Wikiwand AI

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 380←Archive 385Archive 386Archive 387Archive 388Archive 389Archive 390

INaturalist photos

Summary Is iNaturalist reliable for sourcing photos of species for articles? And what should we do about it?

Previous discussion - consensus was INaturalist is (and in founder and co-director's own words) "I totally agree it is not a reliable source for taxonomic claims". So no real disagreement. To the issue at hand: There are a number of photos uploaded to articles that are sourced (via commons) from iNaturalist (I dont know how many, it would help if someone could run a query on how many articles we use them in). A photo purporting to be species X is a taxonomic claim. Because of the way iNaturalist works (both collaborative and AI identification) it is a UGC [User-generated content] site, and the identification accuracy (observation in many cases) depends on who has made the identification. Two examples to illustrate the problem below:

Melanophora roralis - iNaturalist source ID'd by the uploader (this person with a concurring opinion by another user with easily traceable relevant experience). If this person posted it on their social media, they would almost certainly qualify as an expert in their field for "is this X species Y" and used in the way we use primary sources from experts. High degree of confidence this picture is what it says it is.
Malthinus balteatus - iNaturalist source ID'd by amateur expert, second opinion from someone who could be anyone. Low degree of confidence in identification.

In order to qualify as 'research grade' as both of these are recorded on iNaturalist, there have to be concurring opinions. It is clear there is a difference in quality and accuracy of the above photo's identification of the species they purport to represent. The reality of recording species is that a huge amount of the work is done by 'amateur' experts in their relevant preference, however these are almost always (for professional databases) verified by a qualified expert which is not the case with iNaturalist - it may or may not be ID'd by someone qualified. Questions: in light of the above, should we...

A. Reject iNaturalist photos where there is not a clear identification of the subject by an expert? (Will require review of all existing photo use. In practice this may be unworkable because while I did a dive on the persons involved for the above two examples, as we occasionally do for primary sources, it may be a lot of work depending on how many iNaturalist pictures there are.)
B. Should we reject all of them because of the general unreliability of iNaturalist in regards to taxonomic claims? (eg, remove all iNaturalist photos because source is unreliable)
c. Accept potential unreliability and handle on case-by-case basis when it comes up? (Similar to A but without doing a review of existing use).

