by something other than a desire for accuracy. We should judge by the author. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that some publishers may have problems with fact-checking does not mean that this publisher, in this case, has published something that is incorrect. I would say that on the balance of things it isn't a great source, but absent a better source that disagrees with, it's usable. Mackensen (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think the author is good to have cited their source. Presumably they did so so that Wikipedia nit-pickers can click through to it. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

In order to make my point clear, I am not saying we can't use this source, I am just answering the general point, no, a publisher does not confer RS status on what they publish. Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the statement is not presented as a fact and other sources supporting it can easily be found, then the choice of source in this case is not particularly relevant. M.Bitton (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If there is a sources that says otherwise then we can have a debate. On going problem.Moxy-

19:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the most part, we don't care about the sources that our sources cite - it has no impact on reliability at all. After all, second-guessing a source's own sources and the conclusions it draws from them amounts to trying to perform WP:OR. There are some caveats; a source that constantly cites unreliable sources might itself be unreliable, and we have to pay close attention to how it is characterized in the proximate source (ie. if they attribute it, we should too, and should pay attention to the language they use and how they treat it in general.) Also, some sources, like Yahoo, republish entire articles verbatim without any editorial control - obviously in that case we can only look at the original source. But it's inappropriate to say eg. "I don't think that the citations on this scholarly paper demonstrate what the author says they demonstrate, therefore we can't cite it." To a certain point, performing interpretation and analysis on often-unreliable primary sources in order to produce something that can be used is the entire point of a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC

UNACTIONABLE

Closed on procedural grounds as being malformed/unsuitable for RSN. XOR'easter (talk) 16:22, 26 March 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.

An editor directed me here. I think MSNBC's reliability should change due to it being controversial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies Master106 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Any large news organization is going to be subject to controversies. That, in and of itself, does not make it unreliable. What is your evidence that MSNBC news operation is unreliable? --Jayron 32 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

SUPPORT: That is not the point of the request, MSNBC format is editorializing with very few exceptions. The NY Times has a history of good reporting, MSNBC has a history of American Left Flackery. MSNBC should be in the same catagory as breitbart from a neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopbackdude (talk • contribs)

With all due respect, ipse dixit is not terribly helpful here; can you point to some evidence for your views? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC should be in the same catagory as breitbart can you please point me to where MSNBC has made such wild claims like "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy"^[1] "Gay rights have made us dumber"^[2] or one of the many birther conspiracy theories about Obama? I'm just trying to judge how they are remotely similar. CUPIDICAE💕 15:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The schedule.

https://www.msnbc.com/schedule

The topics on any given timeslot are news coverage of the news coverage of the news coverage by a specific parties thought leaders and/or cast outs.

Shall we go through the shows personalities problems with unslanted journalism and NPV? The Hackery of the schedule we can go through the problems with each of the personalities but that would be counter prodcutive. At some point the slant of the list must be addressed. Curated for point of view that makes the editors joyous is not the point, the quality of the sourcing is.

MSNBC in news coverage is in the same group of at least the NYPOST if not Breitbart. Loopbackdude (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Loopbackdude circular rhetoric with no sources is useless. Please provide sources that establish it is 1.) not reliable 2.) a history of publishing incorrect or fabricated material and 3.) publishing similarly disproven, insane conspiracy theories like that of Breitbart. Thanks. CUPIDICAE💕 15:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're asking us essentially to accept your media criticism and make broad determinations based on it, and I am not prepared to do so -- you shouldn't accept mine, either. If you can't point us to something a little ore authoritative, then I believe we're done here. That said, have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I do think you should provide proof of articles being unreliable and incorrect to fabricated information used by MSNBC. It would really help the case. Also do not fear if articles are too liberally biased, you are proving a point. I believe that MSNBC can be reliable, I'm mainly focused on the political side of it. Master106 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