My preference is generally A but B may be necessary. The issue is the work involved, I dont think C is an option we should entertain (accepting unreliability) unless there are extreme extenuating circumstances. Thoughts? (The above two are both insects, but iNaturalist would be relevant to many biology wikiprojects, so I have not started a discussion on project pages to keep the reliability discussion centralised.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would a photo reviewed by multiple people (authenticated experts or not) be considered less reliable than something you or I upload to Commons and simply say "it's this species" (WP:IMAGEOR). For example, I took File:Ovenbird (90497).jpg last week and added it to the ovenbird article. I'm sure of the ID, but I'm not an ornithologist. When I see something and I'm not sure of the id, I show it to people who know more than me (including, sometimes, people on inaturalist). Photos are a weird space for V/RS. I think the idea for species IDs is an image is verifiable because if you wanted to, you could review the relevant papers and compare their descriptions to the photo, and if anyone has reason to doubt the accuracy of the identification, that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Well you answered your own question. If you dont know what bird it is, you have added unsourced information to an article. "This is what this bird looks like" in this case. We explicitly dont allow content from UGC sites for that very reason, or otherwise we would be sourcing a lot of text to Quora. When you start getting down to things like insects and some other species, actually the discriminating characteristics can often be quite minute. Some look identical except for extremely minor differences which even given an experts ID key can be hard to tell by eye. When it comes to birds some look almost identical except for their plumage at particular times of year (the LBJ). Some varieties of insects can only be told apart by slicing them open and looking at genitalia under a microscope. I generally wouldnt doubt the accuracy of say a picture of a Robin uploaded from youself because most of the western world knows what a Robin looks like (at Christmas anyway). I would for a picture of an obscure insect that can only be truely identified by an entomologist or otherwise recognised expert *even with the help of a guide*. WP:IMAGEOR is about original research, not about the reliability of the image itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
How did I answer my own question? The point is, we don't expect Wikipedians to be credentialed experts to identify the subject of an image they use in an article, but if the same person [along with several other people] reviews the same photo on inaturalist, and someone transfers it to Commons, it becomes unreliable? Absolutely every original image we have relies to some degree on an assumption of good faith/trust that the person would be clear if they're not reasonably sure of the subject. It's different from text, and to some degree a compromise so that we can have images in articles. I'd add that LBJs are usually discernible by sight. Here in New York we have house sparrows, white-throated sparrows, white-crowned sparrows, chipping sparrows, song sparrows, and several other kinds which are "LBJ" from a distance, but can easily be differentiated from one another. There are some birds which are impossible to tell apart visually, especially if just looking at a single photo, and in those cases the consensus on inaturalist stays at higher level taxa. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Kind of a side point but its really only the UK where the european robin is associated with Christmas, thats not a tradition you find in most of the "western world" nor is it actually the species that most of the world thinks of when they think of robin (that would be the American Robin, thanks hollywood/TV) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there such thing as a reliability standard for image sourcing? Note that the captions on images aren't authoritative under even the best of circumstances, I've come across images which originated in the US Military whose official captions misidentified the equipment in the imagery Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Its not a captioning issue as the pics are uncaptioned. They are not pulled from books etc or otherwise published. They are uploaded to iNaturalist (A UGC site) where the expectation is that someone (hopefully an expert but not verifiable) will identify it (see the previous discussion linked earlier where the founder and co-director of iNaturalist agrees it is not a reliable source for taxonomic claims). But a related question is: If you used that equipment picture in an article for that piece of equipment, knowing that the source was unreliable, what degree of confidence do you have that the picture is as described if you were not a military equipment expert? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If the pics are not captioned where is the species information? Thats actually the most reliable image source I know of. If thats your argument then we just can't use pictures on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
For iNaturalist, the 'caption' would be the ID process (see the iNaturalist links above) where its determined (to a widely varying degree of accuracy) what its a picture of/the species ID. 'Research grade' on iNaturalist merely means it meets their user consensus (for the same meaning as wikipedia uses consensus) with the main difference they allow OR and we do not. Its enough there that their community says "Its species X" whereas here we ask "Who says its x?" Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone on wikipedia disagrees with the accuracy they can remove the image or re-caption it (both preferably with talk page consensus). Same as any other picture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Most to the point, while we can talk about the review processes on inaturalist, it's one of the only sites that has a review process for identification. Why would we single them out for reliability, when we also get pictures from Flickr and a host of other sites (in addition to original work of Wikipedians)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems an odd discussion to have where the existing RSN consensus (in line with how we class almost all UGC sites) is that a website is unreliable, but intepret that to mean only for the text and not the photos which is what you seem to be arguing our policies and guidelines around reliable sourcing should be taken as? The ID text on iNaturist when it comes to pictures is only relevant in relation to the picture. Without a picture there is no ID and no accompanying content. Its pointless saying iNaturalist is unreliable as a source then turning around and using pictures of species hosted on iNaturalist - the only verification we have of such being the accompanying content there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
We have a reliability standard for images? We have a clear and longstanding consensus I can go take a picture of the courthouse downtown and add it to the wikipedia article for that courthouse which currently has no image, I'm not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I have always taken our policies & guidelines in regards to reliable sourcing to apply to all content in article space. I think you would need it explicit to say it didnt apply to a media type. WP:IMAGENOR is the only place where its explicit and thats not even about reliability. Even then it says (unlike the image) captions are still subject to the rest of WP:NOR (WP:CAPTION and H:FPD are both how-to's not policy documents). By the wording of NOR, neither of the two captions for the images in the articles above can be used, as they are either original research or based on an unreliable UGC site. With your example, if anyone wanted to verify it they could visit the courthouse and compare it. Thats not a realistic option for taxonomic ID's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we probably need to have a community discussion about image reliability standards, but thats way above the discussion here. Heres a better example based off of our current procedures: If I took a picture of a notable figure it could be used and it would not be possible for someone to go back to that spot and re-take the image. I would also say that the identification of individual human beings is pretty close in terms of difficulty to identification of LBJ. On the right is a good example of this which I came across recently during a COI discussion, as far as I am aware this is kosher BLP wise... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I was at some events from the 2022 Commonwealth Games, and took photos of some of the athletes. If I uploaded those photographs to Commons and included them in their articles, there's no easy way of checking either that I am correctly identifying the athlete in question in my caption, or even that I am accurately reporting the event I took them at. Despite all this, it's perfectly common and widely accepted practice for exactly this sort of image to be used. E.g. this image, used in Mary Beard, is in fact clearly Beard, but there is absolutely no reliable source vouching for that. And it's by no means clear that the location really is Rome or the date really is 2012, as the caption claims.
If we were to be stricter about requiring reliable sources supporting that an image really did depict what we said it did, we would be significantly restricted in what images we could use. Maybe we should be much stricter – but that would be a significant policy change affecting hundreds of thousands of articles, and would require a proper widely-advertised RfC. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
We certainly should be more careful. I have helped get multiple hoax images of flags deleted from Commons. I also know that there are a lot of user-created maps on Commons that are wildly inaccurate. Donald Albury 15:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am one of those who uploads many iNaturalist images to Wikicommons and places those images into both Wikidata items and Wikipedia articles. I tend to concentrate on New Zealand species including insects. I have spent enough time on the iNaturalist site to know both the professional and amateur experts and I check to see who is identifying the species images to research grade before uploading. Although I recognise there is room for human error in the identification of these research grade observations, I do my best to ensure that the images I upload to Wikicommons are accurately identified by experts. I would be extremely upset if all this work, which took a significant amount of time and effort, was removed from articles and items because of a perceived and I believe mistaken belief about the general unreliability of iNaturalist in regards to taxonomic claims. There has been some research undertaken about the accuracy of iNaturalist research grade observations - see this piece of research. I am aware that the accuracy for insect images are not as high as for birds for example, but I, as well as other editors I know who upload images from iNaturalist, try to mitigate any mistaken identifications by relying on experts. In my case entomologists such as Dr Robert Hoare from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research or Neil Hudson, an extremely well regarded New Zealand amateur lepidopterist, for identifying New Zealand insect images. I should also point out that research grade iNaturalist observations are imported to GBIF and are regarded as reliable enough to be used by the scientific community for research purposes. I trust the observations I upload from iNaturalist over those images publicly available on Flickr or uploaded by anonymous Wikipedia editors as at least the iNaturalist observations have gone through some vetting process. As a result I am of the opinion that the community should accept any potential unreliability and handle on images on a case-by-case basis when issues arise. - Ambrosia10 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

like @Ambrosia10 I am also responsible for quite some reuse of iNaturalist uploads to the Wiki ecosystem. Predating these iNaturalist imports there was really no vetting of the uploaded images, besides the trust of the uploader. Are the iNaturalist images 100% reliable, as has been argued already definitely not. However, the provenance of those images are as detailed as it can get. There are direct links to the source in most uploaded content. At the same time, iNaturalist uses Wikipedia content as a source for knowledge on the depicted taxon. This back-and-forth linking to each other is IMO a good thing. It allows for quality curation from both communities. If we would go back to the previously - accepted - manner where we have to fully rely on the uploader. I tend to trust an annotation of an image that is in iNaturalist (and GBIF) to be of higher quality than the annotation of a single uploader. I share @Ambrosia10 opinion that we should accept any potential unreliability on image from iNaturalist and I would even argue, that due to the explicit feedback loop that exists between commons and iNaturalist, any potentially unreliability is picked up earlier than a direct upload to commons. Andrawaag (talk) 17:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Two comments: 1)the research on accuracy Ambrosia10 kindly provided does clearly lay out where the accuracy is and it depends on how you define accurate so I would suggest people read it (in my opinion 65% accurate on insects is very far below what you could call 'accurate' for a group, while the 91% on birds is quite accurate. Anyone who puts a bird and insect key side by side can clearly see why there is disparity there). And 2) Andrawaag, we specifically try to *avoid* using content from third party websites that can be traced back to a use of wikipedia content, as it leads to circular citation. See Citogenesis. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Another cross-poster of Wikipedia and iNaturalist. (1) I don’t think iNaturalist photos are universally free use (I could be wrong?) so I don’t know why this would need to be a policy about iNaturalist specifically. (2) If John Ascher and Kristal Watrous agree your North American native bee photo is one genus or species or another, that’s as close to authoritative reliable sourcing as you’ll get. iNat is one of the multiple platforms they use for tracking local ecosystems. (3) There is a definite Wikimedia Commons issue w misidentified species. usually if I find something misassigned I mention it on the photo’s talk page. If there’s a better way to flag, we should make it more prominent. (4) People cross-post photos to iNat/Wikipedia/BugGuide/FB all the time. I don’t know how we’re going to stop them or determine original provenance.

Possibly relevant is this article in Nature about crowdsourcing community science, how it’s been used to collect and identify samples, incl peer-reviewed studies.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02921-3?fbclid=IwAR2XxZ39tGWrnvLuKhrpK1UWp8YqHA-RKjSJssmXSrkfonIbNuIJ4YyN1R4

jengod (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

More thoughts;

  • Do we have active cases where images pulled from or cross-posted from iNaturalist have been determined to be ambiguous or incorrect? The misidentifications I know of on Commons are two pictures that are tagged as Platanus racemosa but area actually a pine and a eucalyptus. But these are just old Commons photos that have nothing to do with iNaturalist.
  • I would argue that most of our users who pursue bug photography and/or editing Wikipedia are cognizant of the issue of taxonomic correctness *because* of the “gamified”/Pokémon Go nature of Reddit-style fake Internet points and/or the historic honor system of birding and/or “pics or it didn’t happen.” i.e. It’s only fun to have a photo of a Stagmomantis limbata if all your weird friends get to see it and agree that it’s that species and not a Stegomantis arizonesis. You get a tiny hit of dopamine and a status bump. Which is to say I think all the principles that make Wikipedia functional underpin iNaturalist as well. People may occasionally get ahead of their skiis and post a jumping spider that can only visually reliably be identified to genus rather than species, but I’d be willing to bet that most people would go to great lengths to have reliable verification and involvement from subject-matter experts before they add to Commons.
  • In summary, I think iNaturalist is not a reliable source for the same reasons that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, but I think we should take the work there in good faith and use it anyway.


  • This is somewhat a misguided question. It's like asking if Wikimedia Commons is a reliable source for photographs. From Wikipedia's perspective, the only appropriate use of iNaturalist is as an image repository, not a factual claim: we wouldn't use the coordinates of a flower photo or the comments of an uploader as references since they are user-generated and primary sources at best (even if authored by a recognized expert). Of the original post, Option C seems the most realistic. If there is genuine uncertainty about the identity of an image imported from iNaturalist, it can be discussed on the file talk page, the Wikipedia talk page, or any number of project pages, and the image might simply be omitted until more consensus or confidence emerges. A 'research-grade' rating on iNat helps, but need not be required (and there may well be cases where a high-quality but generic, unidentified spider or frog image is useful to illustrate a non-taxonomic article like ecology or taxon X in popular culture). Note, this applies to images from Flickr, Wikipedians, and even the Library of Congress: Commons has hundreds of thousands of images from the LOC, and many are used in Wikipedia articles. Many LOC images are undated, unidentified, incompletely identified (e.g. only one person in a crowd of several notables gets a named etched onto a negative), or even misidentified: this photo was long identified as the wrong Fred Frelinghuysen, based in part on this Flickr crowd-sourced ID, and was on Wikipedia for almost a decade. Published books and articles sometimes have misidentified species or people as well (this man was long thought to be James Parkinson, but is not). We should not disallow or deprecate images from libraries or museums or repositories because sometimes they contain errors. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

roads.org.uk

There has recently been a discussion about this source. It's a personal website, but it's run by something of a subject expert, who has been mentioned in the press (example) and a few transport books. I believe for certain topics, he clearly cites his source material from places like the National Archives and the London Metropolitan Archives so the facts can be independently checked. I personally think it's acceptable to use as a source for basic facts and figures; for example, it is cited in the good article M25 motorway to say that two junctions that seemingly belong to that road actually belong to another one, which can also be simply verified by driving along the road and observing the signs.