We just need to be aware when MSNBC is editorialize rather than reporting, and treat editorializing as opinion. Bias does not detract from reliability unless it can be shown that that bias causes them to create fabrications as was the case of Daily Mail and Brietbart. --Masem (t) 01:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Or FOX (cough cough) "NEWS" . But seriously, at least have something specific instead of citing another Wikipedia article...Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia...DN (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose What a silly proposal. Yes, it is pretty much a fact that MSNBC and CNN and Fox cable shows have descended into partisan hackery; these talk shows are covered under WP:RSOPINION as being opinion pieces. However, the print media of these outlets is considered generally reliable. WP:RSP lists in detail previous discussions held regarding these outlets. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is completely dead on arrival. Close. Zaathras (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I will admit that I watch MSNBC for commentary and opinion, and many of the guests that they interview are genuine experts, and I find what they have to say interesting much of the time. Yes, they are highly partisan and opinionated. But being "controversial" is not the same as being "unacceptable" or "unreliable". Personally, I have rarely if ever cited MSNBC as a source here on Wikipedia. I think that, in most cases, a higher quality and less contentious source that says the same thing is readily available. But every so often, MSNBC runs an actual Ness scoop, and in such cases, its use as a reference should be allowed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - talking heads, opinion pieces, and commentary should be treated as such, and applied consistently across the board, be it television, internet, or publication. Opinion & commentary are subjective - it doesn't matter which direction the arrow points. Our job as editors is to be neutral, not omit or give less weight to one political opinion over another - we use in-text attribution, and include all substantial views per DUE. To maintain compliance with NPOV, we need to be aware of our own WP:POV creep; i.e., disagreeing with an opinion doesn't make that opinion wrong, and vice versa. On the other hand, actual news segments are generally reliable as that type of reporting is typically pragmatic, although we do need to be cautious about RECENTISM & BREAKING. Atsme 💬 📧 04:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Nonsense poll MSNBC is reliable. Opinion shows, like every other opinion shows, are opinion pieces and are as reliable as any other opinion piece. This is typical false balance "If I can't cite Fox and Friends, why can the libs cite Rachel Maddow/CNN/<insert any other purported "leftist" source/>!!!" RFC poll of the month, from people who don't understand how Wikipedia works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear. I did not create this thread to "stick it to the libs". Fox News and CNN have both been deemed reliable sources by Wikipedia,(just excluding Fox's talk shows) and I agree with those decisions. However, I think MSNBC is a totally different case; it has shown to be less trustworthy as time goes on, especially with politics. I know liberal left-leaning editors might be more passionate towards the company, while conservative right-leaning editors might despise it. I just want us to arrive to a better decision on this. Master106 (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Procedural comment: This should be closed as malformed: RS/N requests are supposed to arise in the context of the application of the venue as a source in Wikipedia. No relevant context for this proposal is given, without which the discussion is unlikely to be well-grounded. For this reason, this kind of discussion is bad for RS/N. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
General comment not mentioning MSNBC: The existence of bias in a source is not a reason not to use it. The usual reason why a source is bad to use is that the venue has the kind of track record of factual errors and not correcting errors that mean it is unreliable for our purposes. Our policy also depends on the ability of editors to separate assertions of fact from assertion of opinion: hypothetically a source could be so pernicious that, while were we competent enough to make the separation of fact from opinion the factual claims would be reliable, in fact the reportage renders us unable to make this distinction. Philosophically I accept the latter could in principle be the case, but in fact I think there is a craft to editing that allows us, as a group, to see through these attempts. Deprived of the context of a specific example, there's not much to say about general claims made against a venue other than: maybe you're right about the perniciousness of the venue's reporting but have you considered whether it is your biases instead? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:46, 26 March 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.

I understand your comment on this. Maybe it is up to the editors to decide when something is reliable no matter how bad of a source they are. I do admit, I do not like how MSNBC words things in their articles, it isn't my choice news company. Though I can't say that I acted upon bias here, I looked at many other news companies I did follow and I understood the decisions for each; MSNBC just seemed like an outlier to me. I am fine with the current decision right now, unless something comes up in the future. Master106 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I encourage reopening this discussion. MSNBC is an opinion outlet and is only marginally a news outlet. It was even split off from NBC News, which is primarily real news, so that MSNBC could focus on opinion talk shows. So even the ownership and management admits this. Do I sound like I might be an aggrieved conservative? Not so. Politically I lean Democratic, but when it comes to news I prefer fact over opinion.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's best for you to start a separate, well-formed RfC in that case, Chesapeake77. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! Do you know how I can start one?

Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You can see how to do so at WP:RFCST, after starting a new section on this talk page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This would be an utter waste of time for everyone here. A 2020 RfC snow-closed as a resounding "yes, reliable", see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307#RFC_on_MSNBC. ValarianB (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see that the decision excluded MSNBC coverage of politics as "reliable". Therefore I have no further concerns.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

US Navy text file as a reliable source for BLP

This US Navy text file is titled "SUBJ/ACTIVE DUTY PROMOTIONS TO THE PERMANENT GRADES OF CAPTAIN, COMMANDER, LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, LIEUTENANT AND CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER IN THE LINE AND STAFF CORPS". One of its entrants is for "Kim Jonathan Yong", under "LIEUTENANT COMMANDER LINE AND STAFF SENATE CONFIRMATION DATE". Now, I know that Jonny Kim has been promoted to lieutenant commander as cited in this version of his article. However, no other sources verify that Kim's full name is "Kim Jonathan Yong", and I question the propriety of making that leap in this BLP. Secondly, can this contextless text file be used as a reliable source, even if we assume it's the same Kim? Any assistance would be appreciated. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

My opinion (for whatever that is worth) is that IF we could be absolutely certain that is the same person, then sure, why not. However, I do not think it is even remotely certain that that is the same person. Jonathan and Kim are both VERY commom names, and Yong is probably a common Korean given name as well..if there were more info could be matched up, birthdate, hometown, then that would probably be enough. But just the name alone, no. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:4D69:F0F8:A0CA:5BC (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

In my reply below, I found another source that confirms that the Jonathan Yong Kim who was promoted in 2021 was in the Navy Medical Corps and another source that says the article subject was a lieutenant in June 2021. Does this help to assuage your concerns regarding it being the correct individual? — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

No, documents like these are primary sources, which we can't use to support claims about living persons. The uncertainty that this is the same person is part of the reason why. We need reliable, secondary sources to make that determination. Woodroar (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The file, like other navy files, clearly have the structure of LAST FIRST MIDDLE, so the primary source is taking about a "Jonathan Yong Kim" (that second file indicates that the Jonathan Yong Kim that got the promotion is in the Medical Corps of the navy, which the article subject is). While WP:BLPPRIMARY does not outright proscribe the use of primary sources in biographies of living people, it indicates that we should exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. In order to ascertain that the source is talking about this individual, we also need to know that he was a Lieutenant in January 2020 (Military dot com indicates he was a Lieutenant at age 35), that he was still a Lieutenant in June 2021 and that he's a lieutenant commander in March 2022 per NASA. None of this is contentious and it is all wholly consistent with the promotion occurring in the summer or autumn of 2021. I really don't see the big deal here if it's being used for the specific month; the month is almost certainly not a contentious claim and I think that the burden of using the primary source extremely cautiously would be met in this context. Since there's a public navy communique that contains his name on a list and we have evidence that he was a lieutenant very shortly before it and a lieutenant commander very shortly after that date, this seems like an OK source for what should amount to a non-contentious claim about which month (in a nine month window) or which year was the one in which went from being a lieutenant to a lieutenant commander. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Or, and hear me out on this: I could be less of a dunce and use the probably-accurate new source's claims to search for a better secondary source to cite. I've now replaced the primary source text file with a reliable secondary source that cites the subject's whole name. Thank you for the assistance; it really did help me facepalm myself and realize my other options. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

India: A Country Study, Federal Research Division, Library of Congress

NOT RELIABLE FOR PURPOSE

Though it is close, there is rough consensus that this source is not reliable for the purpose of supporting this edit to the infobox. Discounting comments from blocked sockpuppet accounts, the comments in this discussion by editors in good standing must be weighed against global consensus, such as the global consensus documented at WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS (two sections of WP:V, the verifiability policy), and WP:RS, the reliable sources guideline. Per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Part of the WP:BURDEN is the burden of demonstrating that the source is a reliable source (WP:RS). Similarly, WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Applying those to this discussion, WP:ONUS says we need consensus to include (as opposed to consensus to exclude), and WP:BURDEN says we need consensus that a statement is verifiable (as opposed to consensus that it's not verifiable). Part of verifiability is that the source is reliable (that it meets the requirements of WP:RS). So we need consensus that it's reliable, not consensus that it's not reliable.