On a more general note, I think there are more expert-level websites existing now, compared to twenty years ago, and roads.org.uk is one of several that being able to cite would make article writing easier (ianvisits.co.uk is another, as is seat61.com). The principal reason for the self-published source policy, as I understand it, was to stop somebody setting up a website with some quackery or conspiracy theory, then using it as a source to state something bonkers on Wikipedia. What we have here is more subtle. I think it's okay to be used sparingly on articles for basic facts and figures, that mainstream sources might gloss over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I've said elsewhere that I don't think that this source quite passes muster: per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. As far as I'm aware, the author does not meet the 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published' part of that. If he cites his own sources, that's great - we can use those instead, assuming they support his content. Having said that, I take Ritchie's point that it's somewhat borderline - I wouldn't excise on sight or anything, but it's not the kind of source that I would be encouraging new, enthusiastic editors to start basing swathes of content on (which is kind of how we got here). Ritchie, I think you are I are quite close together on this, we're just falling slightly different sides of the 'yes/no' boundary. Girth Summit (blether) 17:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • They don't appear to be a subject matter expert by our standards, that means they're not the sort of WP:SPS we can use for much of anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • As said elsewhere by Ritchie333, it is the site owner Chris Marshall has been mentioned in the news and name-checked in a few books, and I believe he does cite his information from the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives where appropriate, so he is obviously widely recognised, so does it count as reliable? Roads4117 19:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    See WP:SPS for the answer to your question. TLDR not an expert per our SPS standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back thanks for sharing that. Roads4117 19:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I specifically expanded upon my interpretation of the SPS policy, because simply saying "not an expert" is misleading and likely to be factually incorrect. After all, if the site wasn't an expert, it would be easy to find a claim in it contradicted by another source - has anyone done that? What we should be asking instead is not whether or not roads.org.uk is an expert, but rather - how much weight of that expertise should be put on a general, mainstream, encyclopedia? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
No-one needs to disprove the content, someone needs to prove its a reliable source. SPS says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. If anyone can show where this is the case fine, otherwise we shouldn't be using it as a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
An amateur site can be completely factual. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This looks complicated, but I'm leaning towards it being (semi?) reliable. In the What does Roads.org.uk do? of the about page there are claims that would make me believe it should be considered reliable under SPS, but there's nothing backing up those claims. He is in this Independent article but is introduced as Roads enthusiast Chris Marshall is a Ringways expert. If it hadn't used Roads enthusiast I would have said we have a RS that says he's an expert, but it does say enthusiast and that muddies the waters. If someone can find reliable sources stating his expertise then roads.org.uk is reliable, but I've not had much luck. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking at ianvisits.co.uk the about page does have links to articles this time. But again we have a mix, here he writes an article for the Guardian but here the WSJ describes him as an enthusiast and Engadget and the BBC both describe him as a blogger. It doesn't make me believe he's considered an expert in his field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
The about page of the last website mentioned, seat61.com, however does lead me to believe he could be considered an expert. Maybe it should still be attributed though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I like roads.org.uk and have read it off and on for years. Like User:Ritchie333 I think it's a very good site, even fairly authoritative for factual matters; like User:Girth Summit I think it's still an SPS and should be avoided if better sources are available. John (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@John What are the better sources? Roads4117 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Better sources are those which are not self-published and have a robust and visible procedure for flagging and checking errors. The BBC and Guardian are two that spring to mind. John (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
One of the best sources I have used for road articles around London is "Rings Around London" by Wayne Asher, Capital Transport Pub. 2018. I bought my copy at the London Transport Museum bookshop. There's a review here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Some more references - The Rise and Fall of London's Ringways 1943-1973 (Dnes, Michael (2019). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-00073-473-7) on page 13 says "It would also have been impossible to do justice at either stage without the work of Chris Marshall, the great archivist of the Ringways project ..... It is worth noting that there is a significant body of allied research underway, notably that carried out by Chris Marshall and others at roads.org.uk" while Unbuilt - Radical Visions of a Future that Never Arrived (Beanland, Christopher (2021). Batsford. ISBN 978-1-84994-745-9)" on page 134 says "Described by Ringways expert Chris Marshall ...." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that Ritchie. Roads4117 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Ritchie333, these are the kind of sources that I was unable to find online. If such works consider his work authoritative, then so should we. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
We can do that for regularly published sources unfortunately we have no such wiggle room with WP:SPS unless the expert has been published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There's also this Independent piece and this one that refers to the site's old name CBRD. To paraphrase ActivelyDisinterested, if The Independent is fine reproducing this website's facts as gospel, we're probably okay to do likewise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
We could no doubt use something this person had published in a reliable source, but SPS is a different standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I also found Transport and Its Place in History Making the Connections by David Turner. It does not name Marshall directly, but instead uses Roads.org.uk as a reference. Which I think points to the site itself being reliable, independent of Marshall. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
You can't separate out the site and the author with SPS, thats the whole reason we put unique restrictions on them. If its not a personal website there is a path to reliability here, but it doesn't appear that OP was wrong about that fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The only absolute of WP:SPS is that they must never be used as third-party sources in BLPs. The rest of the language is deliberately not definitive (largely or may be considered ). I'm satisfied that Marshall and roads.org.uk are considered reliable by reliable sources. I'd rather that better sources are used where available, but don't believe that it shouldn't be used. Individual references might be questioned, but that would be a discussion for the article talk page where that reference is used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
But it does say "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." which is not worded as negotiable at all... and the sources presented have been strong, but not exceptional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Did I miss something what exceptional claim has been made? (honest question, not rhetoric). As far as I can tell the only claim specifically addressed in this thread is Junctions 1A and 1B are part of the A282, though they use the M25's numbering scheme, which is using roads.org.uk in the M25 motorway article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
On a second reading of the sources I will drop my opposition to them not being a subject matter expert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking a mediocre-to-good source, always good to back it up with stuff like contemporary news sources, but the fact that he's so widely sought after by RS is pretty good evidence. Ovinus (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Indiana History Blog

Normally I'd write this one off, but it's part of a government website. Is this blog reliable? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there any reason to not consider the Indiana State Library and Historical Bureau a reliable source? SilverserenC 05:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I will note that the guidelines for submitting blogposts seems to include directly sending them to Nicole Poletika, who appears to be a staff historian for the Indiana Historical Bureau. It seems like there's at least rudimentary editorial review for guest contributors, but I'm not able to find guidance/editorial standards indicating that anybody checks Poletika's blogposts before they are published. This seems generally fine for things like local history, but I wouldn't stake contentious claims on its blogposts alone (especially so for contentious claims about historical people who are still alive). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I would say yes with the caveats that I don't think it would contribute to notability and that anything which looks like an opinion should be attributed. Whether its due in a given context is a separate question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

dirt.com

Is dirt.com a reliable source? Whilst looking for information on Cody Ko, I came across this website in an Insider premium article. Looking at its homepage, its articles are all about the home properties of celebrities. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Ukrinform and Yahoo

Is Ukrinform really a reliable source when it is from the Ukrainian government. Also, Yahoo News, is a pro-Ukrainian outlet when it comes to the Russo-Ukraine war. I suggest these as unreliable sources. Please comment and let me know if this has been discussed before. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Bias it not a reason to reject a source. Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
It's definitely biased and should be used with attribution in the context of the war in Ukraine. As for its reliability, why do you doubt it? Do you have any specific examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis¿question? 06:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Alaexis They are very nationalistic and only use data from Ukrainian government. This includes false information. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless you can provide examples I don't think this will go anywhere. Being biased does not in itself mean that it's not reliable. Alaexis¿question? 06:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

TheCradle

Can the this article from the The Cradle be used to say that the September 2022 Iranian protests was partially influenced by a "western-sponsored covert war" against Iran? --Mhhossein talk 12:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No idea if The Cradle is WP:RS or not. However, at the end of that article, I notice the sentence "The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of The Cradle." Adoring nanny (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
So an opp edd (in effect)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. This discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. The discussion will then be reported back here to RSN, likely in the form of an RFC on the reliability of the non-peer-reviewed works of Xhufi as a source. Since there may be a large number of editors, I will be asking editors to be concise, but am inviting editors to express their opinions before a report is made back here to RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

People Magazine reliability?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I see the consensus is that people magazine is considered reliable, however when it comes to things such as an actor's DOB or age, should that be used as a source? I'm asking because I've noticed in past articles from them, they had an actor's age listed because that was the age that a bunch of other sites had down. Laverne Cox, Octavia Spencer and Jessica Chastian for instance. Here's a few examples.

https://people.com/tv/laverne-cox-orange-is-the-new-black-star-on-violent-past-visionary-present/ https://people.com/tv/emmys-2014-laverne-cox-makes-history/ https://people.com/movies/octavia-spencer-ma-trailer-creepy-horror/ https://people.com/awards/golden-globes-2012-jessica-chastain-on-her-success/

None of the ages listed for the actresses in these articles were the correct ones at the time they were published. Which gives the impression that the writers were web scraping them from sites like IMDB or Google and weren't doing any fact checking. Kcj5062 (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I believe this falls under the WP:DOB part of WP:BLP policy, and rather than pointing to some particular issue with People is a recurring issue with many otherwise reliable sources. Siawase (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s Fox News Problem