I belabor this point because this discussion may initially seem like a "no consensus" result, but applying the global consensus described above, it is upon those wishing to include the source to achieve consensus for its reliability in order for it to be deemed reliable for the specific purpose of supporting the edit in question. This has not been achieved, and so the source is not reliable for the specific purpose.

The global consensus of WP:RS lays out some criteria for demonstrating that a source is reliable. These criteria have not been met in this discussion. No one has shown that the work itself has been widely cited. It has been shown that it's been cited by Globalsecurity.org, and even assuming without deciding, for the purpose of this discussion only, that Globalsecurity.org is itself a reliable source, the citation of India: A Country Study by one putatively-reliable source (Globalsecurity.org) does not show that India: A Country Study is widely cited by reliable sources. Similarly, no one has shown that the authors of the work are themselves widely-cited or accepted experts in their field, and no one has shown that the publisher of the work, Federal Research Division, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or is widely-cited in this field (nor has there been any evidence of actual or presumed fact-checking occurring in the publication of this work). ("Fact-checking" means verification of facts performed by someone other than the authors.)

In sum, while the numerical margin against reliability was small, the arguments in favor of reliability objectively did not meet the bar set in WP:RS, which is a requirement for inclusion as documented at WP:V. It is possible that editors may, in the future, bring forward new information about the source that convinces other editors that it meets the requirements of WP:RS; consensus can change. I also note that editors only looked at the reliability of this source for this specific purpose, and not its reliability for other purposes (such as an attributed statement), and not its general reliability. (non-admin closure) Levivich 17:59, 14 March 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.

Source: Heitzman, James; Worden, Robert, eds. (1995), India: A Country Study (PDF), Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, p. 571

Statement in source: "There was some opposition to this move within the cabinet by those who did not agree with referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN. The UN mediation process brought the war to a close on January 1, 1949. In all, 1,500 soldiers died on each side during the war."

Discussion: Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#6000 casualties figure

Statement to be supported: Result in infobox per this edit

Summary: This is a highly partisan topic and is subject to DS. The talk page discussion started by questioning Pakistani casualties quoted as 6,000 killed, citing Globalsecurity.org and a figure of 1,500 killed. There is no consensus as to the reliability of that source but it actually cites India: A Country Study (the subject of this post). The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948 was initially fought by proxy until the ultimate engagement of both national militaries. It is unclear from the other sources cited precisely what they are reporting as casualties (ie national military casualties v total combatant casualties). The other sources are not great, in that they are largely Indian in origin. The subject edit would add the 1,500 figure to both sides. However, the reliability of the source (India: A Country Study) has since been questioned, citing WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

Question: Is the subject source (India: A Country Study) sufficiently reliable to support the edit made to the infobox in respect to casualties.

Cinderella157 (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC) I have no ties to either country.

Comments (India: A Country Study)

Not a reliable source for the purpose.
- That being said, what is the end-game? A majority of men employed by Pakistan were irregulars supplied with arms-stashes and money; who had recorded those casualties? There is a reason why even semi-official histories (see Shuja Nawaz et al) skips mentioning casualty-counts. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
The time of the event is around late 1940's. This makes it very difficult to gather enough information on the casualty figures. Wikipedia was earlier quoting an indian figure which seems to have no official source and was not reliable enough. The 1,500 casualty figure estimate is the most neutral source on the internet neutral source at page 571 and is quoted by global security.org ^[1]. It is also cited in some university work. No concensus can even be reached on global security.org not being suitable for being quoted. It has been cited in over 25,000 articles and also by Reuters and new york times as well as Washington Post which are considered reliable sources^[2] and its citation in some 25,000 articles on Google Scholar^[3]. It is only logical to quote both the 1,500 and 6000 figures as an estimate. Going by what TrangaBellam, that would mean removal of all the casualty section as this argument will even apply for the 6000 figure, which also it not a sure shot reliable source. Truthwins018 (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Not reliable for the purpose, as I already said on the article talk page. It looks to me that somebody sitting in Washington DC just made a wild guess. The Indian History of the War says the following:

During the long campaign, the Indian Army lost 76 officers, 31 JCOs and 996 Other Ranks killed, making a total of 1103. The wounded totalled 3152, including 81 officers and 107 JCOs. Apart from these casualties, it appears that the J & K State Forces lost no less than 1990 officers and men killed, died of wounds, or missing presumed killed . The small RIAF lost a total of 32 officers and men who laid down their lives for the nation during these operations. In this roll of honour, there were no less than 9 officers. The enemy casualties were definitely many times the total of Indian Army and RIAF casualties, and one estimate concluded that the enemy suffered 20,000 casualties, including 6,000 killed.^[4]

So, the Indian casualties were in excess of 3,000 and the Washington estimate misses it by a wide margin. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The India country Study states 1500 Indian soldiers died, so it's off by 397 from the Indian History of the War. However, it's unclear whether it includes the J&K/AJK/GB/Chitral forces for either side and if it does, it would indeed be off by a wide margin. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There may be some confusion of terminology. Casualty is killed+wounded. It's apples and oranges to compare 1,500 killed with over 3,000 casualty. -- GreenC 03:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This source doesn't rule out that the 1,500 figure is wrong. The 6000 Pakistani casualty figure and 3000 indian casualty figure still turns out to be an indian claim. The 1,500 comes out to be a seperate estimate of casualties, not related with ^[5]}}. No official pakistani casualty figures were released and thus the source cannot be ruled out. Your source only suggests thats the indian killed figure be changed to 1,500-3000 and Pakistani be kept at 1,500-6000. Truthwins018 (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- The question that is being discussed is whether it is reliable for the purpose. I gave evidence that proves that it is not. The best you can do is to quote it verbatim in the body. It is nor reasonable to split it up into pieces and format it in whatever way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
For the sake of including a neutral perspective I agree with using it. Currently, the article cites Indian figures. Cipher21 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with including it, as a range. The source is widely cited by other reliable sources as noted by Truthwins018. Furthermore reliable sources are not required to cite their sources to be reliable. A research division within the Library of Congress is not faultless, I doubt any numbers are definitive, but it would require more than Wiki editors disagreeing with the numbers to exclude it from the article, particularly when given as a range. -- GreenC 03:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

[1]
"Global security.org figures". Globalsecurity.org.
[2]
Broad, William J. (2013-01-28). "Iran Reports Lofting Monkey Into Space, Calling It Prelude to Human Flight". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
[3]
"Google Scholar". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
[4]
Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379
[5]
Prasad, Sri Nandan; Pal, Dharm (1987), Operations in Jammu & Kashmir, 1947-48 (PDF), History Division, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, p. 379

Unreliable for the purpose. The source which is India: A Country Study is clearly not widely cited. The assertion that it is, is based on a different website called globalsecurity.org quoting it. The website globalsecurity.org which looks like a group blog, is the one being used as a source for an opinion in one NYT article and produces 25k+ results on google scholar (every result after the 8th is from the website itself). This is very marginal use in RS, not to mention its use is irrelevant to the actual query here. Searching for India: A Country Study itself produces similarly barebone results. The subject of the source is an overall profile of India and is not specific to the military history of the Kashmir Conflict. The topic area needs specialist academic sources, especially for things like casualty estimates. On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Wide citation of global security.org has already been mentioned by SpicyBiryani on the talk page of 1947-1948 indo-pak war.The founder of the website is John Pike. John Pike is one of the worlds leading expert on defence in the world and more can be read about him in the sources cited^[1]^[2].Global security also has a reputed range of staff with wide experience in the field of defence^[3].Global security has been cited in Reuters ^[4] by an article worked upon by Reuters Staff. It has been cited in CNN ^[5]. It has been cited in Washington Post here, here ,here. It has been cited by NYT , . Some of the book citations are:
- Fair, C. Christine. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014 ,ISBN 978 0 1998 9270 9.
- Cordesman, Anthony H. Al-Rodhan, Khalid R. Gulf military forces in an era of asymmetric wars. Westport, Conn. : Praeger Security International ,2007.
- Anthony H. Cordesman, Martin Kleiber, Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf ^[6]

All the book citations may be viewed here. It has been cited in numerous books on National Security.