Article from Slate, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a nice, fair article, with a crappy clickbait headline :-) Andre🚐 16:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
More than that, I thought it very complimentary. In essence, although Wikipedia says that it itself is not an RS, in practice you can trust it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I was pleasantly surprised insofar as it was a good "intro to Wikibureacracy" sort of thing. Happy Friday to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@John Maynard Friedman, this article makes a similar point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Wait this article was written by an active wikipedia editor? Does no one else see the issue with this? Nweil (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I will confess that I don't, but that certainly doesn't mean there isn't one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that all articles about Wikipedia must be written either by clueless people or by banned users or by users who left the project? --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
The premise of reliable sources is that Wikipedia is downstream of good journalism or research and that there is strict independence between the two. Someone playing "both sides" seems concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nweil (talk • contribs)
I disagree, it's not a WP:COI unless they are editing on behalf of their outlet or including their own work in articles, which this editor is not. As long as a separation of interests is observed, someone who works in journalism can work in journalism and also edit. Writing about Wikipedia so long as that isn't influencing their on-wiki editing, is allowed. Andre🚐 22:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot more issues than that involved here. But I'll take the writing about Wikipedia issue first. The person with a media platform (in this case Slate) would potentially be able to draw like-minded new editors to the site, even if what they write is neutral. If the consumers of the article or outlet are largely of one political persuasion, it effectively becomes a meat puppet recruiting arm.Nweil (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
A "meat puppet recruiting arm" is not a thing. Meat puppetry, in my mind, implies that you are intentionally colluding off-wiki with others to push a POV or do whatever onwiki. If you promote Wikipedia by writing about it and a bunch of new editors decide to join, who are independent from the writer and are not communicating, that isn't meat puppetry. Andre🚐 23:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
How about a hypothetical. What if Dean Baquet, while he was the executive editor of The New York Times, also edited Wikipedia. Would you have a problem with that? Any guardrails? Nweil (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
That is really not analogous, because just being one contributor to a publication is quite different than being an executive officer of the corporate entity, but regardless, if Dean Baquet was secretly a wiki-editor and also edited a column that covered Wikipedia, I would still be ok with it and it would not run afoul of COI provided that he didn't edit articles or otherwise do stuff onwiki about the business. But it's really quite a silly comparison. Andre🚐 01:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I think the issue you are getting to is would it be a COI. I think it could be considered to be a COI if Mr Breslow !voted to downgrade Fox in the recent RfC. But with 150 involved editors it would be all but impossible to claim any one editor's comments carried the day. So even if I would technically see that as a COI, I would say it is one with no meaningful impact. Note that I do not know Mr Breslow's wiki id so I have no idea if they participated in that RfC. I would say the same if they participated in RfCs about any of their competitors in the media field. Still, reading through that Slate article I feel it was pretty straight forward and generally told the story rather than told readers what they should think of the story. I do appreciate Nweil's Meatpuppet concerns. Still, that is largely true anytime someone with reasonable reach on the web suggests Wikipedia has a story wrong. I don't see that in this case. Springee (talk) 04:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The issue I see with the article is that it totally ignores the very good reason that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to cite for papers: that it is constantly changing. Yes, in principle you could cite specific revisions, but also the citations used by the Wikipedia article are right there. Wikipedia is an excellent resource and should be taken seriously, but it has no place in the formal references section of any print publication. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to cite for papers: that it is constantly changing By that reasoning, papers should not interview people about things they remember since people's memories change all the time. One can write for Wikipedia and for something else, one can be an author and a critic, one can be a scientist and a science journalist. The world is not cleanly divided into separate categories, and as long as the author gives the exact source, there should be no problem. Of course, Wikipedia should not use the Slate article as a source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Even if the user, who did not edit the RFC (I just checked their contrib history), had edited the RFC, that would not be a COI. A COI would be if they edited an RFC about Slate (or the article about Slate). Simply participating in an RFC about a competitor is not a COI because it's not a zero sum game. Fox being reliable or not doesn't in any way reflect on Slate or Slate's reliability. There are no meatpuppet concerns, and nothing related to meatpuppetry has been substantiated. It wouldn't be "meatpuppetry recruiting" even if I wrote a huge front-page article on Fox News saying "EDITORS PLEASE GO TO WIKIPEDIA NOW AND DELETE THE RECESSION ARTICLE!" Writing about Wikipedia on an external site is not against policy. Andre🚐 15:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Wow Andre you have a far more liberal view of this than I do. Someone like a newspaper editor has influence on what gets covered in a newsroom and what doesn't. And could add small changes to a NYT article which could have immense impact on Wikipedia (such as labeling a living person something subjective but incendiary like "far right" in an article or something like that). I guess I concede that a very contentious person could keep those two lives completely separate, but we're talking about a severance-style "forget what you worked on five minutes ago" type thing. Much better imo to have common sense guardrails for this type of thing to prevent journalistic power from being abused. And editors obviously have final say on things, but the journalists themselves can influence what gets covered too. Can interact with their colleagues and share info hoping that a certain story gets covered (by someone else) then they could add that to a wikipedia page themselves. I'm not saying anything like that happened in this case, I'm saying there a lot of pitfalls here. Nweil (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This all seems to be a violation of WP:AGF. Given the situation, no WP:COI or meatpuppetry has been shown. I will concede that there could be a conspiracy to insert material into newsroom content to change how it's covered in Wikipedia and then go ahead and edit wiki to lock it in, but it seems like a long shot at best, and at worst we're getting into paranoid territory. The reality is, newsrooms are not subject to arbitrary whims, and if they are going to publish that someone is "far right" to enough of a frequency that it's due weight, we should write it regardless of whether the editor also edits wiki in his spare time. It's about outcomes and results - we don't need a rule that nobody should do a thing that isn't happening - what's the essay on this? Andre🚐 15:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with "it's about outcomes and results." I would place legitimacy a rung higher than outcomes because without legitimacy the outcomes don't matter. And a place which allows this sort of circular feedback loop (reporters editing which requires reporting) harms it's legitimacy. This is not paranoid or a conspiracy at all. Simply a glaring weak spot for people to question the basic structures of wikipedia. Nweil (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The "legitimacy argument" would seem to support the actions of this editor, they are a contributor to a publication and so they observe some separation by opting not to edit RFCs on media source reliability in general, even though they do not need to according to policy. Therefore no problem here and no solution needed, business as usual as it were. Andre🚐 16:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Fun fact: a lot of the best research and journalism about Wikipedia has been done by people who were also Wikipedians. I wrote about Wikipedia long before I was actively editing. Any responsible journalist, academic, or other nonfiction writer would disclose relevant COIs and the editors/reviewers would have to determine whether that affects the quality of the piece. If not, then we see it. I would certainly expect that if a Wikipedian were directly involved in some discussions, that would be disclosed in the piece of writing in some fashion, but that wasn't the case here. All the stuff about recruiting meat puppets has nothing to do with RS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what the problem is. Is the concern that we need to supervise Slate’s editorial practices? Is a question being raised as to whether Slate is a reliable source? John M Baker (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
It would not surprise me if someone did. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
More information This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. ...
Close