As for the subject issue, The book does concentrate on one of the participants of the war. The killed figures are given in a seperate National Security section. We till date are not equipped with accurate figures of the casualties from the war. An indian version of figures are available. A neutral version is established from this source. It is only wise to continue with an estimated range of casualty figures which gives all the figures Truthwins018 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I see merit in the arguments of those who esteem the source unreliable for the purpose for which it is being used on the main page. There is hardly any correlation between the reliability of a source and the magnitude of hits it gets on a search engine. The tangible criteria are enumerated and enunciated at WP:RS and there is no indication that this source, which uses a broad-brush to coalesce the two countries' casualties under a single sentence with unwarranted brevity, measures up when the yardstick of WP:RSCONTEXT is applied. Kerberous (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

[1]
"GlobalSecurity.org - John E. Pike". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
[2]
"John Pike". The Planetary Society. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
[3]
"GlobalSecurity.org - Staff Directory". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
[4]
"Factbox: Key facts on China-Taiwan relations ahead of Taiwan vote". Reuters. 2016-01-15. Retrieved 2022-01-06.
[5]
CNN, Madison Park. "North Korea boasts about rocket testings". CNN. Retrieved 2022-01-06. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
[6]
, Martin Kleiber, Anthony H. Cordesman. Iran's Military Forces and Warfighting Capabilities: The Threat in the Northern Gulf. PRAEGER SECURITY INTERNATIONAL. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-313-34612-5.

It definetely fulfils on the criteria of WP:RS. Your opinion WP:OR is irrelevant in the present criteria. The source directly cites the material and its under a seperate section of Natural security. Vaious citations of globalsecurity.org does increase its reliability especially by already considered reliable sources and none of the discussion was aimed at " magnitude of hits"Truthwins018 (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment I had come here to seek opinion that was hopefully independent of the topic. By and large, this has not been the case so it is substantially just a rehash of the opinions being offered at the original discussion. Perhaps though, the most telling comment is that of Tayi Arajakate: On a sidenote, looking at the infobox of the article, every single source without exception, that is cited for the casualties is similarly problematic in some respect or the other. It would strongly suggest that the solution is: "remove one, remove all". Cinderella157 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be one way to go about it. Although a better solution would be to find independent specialist scholarly sources and replace these sources with them. To give an overview of the sources, I can see 3 books published by Lancer Publishers which is the in-house publisher of the Indian armed forces, a Pakistani newspaper article, one book authored by Ved Prakash Malik, one commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and an article from an Indian military think tank. This reminds me of a previous discussion arising from a similar dispute, and the article in question appears to have more or less analogous issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:CR request made. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable for this purpose. Similarly I don't see how globalsecurity.org make the estimate more credible. It is not reliable as well. The number of hits on google does not correspond with reliability, as pointed out by others already. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Why does this need a closure? Has anyone said it is reliable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 7 March 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.

As a curious passer-by who looked at this after User:Levivich closed the above, how did nobody find the 174 Google Scholar citations to this source? See: , , , , , . It was unnecessary to look at "globalsecurity.org" when there are so many better books and papers that cite India: A Country Study. So much wasted time! MGetudiant (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Similarly, I see that there is a review in Pacific Affairs, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 117 - 18 (Spring 1998), which stated that "this useful series now appeals to a broader audience and the volume on India will serve as a helpful reference work to all with an interest in that country. I myself used it for many years as a text for an introductory course on India. . . . The current contributors continue the tradition of providing clear expositions of their topics, and though their treatment is necessarily quite general they all succeed in providing basic information for those who want an introduction to the subject and a grounding for further study." While I don't have a view on the use of this source to support the specific edit, it seems clear to me that it is, in general, a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing up the review. Seems like I made a mistake and didn't look up the source properly. Wish this had been brought up before, I wouldn't have framed the comment the way I did above. I'd still encourage using scholarly sources about the war over one that provides a generalised overview of the country, but it does appears to be a decent tertiary source and more reliable than any of the other sources cited for the casualties in the article to begin with. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Any body still following this may be interested in contributing to a discussion at Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–1948#Reasult of RfC. It would appear the the evidence to conclude that the source is reliable reasonably exists even if it wasn't presented earlier. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Rate Your Music

PR Week

Recently added in support of this (possibly promotional) edit: Special:Diff/1080133388, but I hesitated before clicking the revert button. The name suggests it very much is not an independent, reliable source, but it also seems qualitatively different from e.g. WP:PRNEWSWIRE. The "in-depth" work seems mostly promotional, but the stuff at least seems to have individual authors and some sort of not-straight PR depth. My feeling is that it may be acceptable for certain statements of fact about a company, including Teneo in this case, but probably not for notability — additional considerations apply. Appears to be used in over 600 citations at the moment (link). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It's very different from PRNewswire, and should generally be reliable. PRNewswire is a press release wire service that distributes press releases for outlets to use as desired or not at all. PRWeek is news that covers the public relations industry. Two opposite sides of the coin. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally reliable, per Pyrrho the Skipper. The linked edit in Teneo seems fine, and it already cites other PRWeek articles about the company which are most definitely not puff pieces .

As an aside, I have had that article on my watchlist for many years and (as the nominator will undoubtedly be aware) it has much more serious WP:NOTPROMO issues than mentions of such acquisitions. Reliably sourced information like this tends to get removed over time for spurious reasons by IPs or editors who appear to have few other interests besides this article. It could use more eyes. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Huh, yeah that's an interesting one for sure. At first glance I thought the Controversy section too long, but the company clearly has a long history of being notable for "shady" things. PR firms do (obviously) have a history of manipulating Wikipedia, which makes WP:AGF difficult (but still important, imo). Watching. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Generally reliable. PRWeek is an established trade publication for the public relations industry, and not a collection of press releases. However, PRWeek does publish sponsored content that is labeled as "Partner Content" (example); this content is not reliable per WP:SPONSORED because it is paid for by the sponsor and does not undergo PRWeek's standard editorial process. The specific PRWeek article that was added in the edit is not a sponsored article, and is reliable for the Teneo article. — Newslinger talk 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Marketminute

It has been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H808Beats that marketminute.com is an affiliated source of ABC News and therefore should be considered as reliable. Please see this example. Would this be considered as the same as content directly hosted on ABC News' website? Also, this appears to be a copy of an Issuewire article. Do we have an official stance on Issuewire? It doesn't have a section on WP:RSPS but I come across their articles a lot at AfD so would be useful to have an official community opinion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Are they owned by, or just cooperate? Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any info about their ownership on their website unfortunately Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Then whatever we say about ABC doers not apply to them, they are a separate entity. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no indication that marketminute.com is affiliated with ABC News. It looks like it is owned by or affiliated with a company called FinancialContent Services, Inc. It appears to be a combination of reprinted news stories, often from legitimate sources such as The Wall Street Journal, and generally unreliable promotional announcements. As for IssueWire, it is a press release distribution network with no editorial oversight, similar to PR Newswire. John M Baker (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Its definitely not reliable. I saw some couple of articles that have been lifted or "reprinted" from WSJ as Baker as stated. Its safe to say it serves as a PRwire site. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I think my comparison to PR NewsWire overstates the reliability of IssueWire. In my opinion, PR NewsWire should be appropriate in some cases under WP:ABOUTSELF. But I see no indication that IssueWire even verifies the identity of clients, so it should never be reliable. If it is being regularly used, we may want to consider deprecation. Similarly, I cannot think of a situation where marketminute.com would ever be reliable. John M Baker (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments (India: A Country Study)

Related Articles