Film Music Reporter - Reliability

The website reports composers who have worked on films. The website's reliability isn't the best because its authors are anonymous, it's made in a wordpress, and its about page explains nothing about the owners. Its sources are easily replaceable with more reliable sources.

http://filmmusicreporter.com/about/

I'm bringing this up because it's used in countless articles . In my opinion, most of them can be replaced with a more reliable source, and I think this article should be listed as a deprecated source Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  • It's obviously unreliable. I'd go ahead and remove it as a source, replacing it with reliable sources where available, and deleting the content where there are no reliable sources. It doesn't require formal deprecation. Banks Irk (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose "deprecation". Also anonymity does mean unreliability. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Non-legal penalties for same-sex activity in UAE

Can these sources:

be used to support a claim of "vigilante executions" being a consequence of same-sex sexual activity in the UAE, per current statements in LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates? (The lead says "Punishments include ... vigilante executions ..."; it's mentioned several more times elsewhere in the article.)

There's extensive talk page discussion over months. The most recent and relevant is probably Talk:LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates § Sourcing for non-legal penalties, especially under Vigilante executions sourcing. Both sources were also discussed in 2021 at section: Legal penalties. AukusRuckus (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  • No. Metro is published by The Daily Mail, which is a deprecated source. The church site is basically a SPS, and the particular article cited there is basically an op-ed, authored by a composer, not a reporter.Banks Irk (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. AukusRuckus (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Actually Wikipedia:DAILYMAILRFC says Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, it does not mention the Metro being covered by the RfC. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, @Emir of Wikipedia: Would you, @Banks Irk, or other editors here, say the specific coverage of the Metro article was enough to support the claim of "Punishments include ... vigilante executions ..."? The piece, from Metro's "Showbiz" section, is reporting on an incident at a concert, and its entire coverage of outcomes in UAE for homosexual conduct is:

    In the UAE, all sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is considered a crime, with punishments including jail time, floggings, beatings, death, torture, fines, vigilante execution, and deportation.

    Strangely enough, the phrasing is quite close to that of various versions of the WP article, in 2019 and early 2020. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    @Emir of Wikipedia: WP:METRO says [t]he reliability of Metro has been compared to that of the Daily Mail and other British tabloids, and the outlet is marked as generally unreliable, so Banks Irk's assessment seems to be correct that neither sources are good enough. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Oops! Sorry about that: I should have looked there first, but I"ve just seen the Metro listing on WP:RS/Perennial and it seems it's unreliable: WP:METRO. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, @Isabelle Belato:. Sorry, I just discovered that. AukusRuckus (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Bounding into Comics

Was there ever a consensus over whether Bounding into Comics is a Reliable Source? I seem to remember it not being considered one due to it's pro-Comicsgate viewpoint, which informs the stories it covers and it's editorial slant, but I might've gotten it confused with another "news" site that popped up around the time GamerGate was starting off. Quick search tells me that it's cited 42 times on Wikipedia, but I can't really find any previous in-depth discussion over using it here. Asking for an opinion just to make sure. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 19:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

  • See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics" for 2020 discussion. I don't see any reason to use it, when there are plenty of reliable sources that cover comics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    That's what I thought, thanks! I know they cover some stories that other more mainstream comics sites pass on (because they can spin some anti-diversity viewpoint or attack what they consider to be "SJWs going too far" in said articles), so sometimes they're cited because it's the only source available. Will make sure to ask for better sources next time someone attempts to cite it. GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! / Mission Log) 20:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
    There is nothing wrong with biased sources as long the article is neutral, so that does not make it unreliable. If they are the only one with a viewpoint and it has not been picked up by third-parties then it might not be appropriate to mention but could depending on the context. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think they have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. While we can use biased sources, it's important to remember that bias alone obviously doesn't make a source a RS. It's generally inappropriate to cite a source with no reputation because of its bias - that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Filipino tabloids: Hataw! and Pilipino Mirror

I recently came across an actor biography that cited Hataw! () and Pilipino Mirror (). Working through Google Translate, it's hard to assess whether they're Daily Mirror-tier unreliable or reputable enough for to be cited for BLP coverage on entertainment topics. I don't see any prior discussion of these sources in the archives, is anyone familiar with them or able to investigate? Hataw! at least is prominent enough to be featured by Google News, but that's a low bar for reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

These two are Tagalog language sources, and are of little use in the English Wikipedia. The English language tabloids I'd most like use as sources are Tempo (sister publication of the Manila Bulletin) and People's Journal/People's Tonight -- but if they carry the story, it means other more reliable sources have carried it as well, and I'd rather use those instead. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Notified: Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe Tempo is the most reliable/reputable tabloid in the country. As for other tabloids, I tend to avoid them as sources. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
For Hataw!, I only saw libel cases in the archives. Such as and . Furthermore, a Google Images search (NSFW, I'm not linking anything) shows unnecessarily large number of scantily clad women in the front page which I'm pretty sure aren't related to the tabloid's headlines and a rather persistent ad for a "Miracle Oil". --Lenticel (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
For Pilipino Mirror. It exists but basically has no presence in G News Archives and G News. I agree with Howard here that there are better broadsheets and tabloids out there. --Lenticel (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

countrymeters.info/en

Is https://countrymeters.info/en a reliable source for statements about populations and percent of religion for a country? I did not notice any documentation for their numbers and there are a lot of adds on the front page.Hardyplants (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

From the countries I've looked up, most articles use the World Factbook for population estimates. Sungodtemple (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Gunaz TV

Can an article from Gunaz TV be used to support the ethnicity of the subject of Death of Hadis Najafi? The ethnicity is not mentioned in other sources. Beodizia (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Many sources say that her parents are from East Azerbaijan province of Iran where the people are Azerbaijani. Her mother published a video speaking in Azerbaijani to describe her daughter's death. Her sister gives interviews in Azerbaijani language to TV channels like AznewsTV channel; in her funeral you hear Azerbaijani Noha; many sources say her paranets are born in Irainian Azerbaijan; many sources say the family are ethnic Azerbaijani; she itself published many Turkish videos in Tiktok and Instagram, and has written in Turkish in Instagram (main Instagram status in Turkish: Doldur şimdi yerimi başka ben varsa... ). We know that Hadis Najafi was ethnic Azerbaijani. The spoken source of GunazTV says she is an ethnic Azerbaijani. I can not aunderstand why some people refuse to accept the reality about her ethnicity. Please see the discussion in talk page of the article . Savalanni (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to misconstrue the argument; it's not about whether she is Azerbaijani but whether Gulnaz TV is a reliable enough source to use as a reference for this. Beodizia (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
we must not try to censor the information and reality. The readers here need some background information. Please have no fear about people getting information and understand the reality. Getting information should not be restricted, it should be remained free, this is a goal if Wikipedia. Savalanni (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not work based on reality but verifiability. The editors must present a reliable source for what they write here. And Gunaz TV is not a reliable source (full PDF in Persian). 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: This PDF is written clearly by a person near to intelligence and security authorities in I.R.Iran (refer to the mentioned people as sources in the PDF), and could not be seen as a relaible source againgt Gunaz TV based on your own standards. I can not understand your argumentation and logic: in one side you speak of oppresion in Iran gainst the people and in another side you use the sources of these claimed oppressors here. Please solve your paradoxes yourself. Savalanni (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
No paradoxes on my part. I just do not believe in black-and-white thinking as opposed to many users.
Gunaz TV is not a relibale source and that's a no-brainer, no matter who says this (the Iranian government or its opposition).
I would say the same about clownlike TV channels such as Manoto and its foolish news desk (which obviously and shamelessly supports Pahlavis). 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Weak reasoning. I, too, can read and write in Turkish: See fa:دستور زبان ترکی استانبولی and its history for the evidence. I also listen to Turkish music and I absolutely love them and sometimes I even sing them for myself. But all of these does not make a Turk. I have just learned Turkish the way I have learned English and Arabic. As simple as that. 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you have not understood my reasoning correctly: I said regardless of many sources which say she is ethnic Azerbaijani, many sources say her paranets are born in Miyaneh city in East Azerbaijan province. There are aslo many other reasons and signes which I have mentioned. Savalanni (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Gunaz TV is not a reliable source. It's a TV channel pushing for the secession of Azerbaijan from Iran. The name of the TV channel speaks for itself: Güney Azərbaycan ("Southern" Azerbaijan, as opposed to the "Northern Azerbaijan", i.e., the Republic of Azerbaijan) 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
  • As I have written earlier there are many sources which mention the ethnic backgrund of Hadis Najafi, it is not only GunazTV or AZnewsTV. Please as an exmaple refer to: The Caspian Post . Savalanni (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Further sources (other than earlier mentioned one) about her Azerbaijani Turkic ethnicity are also existing, like: Savalanni (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Category:International Digital Organization for Scientific Information academic journals

Please comment. This is related to the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Academic journal categories containing exclusively redirects, of interest to this project. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Byju's considered a reliable source?

Bjyu's is an eduactional website and it generally has correct information on its pages as its concerned for competitive examinations. SpunkyGeek (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this a question? It doesn't look like one. Read the notes at the top of this page, and then explain what the website is being cited for, and in what articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is a question.
Can this website be considered for citing articles based on Fundamental rights of India. Like right to privacy or freedom of expression SpunkyGeek (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Please give specific details - the article concerned, the edit, and the webpage being cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Byju's is an exam prep website which just aggregates material so their quality varies. They are more or less questionable tertiary sources since they don't have any significant editorial oversight let alone academic peer review. The content on these type of sites are at best simplified for a high school level of understanding and at worst just misleading or even inaccurate so they can't be considered reliable sources. Same goes for most other sites like this; Jagran Josh, Testbook, etc.
It's not very clear what exactly you are trying to edit. But if you want sources for topics related to the Constitution of India then you'd need scholarly sources and there's a plethora of them. I'd suggest looking at The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution for a generalised overview. If you want more specific material then just search on JSTOR or google scholar. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks!
Makes sense. SpunkyGeek (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Globalist.it also known as Globalist syndication

Is Deseret News independent of the LDS Church?

CNN news reliability

Front Page

Top Italian Scientists

America (magazine)

Carl Sagan used as a source for philosophy of science

The Argus

Flags of the world

archive.is/archive.today

PinoyParazzi

Related Articles

Timelines

Top Qs

Fact Checks